are we to be free?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

with all the talk of socialism in america and the growing governmental control over our relatively free marketplace, i feel the need to ask those of you on these boards a rather basic question. is the individual an important component of american political philosophy or is the will of the people of paramount concern?

this country has always led the world in its pursuit of the rights of the individual, understanding that the price we pay for those rights is a tumultuous life at best. as the rest of the world has leaned more and more toward regulating the rights of their citizens, the u.s. has only slowly moved in that direction. individual liberty has created a booming economy (for the most part) and a platform from which most of the modern worlds greatest advances have come. we see that embracing idea that the individual should be allowed such freedom has given us not only great wealth, but also an increasingly large gap between the richest and the poorest. now, with the call for government to do something about the poverty of this country, is it time for the end of individual liberty?

nikita krushchev, the architect of the post-stalin soviet union, once said, â??Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for allâ?�. this blustering cold war icon also claimed, "we will bury you" and that it would be our working class that would be responsible for our downfall. he, of course, failed to mention that it was not the working class but the political elite and their military might that managed to keep socialism alive in his own country. are we to follow in the path of those failed relics or are we willing to allow a free marketplace to determine at what rate our morality overshadows our innate avarice? our politicians make the choice seem simple, equality for the masses or rampant greed. if we keep an eye to the future, the choice is not quite so simple.

the poll above is a rather stark black and white, with no middle ground. this is because there is no middle ground. either we are all allowed to freely live our lives or we must fall in line with what is best for society. to believe we can partially legislate such things is the ultimate in naivete.

[JaggedEdge]

Great post and poll.

I think it is obvious I believe individual liberties are the most important. It's is the foundation on which our nation was built.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't truly solve any problems. When individual freedom's are a priority, people have an active role in the quality of their lives and their general happiness.

Socialism is basically the promotion of mediocrity. Intelligence, hard work, individual liberties, the pursuit of happiness, and the monetary motivation to progress an individuals creations and inventions takes a back seat to the society as a whole.

The argument from the other view will be that these are "selfish" ideals, and to an extent they are. My question however, is why are they not justified ideals? Socialism forces the population to support each other rather than the individual supporting his/herself. In a free society, it is up to the individual to provide for themselves, and typically, those who have made fortunes, donate to charities freely.

Why should we want a society of mediocrity?

I don't understand how anyone who as studied the American Revolution, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and read some of their writings can support socialism.

Socialism is the antithesis of the American Dream. It is the antithesis of the framework our Founders laid out for this nation. It is a direct insult to everything our forefathers believed in. An insult the the ideals they risked their lives and fortunes for.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

everyone claims that freedom is of paramount importance, but few seem willing to acknowledge the true price we must pay for it. flag-wavers may applaud our servicemen and bible-thumpers may give thanks for the ability to worship as they please and the price we pay for those freedoms may appear evident. but the real price we pay and will always pay is the risk of failure and few seem willing to take that risk these days.

socialism removes that risk, but it also removes the possibility of great reward. socialism is a form of slavery, slavery to the will of those with the power to shape society. that's all fine and dandy if you are willing to endure those chains, but let's not be taken in by the idea that a government in control of our lives is a better idea than a marketplace in control of them. the fables of democratic socialism or socialism kept in check are as foolish as the idea that all men will always behave ethically.

[JaggedEdge]

I agree, I'm anxious to see the outcome of your poll. And yes, with freedom comes great risk, that is the essence of freedom. You are free to make both positive and negative decisions, free to succeed or fail. At the same time, you have to be willing to accept failure and the fortitude to rebound.

I also agree we now live in a society where failure is viewed as something that should be prevented, as well as a society that views actual success as negative. We live in a society where, simply by succeeding you are labeled as an evil corporate villain.

I don't understand how starting a company, employing fellow citizens, and providing a service or product to the community is so easily attacked. People don't even look at corporations on an individual basis anymore, they simply label them all as evil.

I also find it funny how people feel socialism will alleviate this corruption. The big corporations will be better able to adapt to socialistic policies, regardless of if they remain in the private sector or are seized by the government.

The actual victims of socialism will be the small business owners, small farmers, and young entrepreneurs. I'm not saying the big corporations will be unharmed, but they will be much more likely to adapt.

People feel they are entitled to success, or at least a level of success in which they have what their neighbor has. Nobody has a right to anything other than what they have directly earned.

[killerweed420]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

[JaggedEdge]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

I agree, unfortunately most people have never even read the constitution and don't realize what our rights are.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody else's rights as spelled out in the constitution.but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

[psychocat]

but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privelige and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.

The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.

[JaggedEdge]

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?


Schools offer scholarships to many students with good high school GPA's and/or ACT/SAT scores. Not to mention student loans aren't hard to receive. We again come back to personal responsibility and risks. You can choose to take out loans in order to fund your education if you choose to take the risk. It is an investment, not an obligation of the state to provide higher education to all people.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. If you do well and land a decent job, it's a good investment, if you drop out, it was a bad one.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Many would define that as greed.others would define it as looking toward the future. the question is not whether it is right to ignore the plight of others, but whether government should force us to care for others as those in power see fit.


Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?excellence is not always rewarded, but with a bit of luck even the poorest can find the education they deserve. who is to determine what is fair or if fair even exists?


Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privilege and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.is it a sin to want to provide for your children? of course those born to privilege will have an easier time than those raised in poverty, that is a major reason for the accumulation of wealth for many. once again i ask, is it government's place to penalize those who have succeeded so that others can thrive or should we depend on the private charity of the people themselves to aid those in need? the difference is choice, the essence of the individual.


The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.there was no comparison. merely a pair of examples, one obvious and the other not so obvious. with the inception of the international bill of human rights we have determined that all people are entitled to such things as housing and education. the question is if it is government's duty to assure everyone these basic rights and, if so, how they propose to pay for these things without penalizing the successful.

governments produce nothing and create nothing of value, so their wealth must be taken from the people. if so much is to be provided for so many, whose wealth must be appropriated and where exactly do we draw the line? are we to allow our liberal establishment's globalist ambitions to attempt to level the playing field across the world? our poor would seem rich in other corners of the earth, should their wealth be stolen to provide the basic necessities for those even poorer than themselves?

[Dreadscale]

I personally feel we are on the correct road!

I am thankful I was privileged to participate in an election that, elected the popular vote as well as the electoral vote into office.

No more Neo-Con bullshit!!
Under the previous administration we had no rights, "patriot act" "Gitmo" we are now starting down a long road to recovery.

Both, our freedoms and the economy.

I got no problems with republicans, just the neo-cons who seem hell bent on world collapse, oh, sept us.

The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!

[JaggedEdge]

I personally feel we are on the correct road!

I am thankful I was privileged to participate in an election that, elected the popular vote as well as the electoral vote into office.

No more Neo-Con bullshit!!
Under the previous administration we had no rights, "patriot act" "Gitmo" we are now starting down a long road to recovery.

Both, our freedoms and the economy.

I got no problems with republicans, just the neo-cons who seem hell bent on world collapse, oh, sept us.

The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!

Clearly you don't know what "personal liberties" mean or you didn't vote in the poll. Considering what you said you should have voted for the second option.

Secondly, Bush was more of a moderate. The 'patriot act' could easily be argued to infringe on our liberties, although it is intended to prevent terrorism, I can see the fear that the government would use it to spy on American citizens and not just terrorists. I don't like it either, although I believe if used correctly it would be a benefit. Unfortunately, the government cant be trusted to use it the way it's intended.

Gitmo on the other hand doesn't infringe on our liberties in the least. It is a facility for captured terrorists, or at least it was. They aren't protected under our constitution, therefore the point is moot.

Please provide examples of what particularly you believe the Obama administration has done or discussed to preserve our liberties? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.

Is it the talk about requiring public or military service for all American youth? Corporate bailouts? Forcing a CEO to resign? SCHIP(extending healthcare coverage to children 30 years old who live with their mommy)? Putting us into massive debt, more than any president in history(but than promising to cut it in half back to what Bush got is into)? Discussion of banning certain kinds of guns and raising taxes on ammunition? Government control of food producers? Searching private citizen's computers? (http://digg.com/d1nFPo)Perhaps his support of partial birth abortions (and the killing of babies who survive the abortion once it is outside the womb?)

I agree with a woman's right to choose up to a point, however, once a child is born, it's murder. Does a child not have rights simply because the mother wanted an abortion but didn't do it in time?

