Forum Post: How to unite the PEOPLE?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 1:01 p.m. EST by BannedForTruth
(233)
from Christiana, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The only way we will unite is to find our common ground. That common ground is liberty Republican, Democrat and Libertarians all share that common ground. So let's unite for that common ground. How you may ask? It is a simple philosophy called "The Philosophy of Liberty". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I&feature=player_embedded
Transcript for those on dial-up:
The Philosophy of Liberty is based on the principle of self ownership
Self ownership = you own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life then you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others.
You exist in time; future, present, past. This manifests in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty.
To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. To lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose a portion of your past that produced it.
A product of your life and your liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy and talents.
Property is the part of nature which you turn to valuable use. Property is the property that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent.
Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.
At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without voluntary consent.
The initiation of force or fraud to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft
It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats.
You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others and you make ask others to help defend you
But you don’t have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty and property of others.
Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.
You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers onto others.
No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher then those of any other human being.
Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior, of the number of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal.
You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
Since you own your life you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.
You choose your goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both necessary incentives to learn and to grow.
Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent.
For virtue can exist only where there is free choice.
This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action it is also the most ethical.
Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.
Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil people throughout history.
Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather then focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences.
Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act… Especially when it is easier to do NOTHING…
Lib(R)tarian party platform????
Too many points to deal with all at once, but it's mostly twisted pablum.
Pick a point and let's talk.
And i supposed you would prefer the Stalinist platform? Also do you contest that you own your own body?
This remark belies any intent to find common ground on your part, but rather the same old liberatarian trick of saying that, and then trying to shove you uncompromising agenda down other peoples throats.
That remark was a consequence of an attack leveled against dialog. What i said was based on no party but instead on a philosophy. Shooz took it upon himself to tie it to libertarianism, which he always attacks here. So i leveled the playing field with my own unapologetic comparison which is actually accurate.... being that my philosophy is that of liberty and opposing ones by nature are against it and in turn totalitarian.
If this was a responce to what you felt was an attack on you personally than I withdraw my remark, but if we are trying to find common ground - something I that seems to be frustratingly hard to do, we should all (and I enclude myself here) try to restrain ourselves from enflaming one another.
I think you must understand that we on the left here have been subject to prolonged personal attacks, which makes our tempers far shorter than they would otherwise be. In any case I appologise if I misinterpreted the reason for your tone.
I know you have been attacked i wholeheartedly agree but you on the left keep attacking us libertarians as well, it is a vicious cycle. That is why i propose we find our common ground, i hate NEO-cons!!! I want the wars to end NOW!!! I want you to be free, i want me to be free. To do as you like or I like, as long as you or I, don't harm anyone. This is exactly why we must agree on liberty and shelve all else till we have this.
This is why i am a libertarian. I have realized that most systems end in there "ultimate state", meaning that if is "socialist" it will end in total government control or if it is "conservative" it will end in a theocratic state. But in the "ultimate state" of "libertarianism"IMO you are free to do as you will but the government can't save you from yourself or others you must fend for yourself..
Note: None in their "ultimate state" are good but IMO one in that circumstance is acceptable.
This has been a very frustrating issue for me right along, because I see that we do have many issues in common. I agree with you on all of the above! To be perfectly honest with you, people on the left are afraid of liberitarianism for a number of reasons. First, because we don't see that liberatarianism offers any protection for the weak in society, for the old, the infirm, the mentally ill, or children who happen to be born at a disadvantage. We feel that government is necessary in order to achieve these protections, and that what you are advocating is essentially a society of "survival of the fittest," a kind of social Darwinism, or simply "the law of the jungle.
Also, we don't believe the society you advocate is attainable because no society without government lasts for long. In political science they call this state a power vacum. Inevitably a government will come to the fore, simply because factions will arise strong enough to impose their will. And for that reason it will almost certainly be a totalitarian government.
Since we see government in some form as inevitable, we want to create one that addresses the needs of the people, rather than just of a priviliged few. So even though liberatarians and the left share hopes for a common outcome we have apparently insurmountable differences regarding how to achieve and sustain that outcome.
As I see it, where we really differ is in process rather than ultimate goals. Unfortunately, the left has no confidence that the liberatarian method will produce anything but either the law of the jungle, or totalitarian dictatorship. This is ironic because we on the left are always the ones accused of being pure idealists, and pie in the sky dreamers.
I don't mean to imply that we are cowards. Many of us would be willing to fight for our beliefs, but we see fighting, in the military sense, as being completely counter to the kind of society we want to achieve, which is essentially civilization.
The animosity directed at liberatarians comes out of fear, and out of a great frustration with the seeming inability of liberatarians to comprehend the nature of that fear, the fear of a retreat to the wild west, without the wide-open spaces and with far too many guns.
So although we seek the same end, freedom, we seem completely at odds over how to achieve it, and I find that really, really, sad.
You must differentiate anarchy from libertarianism. In anarchy "they" (corporation's) would be free to have MOB rule. In libertarianism one of the governments limited roles is to ensure personal liberty. This is the driving force, even environmentalism can be debated. <<<<<<>>>> Example: If you pollute the water down from my pond and poison me or destroy my crop you broke the law by taking my liberty. <<<<<<>>>> Example: If you spew mercury into the air causing people to get sick you are taking their liberty.
I just can't see the method. How would you actually reign in the corporations when it seems that your philosophy advocates absolute liberty. In some sense corporations are the outcome of liberty unchecked by government. Democratic government, which we no longer have, is ideally the expression of the people, and one legitimate expression of the people is to reign in one person's liberty when it infringes upon anothers. So it would seem that reform of government is what is called for. And how would liberatarianism look out for the wellbeing of the old, the sick, and the disadvantaged?
I get called cruel for telling people the reality of the world we live in. Nothing can be guaranteed except the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness NOTHING. (Times could be cruel and money could be sparse)
Now with that being said the social "responsibility's" i e (programs) like they did "yesterday" should be operated at the state level allowing choice and prevention of a national failure (that being catastrophic to the meek)
People will argue this is not "libertarianism" but this was the American version and it worked while we used it.
If the corporate banks and military contractors hadn't bankrupted this country we would still have the American vision, that is civilization - which in a world of 7 billion people is what level of liberty is still attainable.
I understand where liberatarians are coming from, I really do. I grew up in The West when it was still wild. One of the last actual old west outlaws lived about a mile from us. There were no fenses. I had nothing but freedom, and I miss that terribly! So I do understand! I guess that's all I can say.
I do believe it would be possible for liberatarians and the left to find enough common ground to unite, but it would take serious diplomacy, and I don't even know how we would go about that, and I can tell you this - Ron Paul would have to go. The left simply does not trust him and never will, and in my opinion neither should liberatarians.
A man never makes the country, it's people do. The truth is until we all stay involved in our government we will never be free. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Ron PauI represents an idea and if he ever turned it would be spotted in a second. For many supporting Ron is supporting a philosophy and it is not dependent on having him, he is just one voice.
Liberatarians without R.P. would be people that I think the left could dialogue with, and possibly even find common ground with, at least in many areas; but I think I can say with certainty, sadly, that with R.P. there is no hope.
Who knows, maybe somehow we will find a way to cooperate in the struggle for freedom. One can always hope. In any case It's been good talking to you. One other thing we should be aware of: there are people posting and commenting here that want to make sure no such alliance ever happens, and I think they may be working to excentuate our differences. I never know if I am talking to a real liberatarian, or someone posing as one and just being provocative. We must all try to keep open minds, as hard as that may be at times.
Thanks
...and I don't know how we would even go about doing this.
Maybe start emphasizing ending war, which both leftists and libertarians share as an objective, and look for other shared objectives like this.
The hard part would be to get agreement on economic development, as leftists favor a New Deal style government led recovery, while libertarians oppose government involvement, and see private business as the only valid stimulant for the economy.
I think libertarians should understand that government is not necessarily evil and can support, and work in coordination with business.
I meant, I don't know how we would go about conducting negotiations - and yes, I personally don't think it is too much government that got us in this mess, but rather sweeping deregulation. Here we have the crux of the matter, and unfortunately it appears to be a Gordian knot.