But please tell me what liberties he is protecting.

[Dreadscale]

Clearly you don't know what "personal liberties" mean or you didn't vote in the poll. Considering what you said you should have voted for the second option.

Secondly, Bush was more of a moderate. The 'patriot act' could easily be argued to infringe on our liberties, although it is intended to prevent terrorism, I can see the fear that the government would use it to spy on American citizens and not just terrorists. I don't like it either, although I believe if used correctly it would be a benefit. Unfortunately, the government cant be trusted to use it the way it's intended.

Gitmo on the other hand doesn't infringe on our liberties in the least. It is a facility for captured terrorists, or at least it was. They aren't protected under our constitution, therefore the point is moot.

Please provide examples of what particularly you believe the Obama administration has done or discussed to preserve our liberties? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.

Is it the talk about requiring public or military service for all American youth? Corporate bailouts? Forcing a CEO to resign? SCHIP(extending healthcare coverage to children 30 years old who live with their mommy)? Putting us into massive debt, more than any president in history(but than promising to cut it in half back to what Bush got is into)? Discussion of banning certain kinds of guns and raising taxes on ammunition? Government control of food producers? Searching private citizen's computers? (http://digg.com/d1nFPo)Perhaps his support of partial birth abortions (and the killing of babies who survive the abortion once it is outside the womb?)

I agree with a woman's right to choose up to a point, however, once a child is born, it's murder. Does a child not have rights simply because the mother wanted an abortion but didn't do it in time?

But please tell me what liberties he is protecting.

Look at the red the red in the quote. I did vote in the poll!

3 Months to fix the Bush fuck ups is not enough.

Gitmo is at the heart of our liberties, any administration that condones torture will take all our freedom.

[JaggedEdge]

Oh one more.

Do you feel the Obama administration wanting the ability to shut down private companies because they view them dangerous to our economy? What exactly constitutes a danger to our economy anyway?

The have also been talking about eminent domain a lot lately. Do you feel that infringes on our liberties?

[JaggedEdge]

Look at the red the red in the quote. I did vote in the poll!

3 Months to fix the Bush fuck ups is not enough.

Gitmo is at the heart of our liberties, any administration that condones torture will take all our freedom.

You missed the point entirely and ignored the rest of the post. You should have voted for the second option, that was the point. Do you care to comment on the rest of what I had to say.

Regardless I think it is clear you don't actually understand what "individual liberties" are.

I'm used to liberals ignoring things they are unable to respond to at this point though. :(

Edit: He didn't ask if we are on the correct road. He asked what is most important. You don't follow directions very well do you?

[Dreadscale]

I personally believe Obama would like to go to Camp David and set it out like Bush did.
I don't think he will.

The neo-cons got everything so fucked up it will be hard for anyone to fix.

I don't agree with all the decisions Obama makes, but I feel I have a lot more freedom NOW than I did in December.

If the Neo-Cons didn't fuck up our country, please post a good thing they did.

[JaggedEdge]

By neo-cons I assume your referring to the Bush administration. If so see my post here to that same question. (http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/169673-what-happens-when-government-buys-private-companies-gm-news.html)

By the way, please elaborate on how you feel the things I mentioned have increased your liberties.

[Dreadscale]

Hey JaggedEdge :thumbsup:
I'm sorry I did not try to imply Obama could give us more liberties.

I just believe he may reinstate the ones we lost:)

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Under the previous administration we had no rights.....we have been losing our rights for a long time and baby bush had little to do with it. the rise of the welfare state we are all forced to pay for has been ongoing for longer than most of us have been alive and our indoctrination into the belief in its necessity seems nearly complete. the fight against the wars in iraq and afghanistan was a political diversion, as was the uproar over any abuses at guantanamo. our wars go on and the patriot act remains in place, a tool that the liberal establishment will undoubtedly find useful should the people balk at their totalitarian schemes. i'm curious as to what rights we really lost under the thumb of these dread neo-cons that seem to be intent on world domination.


The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!in three months our new liberal leadership has tightened government control over the marketplace and the bond between business and government has been more firmly cemented than at any time in our history. the people themselves have been taken out of the loop. we have been convinced of the fable of the evils of big business, those evils were always a matter of bureaucratic corruption, and have allowed government free reign over the marketplace. the seeds of wealth redistribution have sprouted, well fertilized by the bullshit of socialistic pundits, and the wealth you may accumulate is now in danger of becoming the property of the state.

the people have been duped and they are just too lazy to do a damn thing about it. we have been convinced that we have no right to the better things in life while others live in poverty and that our government has the right to quash the individual in favor of the greater good. for all you one trick ponies out there, who see only the end of our wars as their goal, try looking a bit further. these three months have shown us what this administration finds most important, reinforcing government control over their buddies in business. we have been shown that it was always bureaucratic bungling and "progressive" policies that led business into their greatest fiascoes and that the hand of government has always been hiding within their corporate puppets.

[yokinazu]

ok i cannot except that individual rights are more important. this country has been recognizing and letting individual rights and those of the minority rule the land for much too long now. used to be in this country when the majority spoke the minority listened. now all i have to do is complain to the ACLU and i can get that desicion overturned.

when individual rights are made most important you will eventualy deteriorate into anarchy.

even in a democracy you must give up some things make things good for everyone. not just you.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

finally, an honest man who is willing to admit that he sees the individual as merely an unimportant cog in the vast machine.

[Dutch Pimp]

"the needs of the many...outweigh, the needs of the few?"-spock

[LOC NAR on probation]

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.

[Dutch Pimp]

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.
:thumbsup:...

[JaggedEdge]

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.

Amen, technically each state was intended to be it's own individual republic. The states created the federal government and gave it limited powers. Ultimately the little republics should be allowed the Big republic, unfortunately the states keep losing powers while the Feds keep seizing it.

[Ramulux]

I think that a lot of you are unfairly bashing socialism. It is important to understand that many of the socialistic policies in this country exist because of the failures inherent within a capitalistic, conservative, system of government. If our government was able to provide the basic necessities to anyone willing to work for them, their would be no need for socialism. The welfare state would not exist if the average American was able to provide for themselves and their family on a working wage. The socialistic policies which have been adapted by the American government over the years are there to address certain domestic failures within the federal government.

The reality is that there are millions of Americans out there with no health insurance, no life insurance, and no savings. These are honest hard working people who are simply unable to make the money needed to take care of themselves. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to take care of their families? The government is not helping these people in any way. Yet they pay taxes. They pay money to the federal government in the hopes that they will use it to provide for the common people.

A lot of people forget why we pay taxes. We don't pay it for the privilege of simply living in this country, we pay it so that the government can make things better. We pay it so that the jobs we pay them to do get done. Its not just some gigantic bank account that the members of our government can use as they please. But nowadays that's what it seems like. Hundreds of billions of our dollars are spent on things that wont even effect us.

Saying that things like the unemployment program, medicare, and section 8 housing, are a waste of money is just plain fucked up. Millions of people rely on that money to survive and that's a fact. These people have done nothing wrong, they have tried to do everything they could and because of failures within our government there is a wall they cannot climb.

In the end it all comes down to empathy. The ability to feel any sort of connection to your fellow man. If you can eat lobster every night while your neighbor starves, then I don't know what to tell you. Its all apart of this idea that the government is not responsible for the well being of the American citizens. Think about what this country would be like if everyone simply had the "chance" to live a peaceful life. Apparently that's what America used to be like.

[JaggedEdge]

If our government was able to provide the basic necessities to anyone willing to work for them, their would be no need for socialism. The welfare state would not exist if the average American was able to provide for themselves and their family on a working wage. The socialistic policies which have been adapted by the American government over the years are there to address certain domestic failures within the federal government.

The government isn't responsible for providing financially for American families. We come back to personal responsibility. Anyone is capable of surviving on wages made form working the most menial job, they simply have to budget their money. If they are uneducated, unskilled, and unable to find a decent paying job they shouldn't have children. It is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for someone's kids.


The reality is that there are millions of Americans out there with no health insurance, no life insurance, and no savings. These are honest hard working people who are simply unable to make the money needed to take care of themselves. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to take care of their families? The government is not helping these people in any way. Yet they pay taxes. They pay money to the federal government in the hopes that they will use it to provide for the common people.
If they don't have health insurance they need to look for a job that will cover them and their family or buy a private plan. If health insurance is important to them they can sell their tv, downgrade their car, move into a cheaper apartment, eat less, etc. I don't have a fucking savings account, but I also don't think anyone else should provide me with one! If saving money were important to me I would not smoke weed, buy so many books, drink beer, and have an HDTV.

I also disagree with the current tax code, however, why should they get more from the government than the average citizen?

We also have charity hospitals in most major cities. Free health care is already being provided in the form of these free hospitals and clinics. No, they aren't great and the lines are ridiculous, but it is far better than nothing. If you can't afford to pay it on your own, you can't complain about the charity already being extended by the tax payer.


A lot of people forget why we pay taxes. We don't pay it for the privilege of simply living in this country, we pay it so that the government can make things better. We pay it so that the jobs we pay them to do get done. Its not just some gigantic bank account that the members of our government can use as they please. But nowadays that's what it seems like. Hundreds of billions of our dollars are spent on things that wont even effect us.
No, we pay taxes for protection in the form of a military, the postal service, interstate road's (which was only allowed under the constitution under the argument of military transport in the case of war) , police stations, fire departments, schools etc. These are the common good programs our taxes are meant to support. We don't pay taxes so a certain portion of the population can get special benefits. How do special benefits for some fit into the common good?

And yes, the federal government squanders a lot of our tax dollars, most of which is pumped into social programs that don't accomplish a goddamn thing.


Saying that things like the unemployment program, medicare, and section 8 housing, are a waste of money is just plain fucked up. Millions of people rely on that money to survive and that's a fact. These people have done nothing wrong, they have tried to do everything they could and because of failures within our government there is a wall they cannot climb.

Actually many of them have done things wrong. They pop out children like they are going out of style, many don't have jobs, a portion are illegal immigrants who have never paid taxes other than sales tax. Have you ever thought that if we pulled the funding slowly they would find a way to survive? Yes, some are good people who have simply gotten a few bad breaks, but to assume they are all good and deserving people is ludicrous.


In the end it all comes down to empathy. The ability to feel any sort of connection to your fellow man. If you can eat lobster every night while your neighbor starves, then I don't know what to tell you. Its all apart of this idea that the government is not responsible for the well being of the American citizens. Think about what this country would be like if everyone simply had the "chance" to live a peaceful life. Apparently that's what America used to be like.

"Empathy" is the reason people donate to charities. I don't think anyone opposes charitable contributions, however it should be up to the individual who they give their money to. I don't want to support some crackhead with 10 children and I should not have to, nobody should be required to do so.

Everyone does have a "chance" to live a peaceful life. I think you misunderstand what "chance" means. It doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a peaceful and easy life.

You say that is what America used to be like, but I get the impression history isn't your strong point. Our country used to be made up of small and hard working farmers and merchants whoworked hard on a daily basis for their necessities and lived simple lives. These people did not think they were entitled to things they were not able to afford. Today, many of the poor have cell phones, cars (with massive stereo systems and rims) and/or nice clothing etc. Do you really believe the poor of American past had luxuries?

The owner of the convenience store across the street is a Vietnamese immigrant who had to live with 20 other people in a 2 bedroom apartment when he first came over. He now owns two stores and is doing well and providing for himself, his children went to college, etc. The difference between him and the people you are speaking of is that he realized he had to work in order to achieve the "American Dream." He didn't believe the "American Dream" should be given to him gift wrapped in $100 bills!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I think that a lot of you are unfairly bashing socialism.it has never been my intent to "bash" socialism. it is a perfectly viable alternative to the free-for-all of capitalism and there are many people in this world that are content with its restrictions. i do, however, think we should be honest about the ramifications of living under such a system. socialism is about the destruction of the individual. it is a system which demands by its very nature that an elite few maintain control over the masses. all this talk of the corporate elite and the undue influence of the wealthy may have some validity, but socialism does not change any of that. it merely codifies who maintains that power. the concepts of democratic socialism and a classless society are pipe dreams or even outright lies, there will always be an elite. it is merely a matter of how we determine who is in control.

the beauty of capitalism and a free market is that anyone, no matter their background, may attain the power needed to influence the society. of course few will, but the possibility is always there. there are no guarantees and the risks are great, but there is no artificially imposed ceiling on how high one might rise. the downside is that failure is a possible outcome. without government's parental hand to even out the playing field, the vagaries of a market in the control of the people may squash the budding entrepreneur and send him into poverty. with such freedom comes risk.

the positive side of socialism is that risk is eliminated and mediocrity becomes the standard of excellence. for most of the society it is a straightforward existence, with little demand and a guarantee of survival. within such a society everyone has his place and poverty may even be eradicated, but at the loss of the individual and his potential. only the extremely driven few ever seek excellence under such a system and they are usually shunned unless their work provides some immediate use for the society.

the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture.

[Ramulux]

Jagged Edge, your completely misinterpreting what I was trying to say. This isn't about the government giving people whatever they want or giving them handouts. I don't understand how you think that everyone has the ability to survive financially in this country. Have you not heard about the tent cities popping up everywhere? Are you not aware of the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs? Do you honestly think that there are people out there with HDTV's and expensive apartments who are complaining about not having health insurance? So many people are already barely scraping by with the basic necessities and they aren't wasting their money on superfluous crap. You are really not understanding the situation that many people find themselves in today.

You are also trying to make it seem as if all welfare recipients are crack heads with 10 kids, what the fuck is wrong with you? Could you buy into a stereotype any harder? Obviously there are going to be assholes who try to abuse the system but to just decide that everyone who receives government aid is doing something wrong is ignorant. I understand that you think its all about every man for himself, and that would be fine if every man had the same opportunities as everyone else.

You seem to be stuck in the 50's. I am sure that at that time the common man was perfectly capable of working a job and living a decent life. But its not like that anymore. Can you honestly tell me that you think someone could survive nowadays on minimum wage? There are millions of people making less than 20 grand a year and some of them have families. I realize that if your poor you probably shouldn't have kids, but what about people who have to support their parents, siblings, or grandparents. Also, think about people with illnesses or disabilities. Medicare is absolute shit, and disability checks are never enough to provide the treatment that so many of these people need. I realize that this is hard for you to understand because you have everything you need, you have shelter, food, and entertainment so it is very easy for you to judge these people and say they aren't working hard enough or that they don't deserve any help.

If it is possible, I suggest going to one of these tent cities or even a welfare office and preach your selfish bullshit to them and see what they think. Seriously you need to talk to some "real" poor people and get some sort of understanding of what these people are going through.

[Weezard]

My dear D. of N.

I'm the, so far, single other vote.

Why is that?

Well, someone I respect said it for me.

"the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture. "

You just may be fishing in the shallow end of the gene pool, my friend.

If I had a clear, and objective view of our shared reality, I would be tickled to toss out an either/or, answer.

My only consolation?
Knowing that I do not know.
Hey! It's a start.:D

Try just bein' nice to each other and see if that don't help.
Aloha,
Weezard

[veggii]

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa . Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento., as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up. sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL
and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

My dear D. of N.

I'm the, so far, single other vote.

Why is that?

Well, someone I respect said it for me.

"the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture. "

You just may be fishing in the shallow end of the gene pool, my friend.

If I had a clear, and objective view of our shared reality, I would be tickled to toss out an either/or, answer.

My only consolation?
Knowing that I do not know.
Hey! It's a start.:D

Try just bein' nice to each other and see if that don't help.
Aloha,
Weezardyou leave me a bit confused here (as does most of humanity, i have to admit). i thought i had made it quite clear that the question was not whether the individual should put the welfare of others ahead of his own, but whether he should be allowed to make that decision on his own. we seem to have reached a point where many people believe that compassion and empathy should be legislated into existence, we all know that there are many folks out there that just aren't capable of seeing the world that way and many more whose resentment at being coerced will drive them from what would otherwise be a natural inclination. being "nice" to each other is really the only way that a society can hope to survive more than a few hundred years without collapsing under the weight of its own disgust.

as for the pond i've been sampling from, it is large and varied. some of the most intelligent people i've ever met have been incredibly ignorant, being too focused on the minutiae to even realize the philosophy behind their ideals, and true individuality is so out of style that many believe themselves to be unique though they are merely mimicking the latest trends.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! greed is a part of humanity and has nothing to do with the economic or political system under which we live. we see greed every day (everyone does), but we also see good will and charity unless we turn a blind eye to it. the people of this country give a higher percentage of their wealth to charity each year than any other country on earth and you have the audacity to claim that we are a morally corrupt nation?


we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa .we must work, starve or seek charity. those are the options. those have always been the options. effort brings a chance of success and indolence brings poverty and death, these too have been constants since the beginnings of man. the creation of wealth brings with it the possibility of charity so that those unable to provide for themselves may be given aid, but only effort can create that wealth. somebody's gotta do it. if not you then who?