All I can say is that both histrical fact and present reality are firmly on the side of we who believe the problem has been sweeping deregulation - the dismantlement of "consumer" and worker protections, and the general takedown of legitimate democracy.
RP does a lot of coordinated work with Dennis Kucinich. If they can work together, why can't the rest of us?
good point
Well, that certainly is an example that can give us hope! As I said before somewhere, I think we do have a lot of views in common, but we would need to engage in serious negotiation to find some platform acceptable to both parties, and I don't know how we would even go about doing this.
[Removed]
The problem with libe(R)tarians, is they can't answer a simple question.
They just can't do it.
You did not ask a question. "Lib(R)tarian party platform????
Too many points to deal with all at once, but it's mostly twisted pablum.
Pick a point and let's talk." That is a narrow minded statement...
Where has it ever worked?
Who founded the party?
One must consider the source.
All utopian dreams must be picked apart, point by point, at least that's what others do to this movement.
So in libe(R)etarianism, what's good for the goose, is no longer good for the gander?
That makes it a wash, right there.
Shooz, drop the silly and childish ZenDog (R) crap.
Yet another libe(R)tarian that can't answer a simple question.
It's such a habit with you guys.
First of all, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Conservative. And you, my friend, should start acting like an adult.
"Conservative"?
Just the (R)epelican excuse of the week.
There is no "conservative", there's just (R)s and (D)s.
You are right shooz.
Those who will do good and those who will support corruption.
We need to get the supporters of corruption out of office, does not matter which party.
Though there are quite a few republicans that are jumping-up and waving their hands for recall action to be taken on them.
Funny you think i am brainwashed but you got 3 thumbs up for being wrong. Best part of waking up is reality in your cup!!!
The problem with libe(R)tarians, is they can't answer simple questions.
They just can't do it.
Thanks for proving me correct......................:)
The founding of the u.s. constitution was the biggest libertarian accomplishment, once it included all people. Who founded the party? IDK The founding fathers..... "So in libe(R)etarianism, what's good for the goose, is no longer good for the gander?" Sure i guess, are you insane? ........ oh you did not answer the question you NEO-libs never answer simple questions all the same can't answer simple questions..... want a ba ba lil shooz?
Now your just makin' stuff up, and rambling..
Afraid to know who actually founded the libe(R)tarian party?
I told you who founded the most modern principals of libertarianism... So go ahead tell me what you think and i will tell you if i disagree and why. Otherwise keep up with your crypto-retarded approach, it is getting nowhere.
You told me what you believe, not who founded the party.
Not who funds it's endeavors today.
I guess they figure they'll try one more time.
lol
I suppose it was a bit much to ask.
They get lost in their own personal utopia.
Is it kinda like the socialist utopia thing?
Actually quite different.
Lib(R)tarians pre-suppose an educated public, and then do everything they can not to support education.
It's a built in conundrum.
Con being the operative term.
Socialists hope for a dumbed down public then decry fixing the education system. Oh i guess that makes sense.for crooks. BTY libertarians want education handled at the state level making it so effectively you have more options for better education. Care to try again?
BS!
They have done nothing to support education.
Nothing! In fact they've done the opposite.
The so called states rights issue is over, just like the civil war. Give up!
The south lost.
Look this is pointless talking to you like this. I will just talk to people that actually debate real issues.
REally?
What have libe(R)tarians done in support of education?
What has Mr. P done?
You bring no evidence.
Ron PauI on education: Ron Paul strongly opposes renewing No Child Left Behind
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement: BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles: The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level. Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC2 on Dec 8, 2000
Voted NO on No Child Left Behind
link (vote)
A better title for this bill is
No Bureaucrat Left Behind'' because, even though it's proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the wordensure'' 150 times,require'' 477 times,shall'' 1,537 and ``shall not'' 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!link (quote) Ron Paul strongly opposes race-based affirmative action programs in higher education
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. Voted YES on HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, which would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Amendment introduced by Riggs, R-CA.; Bill HR 6 ; vote number 1998-133 on May 6, 1998
While I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
link (quote) Ron Paul opposes increased funding for public schools
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement: BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles: The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level. Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC2 on Dec 8, 2000
However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on DC's public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not guaranteed a continued revenue stream. [Supports school choice and reducing funding to failing school programs]
link (quote)
Paul has introduced the "Family Education Freedom Act" (H.R. 935), a bill which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 educational expenses. All parents with school age children qualify for the credit, regardless of whether their children attend public, private, parochial, or home-based schools. Parents may use their credit dollars for many purposes, including tuition payments for private schools, educational tools such as computers and musical instruments for public schools, or to establish scholarship funds. H.R. 935 would return millions of dollars directly to parents, putting them in charge of their children's education. [Supports school choice in the form of giving parents tax credit in order to allow them to choose what school their child attends.]
link (legislation) Ron Paul opposes the creation of charter schools to compete with under-performing public schools
Voted NO on HR 2616: To amend title VI and X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand charter schools. Voted NO on bill which provided $100 million to fund charter schools for fiscal year 1999. ......... continued with links at: http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/education/14/
Voting against education, makes him for education in what way exactly?
Keep it short and in your own words.
I don't care for copy and paste crap.
Instead of an education, you get a coupon?
That's just nuts.
wow talking about not even reading what i gave you. The voucher is to attend the school of your choice. He is for education and education reform. He want parents to have a say in their kids education by letting them pick where they go..
A voucher is a coupon.
That's all it is.
So I can hear it now.
Come along kids, we have to go school shopping.
Mom has a coupon.
GTFO!
We need a public school system.
He's voted against everything that would build on that.
Everything.
Just like a good little (R)epelican.
Look at the info he is talking about keeping public schools and using these for competition. You must not live in a big city many people want to go to better schools in different districts... so presto "All parents with school age children qualify for the credit, regardless of whether their children attend PUBLIC, private, parochial, or home-based schools"
It's a freakin' coupon!!!!!!!!!
Presto!.......Look mom it's a coupon.
(R)epelicans have been cutting public schools for decades!!!!!!!!!
Decades!!!!!!!
Mr. P is so (R)epelican, it stinks!!!!!
Now they want to start (R)epelican schools, and they'll take a tax payers coupon, and generous donations from Heritage Foundation!!!!!!?????
Treason!!!!!!!!!!!
Time to put on some big boy shooz. You are losing respect with every post.
I was told it is possible to feed the entire world population
But it is possible for the whole world to feed themselves if they take the liberty to do it..
[Removed]
the repelican party is DONE
.
.
[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago
You have deluded yourself.
↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
.
.
That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.
Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.
The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.
Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.
Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.
It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.
It's just a matter of time.
It's also a matter of national security.
You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.
What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.
we will see.
So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.
We are screwed as a nation. Four more years and we are splattered at the bottom of the cliff.
well that may be but the fact remains - it is not Liberals who have engaged in a long term strategy of economic deregulation.
It is not Liberals who even now, deny global warming
and I do believe, based upon the sum of repelican lies
the repelican party is DONE
Oh zen...did you get a lot of snow in Burlington? I was thinking you were in Bennington, VT...but that is way far away from Burlington....Right? Bennington is a cheesy little town. Did you catch the Giants game last night? I live down here... near NYC. I'm tired of talking about the brain dead dem's....They are worse than the other party.
45 F -
The repelican party is DONE
The democrat's are losers too...I wish they were done. It is warm down here also.. I don't like it..I'd rather a real winter w/ snow. Have a nice night.
-40 here in Montana. Go get a new temp guage bozo, there is no Global warming
You should go watch a movie.
because there are over one billion people on the planet dependent on glacial runoff for their drinking water, and once the glaciers all disappear, those people will do one of two things -
die of dehydration
immigrate
Imagine, a mass of one billion people, environmental refugees, wandering dry places, looking for water - at some point, the needs of survival dictate that many of them will kill, to satisfy that basic human need. We are talking about the prospect of social instability on a global scale. Refusal to do anything to provide a solution is to deny our own humanity, and such a denial on such a mass scale begs the question of whether or not the entire race of man is fit for existence at all.
That is not the evidence given us by the current environments of TExass or much of the rest of the south west. Rain fall patterns are changing, drought in that specific area is spreading - and that will dislocate the bread basket of the U.S.