[Weezard]

you leave me a bit confused here (as does most of humanity, i have to admit). i thought i had made it quite clear that the question was not whether the individual should put the welfare of others ahead of his own, but whether he should be allowed to make that decision on his own. we seem to have reached a point where many people believe that compassion and empathy should be legislated into existence, :lol5:
we all know that there are many folks out there that just aren't capable of seeing the world that way and many more whose resentment at being coerced will drive them from what would otherwise be a natural inclination. being "nice" to each other is really the only way that a society can hope to survive more than a few hundred years without collapsing under the weight of its own disgust.

It's not that hard to do.
Comes naturally, if allowed.
I think that is because caring for each other is in everyone's rational self interest.
Lot less work than carryin' grudges, yah?

as for the pond i've been sampling from, it is large and varied. some of the most intelligent people i've ever met have been incredibly ignorant, being too focused on the minutiae to even realize the philosophy behind their ideals, and true individuality is so out of style that many believe themselves to be unique though they are merely mimicking the latest trends.

In truth, each is unique, just, probably not in the way they imagine.;)

I can see you've given this some thought.
So, let me get serious for a moment.

I had to vote other because I did understand the question.

He is "allowed" to choose, that "allows" himself to choose.
Or, more simply.
Most non-physical limits are self-imposed.

And, I fear that our tribal mind is no longer rational enough to be trusted.
So self determination is just NOT a yupnup.
There are as many degrees of "freedom" as there are definitions.

OK, nuff o dat.
Gonna put my :D back on.

Just my random thoughts.
I'm not actually advocating anything at all, y'all.

Though I do recommend more love.

:stoned: Wee Zard

[JaggedEdge]

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa .

You my friend are actually pissing me off. How the hell is doing an honest day's work equivalent to slavery? Your post is ignorant beyond retaliation...



Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento.,

My state seems to be fine. Maybe the liberal agendas in California have caused the poverty. Has that ever crossed your mind? I live in a very conservative state and our economy is doing very well. The only tent's I have seen are in the woods... Perhaps your state needs to rethink their values and politics.



as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up.

First of all, if things are so bad how are you using the internet to post on this site? Secondly, if it is so bad, why the fuck are you hiding from the police? If homelessness is illegal and you are homeless, why not accept the free room and board?


sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL

Yes you can change your situation. Bitching about how much your life sucks and how horrible our country is won't accomplish shit though. Clean your self up and go look for a decent fucking job. Mexicans can seem to find work, go pick some goddamn grapes at a wine vineyard for less than minimum wage if you have to. Instead of complaining go do something!


and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

Really, that's what America has become? Why don't you try living in Africa for a few years, or fucking Cuba. Your ignorance has pissed me off beyond belief. I'm sick of people acting like they aren't in control of their own life. Get off this fucking forum and go find a goddamn job! If you have one and can't afford to live: MOVE!

Has it honestly never occurred to you to maybe save up a few bucks, hop on a train, and take a chance in a new state? You act like you have nothing to loose, so be proactive and stop fucking bitching.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

He is "allowed" to choose, that "allows" himself to choose.
Or, more simply.Most non-physical limits are self-imposed.

So self determination is just NOT a yupnup. though i have to agree that choice cannot really be denied by anything other than the self, the system under which we live will effect our tendency toward self-determination and direct the path our society follows. a restrictive environment that denies the importance of the individual breeds a people whose imagination is stunted and who will be more prone to follow the will of others. those living under a system that cherishes individual accomplishment above the actions of the herd are more likely to strike off in different directions and expand the pool of common knowledge and experience. one glorifies stagnation, the other growth.


There are as many degrees of "freedom" as there are definitions.can a man in shackles be free? some would say it's entirely possible, but it's a difficult proposition. a man beaten long enough may begin to enjoy the pain and even to find a sort of freedom in his abuse, that doesn't mean he can find his full potential in such misery.


Though I do recommend more love.love, kindness, empathy, charity. none of these are really affected by the tawdry world of politics, but our tendency toward them is. without the outward freedom to express them as we see fit, they cease to have any true meaning.

[yokinazu]

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.

for example if someone were till murder my daughter should it not be my right to seek vengence and justice with my own hand and make the individual suffer the way i see fit? but i give up that right to live in an orderly society and hope that justice will be carried out according to the rules of society.

now or justice system is another debate for another place

[delusionsofNORMALity]

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.there is a tacit agreement we all concede to in order to live in a society. we put aside such things as vengeance in order to reap the benefits of an organized community. we do not kill the murderers with our own hands nor do we steal our belongings back from the thieves, instead we depend on the law to bring us our justice. you have no right to kill and torture as you see fit. that is not justice but petty revenge. the question is not whether we should be free to follow our every whim, but how far those restrictions should be taken.

we have gone from a few restrictions that protect the masses from the deviant behavior of the few to countless restrictions that supposedly protect us from ourselves and further protect the few from the vagaries of life. we place restrictions on success and normal behavior for the sake of some imagined safe and fair society.

[epxroot]

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa . Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento., as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up. sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL
and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

This post kind of disturbs me a little, and also backs up my thoughts that people are starting to become more and more unaware of their own responsibilities. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are blaming capitalism for your misfortune instead of blaming yourself. You create your own reality by the decisions you make in life. No one creates your reality for you, and tells you that this is the life you have to live. Greed has always been in society since the beginning of man. Greed has been in existence before capitalism was ever an idea. It is part of human nature to have greed, some just have more greed than others. Greed is not always related to money. Greed can be anything that you make more important than others. I know I could live a wealthier life if I would work harder and save, but I don't, and I have no one to blame but myself. I am the only one holding myself back from achieving the riches in life. Some of the riches I just don't care about, and then there are some that I would like to achieve some day but, if I never achieve them it is my own fault, not societies.

[epxroot]

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.

for example if someone were till murder my daughter should it not be my right to seek vengence and justice with my own hand and make the individual suffer the way i see fit? but i give up that right to live in an orderly society and hope that justice will be carried out according to the rules of society.

now or justice system is another debate for another place

How many of your personal rights are you willing to put aside? Also, what personal rights need to be put aside to maintain an orderly society? I think that if we have laws that forbid one from murdering another, and causing any other loss, then we have created an orderly society. Federal programs do not create orderly societies, but create unruly societies. They allow for the separation of people by class, and makes it acceptable to label others. I for one do not believe that any of my personal rights should be trampled for the betterment of society. Really, does that make much sense when you actually think about it?

[McDanger]

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privelige and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.


Just how fair is a system that takes half of what you worked your entire life to build, just because you die? Just to give it to some bag of shit like the octomom.
I do not know where "fairness" even comes into it. Life is not fair and never will be. Fairness has nothing to do with freedom.
Anybody that chooses to make the sacrifices can get an advanced education. There is a constant change of class as some move up the ladder and some move down. The 2 richest people in America were not born rich, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

[McDanger]

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa . Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento., as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up. sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL
and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

I find it ironic that the quote you have at the bottom of your post (10th amendment) is the exact opposite of your beliefs.
:cool:

[higher4hockey]

all i know is that after spending seven months of my life in iraq....the US is a pretty nice place after all. when you see how bad others have it, it makes you realize that we dont have it that bad at all.

[JaggedEdge]

I find it ironic that the quote you have at the bottom of your post (10th amendment) is the exact opposite of your beliefs.
:cool:

Haha, great observation.

[McDanger]

Haha, great observation.
As are all of yours. I can't rep you till I spread it around some:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

when you see how bad others have it, it makes you realize that we don't have it that bad at all.that seems to be precisely the point made by so many of those who espouse the tenets of socialism, that we have it too good and don't deserve our wealth.

in the course of a little over two centuries the "cult of the individual" has created more wealth for more people than any other philosophy. it has improved the standard of living, not just here but around the world. it has provided a medium that has allowed for the development ever greater numbers of life and labor saving technologies and grown an environment where even the poor can take advantage of the fruits of those labors.

it has not abolished all the inequities of our society and that seems to be what sticks in the craw of its opponents. they seem to think that because poverty and degradation still exist, we must be doing something wrong. this sort of childish impatience and small minded greed has always been what keeps us from fulfilling our potential. that some should attain wealth before others always seems unfair to those who have to do without and they always seem to feel that they too deserve an immediate slice of that pie. they forget that wealth is not natural and that ease is something that must be worked for, even if it may always be just out of reach.

[psychocat]

Freedom is whatever you want it to be, the question is how far outside of society do you wish to live.
Society is the edict of "many hands make light work" made real.
I dislike people in general and really have some extreme ideas about how the human race could be improved.
The "freedom" that is sought has to be defined and in my mind it always has a flip side.
I have the freedom to learn, to travel , to experience, this is possible because of society and the price of those freedoms is paid for by my adherence to the rules of that society.

Simply put it's a question of "live in my house and benefit from my infrastructure , then you live by my rules" , thats my view of the symbiotic relationship we develop with our enviroment.

[Markass]

We should have the freedom to do what we want, if we're not hurting anybody else..It's not the government's job to protect me from myself, those are the decisions I make..We're only free to do what they tell us we can and can not do inside our own home.

[veggii]

I find it ironic that the quote you have at the bottom of your post (10th amendment) is the exact opposite of your beliefs.
:cool:

I find it funny that you spoke and inserted foot in mouth :giggity:

you have'nt a clue what I am saying by posting the Tenth Admendment in my sig do you? and you guys have the nerve to call me nasty names, shame on you guys !! come put my shoes on for 30days then you'll see I DARE YOU
I must warn you you will only beable to walk 1 block as your foot is broke,dont forget the excruciating back&leg pain ,,oh yea the knumbness in the legs too (cant even walk a few steps then) then the arms go knumb hands too . I really want too see you guys working like that that'd be awesome, oh I forgot you'd also have the killer virus killing you taking every drop of strenght you have, and remember your broke (no wheelchair) living on the streets in bushes eating out trashcans every govt agency has denied you help this is when you get that rope and climb a tree and put yourself outta misery so talk some more shit and come walk in my shoes :thumbsup:

[MPLSweedman]

this is the CHANGE obama promised us, didn't you see it coming?

we cant even go see a rated R movie without certain parts "removed" for our well-being (bruno)

any threat to this administration is completely dragged through the mud, rush limbaugh, sarah palin, they dont care

obama does not give two sh*ts about any of us, all he cares about his agenda and ruining our economy so that we really do NEED his government. its really sad that so many people were duped into believing his B.S.

obama has racked up more debt in like 9 months than all presidents washington to bush jr. COMBINED

every single U.S. taxpayer is now in debt a total of $90,000 to pay back all of obamas spending.

and if you still want to defend obama, go pay that $90,000 then see how much you like him. we are never going to be able to recover from 4 years of this recklessness.

[crabbyback]

Abraham Lincoln's list of â??cannotsâ?�:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away manâ??s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

From the beginning of time, life on this earth has never been fair and equitable. There are no guarantees given for your safety and well-being when you take your first breath. Sometimes you are lucky and get good parent(s) that help you make your way as best you can. I agree, its totally unfair that a child would get bad parents. Maybe we should remove all children from their parents, just in case, to be safe?

In my lottery in life, I got crappy genetics. Longevity isn't looking too good for me. But, you know, that's just not fair. Other people get to live to be 100, why not me? So, is it government's or society's responsibility to furnish genetic treatment to "even the playing field"?

Why would anyone think you can legislate the "luck of the draw" and the kismet of life?

[boaz]

with all the talk of socialism in america and the growing governmental control over our relatively free marketplace, i feel the need to ask those of you on these boards a rather basic question. is the individual an important component of american political philosophy or is the will of the people of paramount concern?

this country has always led the world in its pursuit of the rights of the individual, understanding that the price we pay for those rights is a tumultuous life at best. as the rest of the world has leaned more and more toward regulating the rights of their citizens, the u.s. has only slowly moved in that direction. individual liberty has created a booming economy (for the most part) and a platform from which most of the modern worlds greatest advances have come. we see that embracing idea that the individual should be allowed such freedom has given us not only great wealth, but also an increasingly large gap between the richest and the poorest. now, with the call for government to do something about the poverty of this country, is it time for the end of individual liberty?

nikita krushchev, the architect of the post-stalin soviet union, once said, â??Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for allâ?�. this blustering cold war icon also claimed, "we will bury you" and that it would be our working class that would be responsible for our downfall. he, of course, failed to mention that it was not the working class but the political elite and their military might that managed to keep socialism alive in his own country. are we to follow in the path of those failed relics or are we willing to allow a free marketplace to determine at what rate our morality overshadows our innate avarice? our politicians make the choice seem simple, equality for the masses or rampant greed. if we keep an eye to the future, the choice is not quite so simple.

the poll above is a rather stark black and white, with no middle ground. this is because there is no middle ground. either we are all allowed to freely live our lives or we must fall in line with what is best for society. to believe we can partially legislate such things is the ultimate in naivete.

I believe the framers of the California Constitution said it best: "We are, by nature, free and independent."

any 'ism that deviates from that runs contrary to nature and will fail.

We are independent by nature but also joined by common values in our communities. This works well in small local environments but breaks down at large top down approaches like all the 'isms of the world.

but we choose to be free from all the dogma of the world and believe in ourselves.

:twocents:

[GoldenBoy812]

What about positive and negative freedom?

You are free to do what you want (negative).

You are free to commit to a cause that does not coincide with "doing what you want". (positive)

IMHO, the issue arises when you hold two conflicting POV's very close, and an onslaught of cognitive dissonance begins to take hold.

Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

[tmayu2]

Everyone is born free to a certain degree but to live free isn't an easy task or a life of luxury. Our current (imperialistic or capitalistic, you decide) laws here in the US make us slaves to the goverment. Think about it, lets say you pay your house and your car off, but wait you still have to pay taxes on not only your income but again for property tax and then vehicle tax and sales and sin taxes which are ridiculous. So is it even possible to own something? If you don't continue to make payments on either they will take your house and car, even though you already give them about 1/3 of your income. On top of that find me the law that says you have to pay federal income tax, there is none. more slavery, so the government can pay it's ever increasing debt to the federal reserve which is a private corporation who makes the dollar out of thin air and loans it to our government. most people do not even realize these things, the politicians hide it so elequently. will we ever be free i think not as long as corporations run politics. we dont even have the right to do whatever we want to our own body i mean drugs, suicide, i mean how can suicide be a crime right? maybe im just ranting i hope it makes sense

[boaz]

What about positive and negative freedom?

You are free to do what you want (negative).

You are free to commit to a cause that does not coincide with "doing what you want". (positive)

IMHO, the issue arises when you hold two conflicting POV's very close, and an onslaught of cognitive dissonance begins to take hold.

Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

______________

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety will not deserve liberty nor safety and will obtain neither.

Benjamin Franklin

Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that's the stuff life is made of.

Benjamin Franklin

that is interesting, i guess we do have a sort of balance within our own conscience.

but what if what we want to do is the right thing to do? :smokin:

[veggii]

You my friend are actually pissing me off. How the hell is doing an honest day's work equivalent to slavery? Your post is ignorant beyond retaliation...


glad I could piss you off! your welcome :thumbsup:




My state seems to be fine. Maybe the liberal agendas in California have caused the poverty. Has that ever crossed your mind? I live in a very conservative state and our economy is doing very well. The only tent's I have seen are in the woods... Perhaps your state needs to rethink their values and politics.

this statement sounds like a selfish person only care about yourself huh?



First of all, if things are so bad how are you using the internet to post on this site? Secondly, if it is so bad, why the fuck are you hiding from the police? If homelessness is illegal and you are homeless, why not accept the free room and board?


fuck jail why you don't go try jail see if you like it ***hole



Yes you can change your situation. Bitching about how much your life sucks and how horrible our country is won't accomplish shit though. Clean your self up and go look for a decent fucking job. Mexicans can seem to find work, go pick some goddamn grapes at a wine vineyard for less than minimum wage if you have to. Instead of complaining go do something!

calling me a drug addict !! very nice arent you special
I'm Terminal ILL



Really, that's what America has become? Why don't you try living in Africa for a few years, or fucking Cuba. Your ignorance has pissed me off beyond belief. I'm sick of people acting like they aren't in control of their own life. Get off this fucking forum and go find a goddamn job! If you have one and can't afford to live: MOVE!

oh know I'm ignorant !! you should have a look in the mirror and see what ignorance looks like

Has it honestly never occurred to you to maybe save up a few bucks, hop on a train, and take a chance in a new state? You act like you have nothing to loose, so be proactive and stop fucking bitching.