Answer:
Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (NOAA)
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (CDIAC)
Hottest years on record:
2005 ranks at number 1
2010 ranks at number 2
1998 ranks at number 3
2003 ranks at number 4
2002 ranks at number 5
blah blah!!!! blah blah blah
well don't go watch a movie then. I really don't give a shit.
that will not change the facts, and the facts are that around 95% of the earth's glaciers are melting, rapidly. This means Glacier National Park will soon be looking for a new name.
And you fuckers can keep on deluding yourselves if you like, but I remain confident that in the end . . .
the repelican party is DONE
We should put Gore on one of those glaciers that are growing, stick his nutsack in the ice so he can monitor the temp for us
there are actually very few of them. And those that are, may in time prove to have only been temporary anomalies -
we'll see. . . .
In any case . . .
Exactly!
For those of you just checking in: Do we want to see another Dust Bowl?
We in this country are not very well set-up to fight the adversity that would come with. Especially if we continue to drill and frack. Poisoning our ground water.
Would you fight a future Dust Bowl with irrigation of crop lands? How much more difficult if you have to truck-in water or build a network of piping to disperse usable water?
How much worse will it be in other poorer country's.
Good Post.
There is an answer.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-doomsday/
Liberty at the expense of the general welfare of the American people is not liberty.
Where did you get any idea of this endangering your general welfare? If anything this maximizes your general welfare.
No. It does not. It leaves people out in the cold. Lots of people. The poor, the elderly and the uninsured for instance.
It is scary that you prefer government force more then liberty. Things need to change that is for sure but that will never happen till we obtain liberty. The government control is what is destroying us. They use that government control to make their business do better, effectively driving competition out and prices up.
It is a fundamental difference that we have. I do not believe that free-wheeling capitalism is good for anyone but the folks who already have loads of capital. They use the liberty argument to pull middle class and poor people into their fold, but they fail to tell you that they are laughing like crazy. They know that the basic premise of capitalism is exploitation. And, they know that the ones who have the capital (wealth) first can exploit the most and earn the most profits.
Ask your libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to even out every single American in terms of capital (wealth/net worth) before instituting their free-wheeling capitalism and see what kind of answer you would get. They're not parting with a penny. Their plan is to get richer to create a world that they own and operate. Their roads, their schools, their banks, their airlines, their water suppy. You name it. They'll control it.
Wealth/net worth can be evened out easily--right after talent and intelligence is evened out. A good singer will always be able to command higher wealth than those without that talent--as will the surgeon, the actor and the good basketball player. Get the picture?
Well said.
I get what you're saying, but no, that would not be the fair way to start out with a libertarian/Austrian free-wheeling capitalist system. The only fair way to implement it would be to start with everyone on a level playing field with the same amount of capital. Run away if your leaders won't go for that.
Out of our dream of equality we have lifted masses from subjugation and moved larger masses into slavery. We have provided new heroes, new myths new gallantries, new despots, new prisons, new atrocities. Substituting new Gods for old we have dedicated new altars, composed new anthems, arranged new rituals, pronounced new blessings, invoked new curses and erected new gallows for the disbelievers. We have reduced science to cults and honest men to liars. We have even reduced the 18th century equality, glorious if false, to a more workable 20th century interpretation-Mediocrity. Inglorious if real.
Thomas Jefferson said, “All men are created equal.” For your information, a society of equals is a natural impossibility. Inequality is the first law of social material. Equality of opportunity must be regarded as the second law. Every human must be granted equal opportunity to display his genius or to make a damn fool of himself in the process.
While a society of equals is a natural impossibility, a just society is a realizable goal. We have ignored the law of equal opportunity since civilizations earliest hour. We pretend today that the law of inequality does not exist, and in our pursuit of the unattainable we make impossible the realizable.
And so “equality”, in the Jeffersonian definition, is a philosophy of the impossible, which is no philosophy at all. We have no certainty. We prowl our highways, teach or attend out classes, swallow out drugs or our fast food, quarrel, fornicate, fear out children. Sigh for the unfortunate, avoiding their presence, envy the fortunate and court their approval, work to forget out meaningless lives, drink to forget our meaningless work, purchase our pistols, deplore all wars and praise the dignity of man.