I cant hop a curb let alone a train



you really are a piece of work man, this is exactly how are country got all fucked up is people like you! :mad:

[Ramulux]

Yeah man, this JaggedEdge character is absolutely ridiculous. I called him out on his crap on the last page but he just ignored me. I wish I was capable of emotionally distancing myself from my fellow man in the way he seems to have, then I would not have to deal with the pain I feel when I talk to all the people I know who are working 60 hour weeks and can barely afford rent and have no time to spend with their families. It would be nice to feel like their problems have absolutely no bearing on my life and the fact that they are struggling means they are doing something wrong, but I cant do that because I have this crazy, radical, idea that maybe human beings should help other human beings who are in need of help. I think a lot of the people who have posted on this thread would benefit greatly by simply having conversations with people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. It might give you some perspective on what it is like to be poor in this country.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Everyone is born free to a certain degree but to live free isn't an easy task or a life of luxury. Our current (imperialistic or capitalistic, you decide) laws here in the US make us slaves to the government. Think about it, lets say you pay your house and your car off, but wait you still have to pay taxes on not only your income but again for property tax and then vehicle tax and sales and sin taxes which are ridiculous.the usurious and ever increasing taxation you are rightfully bitching about has nothing to do with imperialism and even less to do with capitalism, they are purely the product of the totalitarianism born of our slide into socialism. that decline and the left's championing of the socialist cause is why liberalism has practically become a dirty word in many circles.

the increasing growth of the nanny state and its attendant bureaucracy requires an ever increasing flow of our tax dollars to support its endless string of welfare enhancements and do-nothing social programs. those programs, designed only to keep a growing portion of the population under government's control and to make it look as if the bureaucracy is actually doing something worthwhile, are the reason your paycheck seems more inadequate with each passing year. it's not corporate greed or extravagant salaries amongst the rich that are sending our taxes through the roof, it is the greed of politicians for more and more power and the greed of the common man for all those things that he cannot afford but others can that are to blame for a national mindset that believes it is perfectly ethical to steal from those who have in order to raise up those who have not.


will we ever be free i think not as long as corporations run politics.i realize that the liberal establishment has force fed us all the notion that capitalism is the source of all our woes, but capitalism exists only within the private sector and the private sector cannot force us into anything without the willing participation of a corrupt government. those evil corporations are merely purchasing a commodity (power over the people) that the government has no right to place on the market. i don't know why i have to keep asking this question, but i'll do it once again.

"where does the sin lie? is it with those who purchase that which is available on the open market or does the blame lie with those who stole those goods for their own profit?"

[tmayu2]

i realize that the liberal establishment has force fed us all the notion that capitalism is the source of all our woes, but capitalism exists only within the private sector and the private sector cannot force us into anything without the willing participation of a corrupt government. those evil corporations are merely purchasing a commodity (power over the people) that the government has no right to place on the market.


I agree mostly with what you say and i wasnt bad mouthing capitalism, except we dont have true capitalism. And while they cant force us to do anything without a corrupt government, there will never be a noncorrupt government the corporations are too powerful. If someone did try to do something they would just replace him.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.....I have this crazy, radical, idea that maybe human beings should help other human beings who are in need of help.there's nothing crazy or particularly radical about the idea of charity. charity is one of the few ways for the ordinary man to become truly great, but we must realize that it is charity and not some debt whose payment should be forced from us at gunpoint. the usurious taxation of those who do succeed for the sake of those who do not is just that, forced charity under the threat of violence and incarceration. it is theft under color of authority.


I think a lot of the people who have posted on this thread would benefit greatly by simply having conversations with people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. It might give you some perspective on what it is like to be poor in this country.guess what, i've been there and i know it ain't no bed of roses. i've been dirt poor and homeless in an uncaring world and, sure, i bitched about it, but i didn't blame the rich or begrudge them their pleasures and i didn't go crying to big brother for handout after handout so i could afford even the most meager of luxuries. i worked those 80 hour weeks and 90 hour weeks and even 100 hour weeks and i continue to do so when i can because i want a few of those luxuries i would like to become accustomed to. i keep a tenuous grasp on being middle class by working that much because i know it can all disappear so quickly.

as a matter of fact, it is disappearing. thanks to the threat posed to the upper middle class and upper class by fools like obama and pelosi, work has started to get a bit scarcer and i find myself dipping into my meager savings as my once thriving little business begins to slightly flounder. the socialist bent of the present regime and this country's seeming willingness to share the wealth through legislation instead of a free marketplace have tightened everyone's purse strings and can do nothing more than force the small businessman to close up shop and either go back to being a wage slave or become the indentured servant of the government's self serving welfare state.

as long as we retain the freedom of choice, even poverty may be bearable. without it, no amount of wealth will satisfy.

[Ramulux]

there's nothing crazy or particularly radical about the idea of charity. charity is one of the few ways for the ordinary man to become truly great, but we must realize that it is charity and not some debt whose payment should be forced from us at gunpoint. the usurious taxation of those who do succeed for the sake of those who do not is just that, forced charity under the threat of violence and incarceration. it is theft under color of authority.

I am not trying to imply that the funding of socialist programs be considered charity. I believe that aspects of our society such as the post office, jail system, unemployment program, schools, health care, and domestic infrastructure maintenance should be considered a basic part of the funding our tax dollars provide. We pay taxes for a number of reasons, and in my opinion one of the most important of those reasons is the protection of the populace. Law enforcement keeps us safe from crime and violence domestically while the military is "supposed" to protect us from foreign threats. In the same way these agencies protect us from physical harm, agencies like the welfare and unemployment department protect us from economic harm. These departments provide assistance to people who have suffered financial loss and would be unable to afford housing and nourishment without some form of federal aid. So I repeat, socialistic programs do not exist as a charity, they exist as a safeguard for the American people during times when they have experienced much hardship. But then again I guess its cool to just have a large percentage of our population be homeless and malnourished.


guess what, i've been there and i know it ain't no bed of roses. i've been dirt poor and homeless in an uncaring world and, sure, i bitched about it, but i didn't blame the rich or begrudge them their pleasures and i didn't go crying to big brother for handout after handout so i could afford even the most meager of luxuries. i worked those 80 hour weeks and 90 hour weeks and even 100 hour weeks and i continue to do so when i can because i want a few of those luxuries i would like to become accustomed to. i keep a tenuous grasp on being middle class by working that much because i know it can all disappear so quickly.

as a matter of fact, it is disappearing. thanks to the threat posed to the upper middle class and upper class by fools like obama and pelosi, work has started to get a bit scarcer and i find myself dipping into my meager savings as my once thriving little business begins to slightly flounder. the socialist bent of the present regime and this country's seeming willingness to share the wealth through legislation instead of a free marketplace have tightened everyone's purse strings and can do nothing more than force the small businessman to close up shop and either go back to being a wage slave or become the indentured servant of the government's self serving welfare state.

as long as we retain the freedom of choice, even poverty may be bearable. without it, no amount of wealth will satisfy.

You know what, its great that you can work 80 hour weeks and be totally cool with the amount of money you make and the way it effects your body, but the thing is there used to be this concept called the 40 hour work week and America's goal used to be to make it so that everyone in this country could work 40 hours a week and make minimum wage and survive. Survival meaning being able to fulfill the three basic necessities of shelter, nourishment, and health care. But as you probably know considering you have lived in poverty it is extremely difficult to afford these things when you are barely making any money. You should also be grateful that you had a job at which you were able to work 80 hours a week because a lot of people's financial woes stem not only from a minuscule wage but from an overall lack of available working time. It is not always possible to gain more hours at your current job or go find an additional job. In case you had not noticed, we are in a recession right now and jobs are scarce, even simple menial jobs are rare. My point is that without these "socialist" programs there are millions of Americans who would be completely screwed, yet I realize that you do not care about that and you seem to believe that our government should not provide any sort of assistance to people who have experienced great financial loss regardless of their particular situation.

Also, while I hate Obama just as much as the next guy, if you think he is the reason for our current economic climate you have no idea what you are talking about. All hes done so far is continue down the same pro-business and militaristic path laid down for him by every president of the last 60 years.

Could you also please explain to me how using tax dollars to fund programs which allow American citizens to be sheltered and fed is destroying this country?

[Trip06]

Another politics thread.......

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I am not trying to imply that the funding of socialist programs be considered charity.not every government program leads us down the road to socialism or hides its true agenda behind the mask of compassion, though most fall into one category or the other. as members of this society, we agree to fund certain programs for the good of the society as a whole. the question is not whether these programs are needed, but to what degree we should allow government to intrude into our lives. government has shown us time and again that it is a wasteful monster, incapable of running even the simplest enterprise without drowning in waste. the examples you cited of education and the postal system are perfect specimens of governmental ineptitude, showing that the private sector will almost always be more efficient than the red tape laden bureaucracy of even the most streamlined government.

the enforced charity i was speaking of is the outrageous concept that it is perfectly fine to legislate usurious taxes on the most successful and productive members of society so that we can raise the standard of living for those incapable of supporting themselves. the growing welfare state seems to not just want to give a hand up to those who are down on their luck, but to support a large portion of the population in a style that many around the world would consider luxurious. instead of giving incentives for people to support themselves, we have created an industry that coddles the unproductive and supports a massive bureaucracy that is dependent on enlarging that pool.


But then again I guess its cool to just have a large percentage of our population be homeless and malnourished.of course i'm not cool with such poverty. that is one of the reasons i'm so willing to donate a large share of my time and income to programs that actually do something about such problems. i am not, however, cool with supporting the bureaucracy that rewards idleness as a means of enlarging the fiefdoms of thousands of petty bureaucrats nor do i believe it is ethical for anyone else to be forced to do so under penalty of law.


.....there used to be this concept called the 40 hour work week and America's goal used to be to make it so that everyone in this country could work 40 hours a week and make minimum wage and survive.it is quite possible to survive on the earnings of that 40 hour week. if you don't wish to enjoy the luxuries of family and your own home, you can do quite nicely even on minimum wage. we have to start realizing that we are not necessarily entitled to such things, but that they come with a price. demanding that others pay for your lack of foresight in starting a family is no more ethical than hording your riches while others starve. much of what we consider basic expenses are really luxuries that we are entitled to only through extra effort.


You should also be grateful that you had a job at which you were able to work 80 hours a week because a lot of people's financial woes stem not only from a minuscule wage but from an overall lack of available working time.who said i had a job that allowed me to work such overtime? i struck out on my own and did without such things as free time so that i could achieve what others seem to believe is their natural right. i failed many times before i found a path that allowed me to earn such luxuries for myself.


I realize that you do not care about that and you seem to believe that our government should not provide any sort of assistance to people who have experienced great financial loss regardless of their particular situation.this is less a matter of my empathy than of who is best suited to aid those in need. with little or no oversight, government creates programs that do nothing more than sustain the status quo and expand its own power. hidden behind the lie of the ballot box and a mask of false compassion, these political animals are allowed to do what they please with the fruits of our labors in the name of the public welfare. there is little or no accounting for the billions we pour into such services and there is no stated goal but the nebulous concept of fairness.


Also, while I hate Obama just as much as the next guy, if you think he is the reason for our current economic climate you have no idea what you are talking about. All hes done so far is continue down the same pro-business and militaristic path laid down for him by every president of the last 60 years.i don't actually blame brak, but the entire political system that has created the welfare state and the mindset of a population that is steeped in a cult of entitlement. while government may lead its citizens in one direction or another, it is the almost total lack of ethical grounding that has pushed us so far down this path toward our own destruction.


Could you also please explain to me how using tax dollars to fund programs which allow American citizens to be sheltered and fed is destroying this country?i wouldn't say it is actually destroying the country, rather ridding us of that pesky concept of the rights of the individual in favor of servitude to the state. while supporting citizens in times of emergency might be a rational extension of the duties of government, creating an entire class that is dependent on governmental assistance is the path toward an orwellian nightmare. the wealthy can only support such a top heavy bureaucracy for so long before the entire house of cards comes crashing down and leaves us with a population cowed into a state of comfortable poverty by the power of a totalitarian regime.

[Ramulux]

The first thing I want to make clear is that I am aware of how radical my ideas are and I am aware that the concept of socialism in general is not in line with the vision our founding fathers had for this country. Just as you have put it, this country was never meant to provide for the poor or extend aid to those in need. This country was meant to be a capitalistic, freedom-loving utopia focused on individual rights where anyone could come and have a chance at making a living. On a fundamental level, the conservative system of government is almost a form of anarchy. You let the people and the businesses do what they want without fear of punishment or regulation and supposedly everything will work itself out. What this creates is a greedy, corporate-controlled political atmosphere in which business owners are able to rule their companies like tyrants and grant themselves outrageous salaries while cutting employees wages and benefits.

There is also no denying that when creating social programs you obviously run the risk of corruption from those who supervise those programs. In order for any government program to function correctly it requires competent and law-abiding citizens who will perform their jobs and not break the law. While there are many members of our government whom I do not believe perform their jobs competently, I do not believe the answer is to just not have a functioning government.



government has shown us time and again that it is a wasteful monster, incapable of running even the simplest enterprise without drowning in waste. the examples you cited of education and the postal system are perfect specimens of governmental ineptitude, showing that the private sector will almost always be more efficient than the red tape laden bureaucracy of even the most streamlined government.

I wont deny that the government has fucked up a lot of shit over the years and that a lot of the social programs designed to help the American people have turned out very badly. However that does not mean we should just not have them. Just because there have been mistakes made in how the programs are carried out, that does not mean we will never be able to solve them. It is the 21st century and I believe the human race can solve the simple problem of how to establish and fund multiple social programs without risk of corruption. You are also totally ignoring all of the social programs(run by the government) which function perfectly fine.

I have attended public schools along with the majority of this country and there is no denying that many of them have their problems, most of which stem from a lack of funding. Yet you do not seem to understand that the alternative of having to pay to attend a privately owned school is not a possibility for many Americans. If school was not free and there were no laws regarding attendance hundreds of thousands of children would be unable to obtain a decent education. I find it amazing that I am seriously attempting to explain to someone why school needs to be free. So I was hoping you could explain exactly how the education system should work in this country according to you, and if you can do this while understanding the simple fact that if school is not free, poor kids are not going to go, then all the better.

Until you said something about it I was unaware that there was any problem with the postal service, considering I can buy a stamp for 42 cents and send a letter anywhere in this country and have it get there in a day or two. The United States Postal Service is a model of efficiency no matter how you look at it and if you are trying to make me belive that there is something wrong with a system I interact with on a daily basis then you are going to have to come up with some evidence.

I also never claimed that the public sector is more efficient than the private sector. I didn't because we are not talking about efficiency and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the private sector. Last time I checked we were discussing the merits of socialist programs and my opinion that they should exist. People do not go on medicare expecting the greatest health care in the world. People do not use the post office expecting their letters to reach their destination in hours. People do not go to the library and expect to see every book ever written. People use these services because they do not have any other choice, they may not have the money to afford health care, fed ex or books from Barnes and Nobles. I never meant to imply that social programs were better than their private sector equivalent simply that they need exist for those who need them.


of course i'm not cool with such poverty. that is one of the reasons i'm so willing to donate a large share of my time and income to programs that actually do something about such problems. i am not, however, cool with supporting the bureaucracy that rewards idleness as a means of enlarging the fiefdom of thousands of petty bureaucrats nor do i believe it is ethical for anyone else to be forced to do so under penalty of law.

So you are willing to donate your time and money to help those less fortunate than yourself? I thought those people were lazy and deserve whatever problems they have. Everything you have said prior to this goes against this statement. You seem to be implying that the reason you do not want to pay for social programs is because you think you can spend your money in other places to do more good. That means your argument against social programs has nothing to do with your conservative beliefs but has to do with the fact that they are not run properly. So lets say hypothetically that your tax dollars were going to fund a bunch of programs, foundations, and institutes that were actually going to do some genuine good. Based on what you just said you would have no problem paying taxes to the federal government as long as the money was used in the right way. I would also like to know what programs you think do more good than the programs currently being funded.


it is quite possible to survive on the earnings of that 40 hour week. if you don't wish to enjoy the luxuries of family and your own home, you can do quite nicely even on minimum wage. we have to start realizing that we are not necessarily entitled to such things, but that they come with a price. demanding that others pay for your lack of foresight in starting a family is no more ethical than hording your riches while others starve. much of what we consider basic expenses are really luxuries that we are entitled to only through extra effort.