But all is not lost. Man can learn. There are those among us who can lead. But what must we learn? Who can we turn to? Man has none to turn to but himself. When we discover nature is our partner (or God-whatever) and not a slave, and laws applying to us as applying to all, then we shall find our faith returning. When we renounce our arrogance over nature and accept the philosophy of the possible we will effect human solutions of justice and permanence.
Okay. (I don't do anything in your second to last paragraph, just saying.) But, still, to have equal opportunity in the installation of a libertarian capitalist system you would have to have equal wealth. If not, the folks with the wealth starting out will control everything.
To have equal wealth we must have equal talent- equal needs--equal drive--equal desires and equality in everything that makes individuals UNequal! inequality is the first law of nature. You cannot repeal it. Equality of opportunity is mans attempt to modify that law.
Maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. To start out in a libertarian/Austrian free-wheeling economy everyone should have equal opportunity. Divide up the wealth equally. Then, the chips (talent, needs, drive) would fall where they may. My point is that your dear leaders would never go for that. They know full well the advantage they have with the capital they already have.
shees! Divide it up and then let the talent and drive fall where it may? Funny! In a few years they would have it all anyway! That's called "Capitalism"! LOL
You wouldn't want a fair start at the outset?
Our maker, whoever and whatever it was, supposedly did just that. Surely you must realize the impossibility of doing it all over again. Our declaration of Independence and Constitution have attempted to do just that in their Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Here is a bit of discussion with Ayn Rand on the Right to Life.
The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is the only fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived. The right to life protects the individual’s ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life. It is based on the idea that life is the standard of moral value. The right to liberty protects the individual’s ability to think and to act on his own judgment. It is based on the idea that rationality is man’s highest moral virtue. The right to pursue happiness protects the individual’s ability to live for his own sake, rather than for the sake of society. It is based on the idea that the pursuit of one’s self-interest is one’s highest moral purpose. Only a full philosophical system upholding life, reason and self-interest can ground the founding principles of America. Ayn Rand provided such a system. Q&A with Ayn Rand What is the right to life? A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) . . . The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men. “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column
I don't get my morals from Ayn Rand.
And, this is important, our Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution with Ayn Rand in mind. They wrote it with influences from John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu among other Enlightenment thinkers. Read up on the social contract.
And the government in times of national preservation trumps Ayn Rand, or better yet, the will of the majority defines your life, liberty and how much property you will enjoy. Don't worry they never take it all; just what is just and appropriate. Remember, With out the state your rights are tripe.
"Ask your libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to even out every single American in terms of capital (wealth/net worth)" LOL Are you a "zeitgeister" or a "communist"? grow up, stealing sucks.
Libertarianism sucks.
It sucks bad and the sooner we run those shmucks out, the better off we will be.
The problem is that most of them don't even understand what libertarianism is. They get the "liberty" part and that sounds really good. But, they don't get the "free wheeling capitalism" part which will be really great for the wealthy and really horrendously bad for everyone else.
capitalism stays and you goons can take your socialism overseas
Just because a person doesn't think free-wheeling libertarian/Austrian capitalism is the way to go in no way means they are a socialist or communist. You go overseas and take your libertarianism with you. It has no place here.
Actually libertarianism is what America is about. What would you call the founding fathers? Also you have never stated what you support, so what is it?
I support a capitalist economy with regulation so that it will promote the general welfare of the American people. The deregulation of the last 30 years or so has been detrimental for the majority of Americans.
I believe an economic system exists for the benefit of all of the people, not just a few.
Get money out of politics and reinstate Glass-Steagall to start.
i Agree with getting cooperate money out of politics and reinstating Glass-Steagall... But the market is creatively regulated as to only allow certain business the opportunity to be successful.So no we don't have unregulated market just a selective one.
The nature of capitalism is the consumer decides not the corporate government. So it won't be the rich ones deciding it will be the people. <<<<<This is for the comment below it.>>>>>
Glad we agree about Glass-Steagall and getting money out. Maybe we could all come together at least on those two matters.
Yes, right now we do have regulation that benefits the few, but I disagree that unregulated capitalism would benefit all. It wouldn't. It would benefit those with the most wealth. That is the nature of capitalism.