I am really having trouble understanding your outlook on America, because you do not seem to be a traditional conservative. You seem to think that this is a third world country where everybody needs to work long hours at shitty jobs just to afford the most basic of accommodations. News flash dude, this is the USA, one of the most wealthy and prosperous nations in existence and in case you did not notice there is an absolutely fucking ridiculous monetary gap between the top 20% earners and the rest of this country. Depending on what statistics you look at the top 20% earn anywhere from 85-93% of the nations net worth. I understand that you do not have a problem with this and you believe that all those CEOs and executives deserve to make those godly amounts of money while the rest of us do what we can with the modest incomes we make. This is not an issue of taking things for granted (which obviously many people do) but an issue of creating a fair and balanced economic system which does not have an executive making 500 times as much money as the janitor he employs. You also don't understand that if things like a minimum wage were not enforced by the federal government, businesses would not pay their employees shit. Capitalism breeds greed and worship of the profit margin. All of the economic problems we are experiencing right now can be traced back to Ronald Reagan and his sick and twisted desire to destroy economic regulatory statutes put in place by various democratic presidents. To be honest I really do not know how to explain to someone why de-regulation is a bad thing, considering how obvious it is. Look at any major corporation which has been involved in scandal over the past 20 years. The vast majority of these companies get away with obviously illegal practices because they pretty much run themselves. Companies like Boeing, Halliburton, Moncanto, Lockheed Martin, and pretty much any investment banking firm can only commit the crimes they have committed under a government which subsidizes their profits and allows them to regulate themselves. The invisible hand of capitalism is a fucking joke and if you can live in the world we live in today and honestly believe that economic problems will just work themselves out magically, then you are ignorant.

My point is that there is a real problem with how the wealth is distributed in this country. All I am saying is what unions have been saying for a hundred years and that is that workers need to be paid decent wages and not be treated like slaves who are lucky to have the crappy jobs they have. I really do not understand why you are so hostile towards the idea of a better national work environment. Why not raise the minimum wage, why not lower the work week? I thought these were the things we were all striving towards as human beings. I personally want things to get better, I want this country to become something the people can be proud of. We should all be working in the hopes that conditions will change and life will become less stressful.


who said i had a job that allowed me to work such overtime? i struck out on my own and did without such things as free time so that i could achieve what others seem to believe is their natural right. i failed many times before i found a path that allowed me to earn such luxuries for myself.


i worked those 80 hour weeks and 90 hour weeks and even 100 hour weeks and i continue to do so when i can because i want a few of those luxuries i would like to become accustomed to.

Dude you answered your own question. Anyways, once again you seem to be living in this sort of third world version of America where everybody is working 80 hour weeks and has no problem with it. Maybe that is the kind of country you want to live in and thats fine, but I believe that one of the primary goals of not only this government but of humanity in general, is to increase the standard of living not just for oneself but for the entire population. You need to understand that we fail and succeed as a country, not as an individual.


this is less a matter of my empathy than of who is best suited to aid those in need. with little or no oversight, government creates programs that do nothing more than sustain the status quo and expand its own power. hidden behind the lie of the ballot box and a mask of false compassion, these political animals are allowed to do what they please with the fruits of our labors in the name of the public welfare. there is little or no accounting for the billions we pour into such services and there is no stated goal but the nebulous concept of fairness.

Where exactly do you get this crap? Do you have any idea how much fucking oversight there is for most social programs? You are literally just making this shit up. You could almost make an argument for there being too much oversight for many of these programs in terms of wasted man hours and paperwork. Once again you are also attacking the politicians not the programs. I have already agreed with you a million times that there are a lot of morally ambiguous douche-bags within our government, but their corruption has nothing to do with the programs they have manipulated for personal gain. If you are going to claim that these programs should not exist simply because there is a chance a corrupt politician could abuse them, you do not understand the first thing about logic. You could make that argument against any group of people with any sort of political or economic power. Why should we even have law enforcement if there is a chance one of the officers could be corrupt? Why should we even have any form of government at all if there's a chance someone ethically challenged could become a part of it? Also, all social programs have extremely simple and easily understandable goals and I do not understand how you can even say something like that. The unemployment systems goal is to prevent people who have lost their jobs from homelessness and starvation while providing assistance in the search for a new job. Medicare's goal is to prevent senior citizens who cannot afford health care from dying from treatable illnesses. The post office's goal is to provide easily affordable transportation of letters and packages throughout the entire country. VA hospitals aim to provide health care for armed servicemen. Schools aim to educate our youth. The US military attempts to provide protection from foreign danger. All socialist programs are in place for a reason. If they weren't, they would not exist.


while supporting citizens in times of emergency might be a rational extension of the duties of government, creating an entire class that is dependent on governmental assistance is the path toward an orwellian nightmare.

First of all, there are insane amounts of regulation regarding who receives welfare and how long they will receive it for. So lets stop pretending like anyone who wants welfare can just go and get it, because that is obviously not true and you know that. Now of course there are going to be "criminals" who attempt to cheat the system and I am sure quite a few of them have gotten away with it. However I do not have the faintest idea of how one would go about doing this because I have been to a welfare office and spoken with a representative while my mother attempted to receive some benefits and they are so unbelievably fucking strict and anal about it. My mother makes about $1400 a month and has to pay $1200 for rent. That leaves her with $100 to feed my brother and her for a month. Yet she was not able to receive any benefits of any kind. So don't tell me that there is an entire "class" of people on welfare simply because they are lazy. I repeat I will not try to defend "criminals" who attempt to break the law by abusing this system, but they make up an infinitesimally small percentage of all the people who use welfare. The rest are American citizens just like you and me who have used every opportunity available to them to make money and were unable to do so. So in the name of domestic security our government created a program which would allow citizens(who are doing everything they can to get a job)to keep their shelter and provide themselves with food. Seeing as the alternative would be to let these people become homeless and eventually criminals I think our government made the right decision. Something that I have been hearing from a lot of conservative pundits recently is the idea that if you just took away the welfare and unemployment from everyone currently on those programs, they would somehow just find a way to make it. This seems to be what you want to happen and I am curious to see if you actually think that is a rational decision. What that would mean is that everyone on welfare and unemployment has other means of providing for themselves and they just like living off $800 a month. Listen, when you take away the money that someone is using to pay their rent, then they cant pay their rent and they lose their home. Not everyone has an infinite number of friends willing to let them sleep on the couch, in fact there are people in this country with no friends or family, so living off of someone else isn't an option. When you cannot find work, you do not have a home, and you are starving I think the chances are pretty likely that most people would end up stealing in that situation. Which bring me to my point, which is that social programs are not just useless feel-goodery but an integral part of our domestic security.

[JaggedEdge]

Yeah man, this JaggedEdge character is absolutely ridiculous. I called him out on his crap on the last page but he just ignored me. I wish I was capable of emotionally distancing myself from my fellow man in the way he seems to have, then I would not have to deal with the pain I feel when I talk to all the people I know who are working 60 hour weeks and can barely afford rent and have no time to spend with their families. It would be nice to feel like their problems have absolutely no bearing on my life and the fact that they are struggling means they are doing something wrong, but I cant do that because I have this crazy, radical, idea that maybe human beings should help other human beings who are in need of help. I think a lot of the people who have posted on this thread would benefit greatly by simply having conversations with people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. It might give you some perspective on what it is like to be poor in this country.

I know this post is very old, but I feel the need to defend myself here. I have not been very active in this forum for a long time, hence my not responding. I have no problem with charity and helping your fellow man. I do however have a problem with the state forcing tax payers to provide a better life for others. I place the individual above the collective, and anything coercive is appalling.

He may not be 100% to blame for his situation, however more government intervention clearly is not the answer. Seeing as government is the cause of many of the problems, more government is not the answer. Someone else's liberties should not be forcefully infringed upon in order to provide a better life for someone else.

Ultimately it comes down to positive vs. negative freedoms. I support negative freedoms, meaning: You have the right not to be murdered, raped, stolen from, etc. As opposed to: You have the right to education, You have the right to healthcare, etc.