No they don't. There are many young and naive people that fall for this. At some point they have to grow up.
Naive is a good word.
Everything looks good on paper but when the rubber hits the road it is a different ball game.
Exactly.
Free-market capitalism is the only thing that can get us out of this Keynesian black hole.
Let me make myself absolutely clear. You are an adult. I have seen your threads. Get off your ass and do your homework. I'm not going to do it for you. Free market policies were enacted in Africa many years ago by the IMF. Start there.
We have been over this repeatedly on this forum. If you want to see how it works then move to pick-your-country in Africa and see how well it plays out. Capitalism must be regulated. Ron Paul is done.
Are you semi retarded? Africa does not have free market capitalism anywhere.
You will need to do some homework.
I have and it does not. BTY the burden of proof is on you.
Capitalism has worked here for years and years and will continue to do so. You libby's need to get over it, besides your Kenyan turd's term is just about up anyways
So, if it's not racist, what does it mean?
It is a reference to Obama's birth certificate i am sure.
"Kenyan turd." What is that supposed to mean? I don't want to call you a racist, but it sounds racist. Is it?
It is not racist but to you folks about anything you say is racist
Capitalism with regulations works extremely well. Always has. :D
Damn, Friday! We finally agree on something! Capitalism does indeed need regulation! But not at the expense of individual rights. I wish I knew all the answers. In my 80 years I have found few of those!
Does that mean that we would be accepted if we lied all the time like you folks??
You cannot stop lying now, sugar. :D
Your little libertopia is going to fall apart right before your very eyes.
I'm excited.
Define "liberty" as you see it for me.
This dictionary definition works well for me:
"The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."
And how would you define "general welfare?"
"And how would you define "general welfare?"
I define it pretty much the way the Founding Fathers did-
"General":not specific, or particular-inclusive of a whole, normal, usual
"Welfare": Since the "government entitlement" programs to which our country gave the title "Welfare" in the 1930's and later 1960's did not exist at the time, nor did our Founding Fathers establish anything like them. So when used in the Constitution, I interpret the word in the manner it was used then.
The word "fare" was used to describe how one “fared” in life, circumstances, and experiences. Thus “well-fare” meant circumstances, events, life experiences that went “well” instead of “ill”, good instead of bad.
The argument over what the term "general welfare" in the Constitution began almost immediately after it was written, and the Founding Fathers elaborated at great length over what their intention with the phrase was.
In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v Massachusetts that: "The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
The US Supreme Court was saying that the "Preamble to the Constitution" does not confer any legislative powers -- so you cannot use the words of the Preamble to infer that the Federal Government has any power to do anything.
In Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution where it states "to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", it was determined that this only applies to the States as one united whole, not individual citizens or certain individual States over others.
Here's a definition of "general welfare" that works for me:
"The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons, as opposed to protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population, encapsulates what is most unique about the United States of America--that it is the only modern nation-state republic founded on this principle." http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
Which means that ALL persons, rich AND poor, irregardless of income or property or lack thereof. If you are dedicated to protecting the interests of the poor, more than promoting the general welfare of everyone else, you aren't really living according to this definition even if you think/say you are.
General welfare-NOT particular welfare or specific welfare.
The promotion of the welfare of the general public was limited by, and specifically outlined in, the Constitution. No matter what YOU or the government THINK or pretend (imagines) would promote that general welfare, if those acts are not outlined and specified in the Constitution, they have not been given the power or authority to execute those actions.
In fact- “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” – James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
When the US government undertook the actions of the "Great Society"-it began the systematic subversion and transmutation of the EXACT government (LIMITED) established and ordained by the people of America.
THAT is how we got here today. And yet you want to KEEP expanding it, keep growing it, keep feeding the monster that is killing this country. YOU and OWS are the "anti Americans" the Founding Fathers dreaded as much as they dreaded the oligarchs and royalty of England.
It doesn't state anywhere in the Constitution that we should have a free-wheeling capitalist economy either.
Nor does it say we should have a plutocracy.
Occupy Wall Street!!!!
Also nowhere in the constitution does it say democracy, we are a republic.
Right. A federal constitutional republic where the people elect representatives to the government with the expectation that they will actually represent them.
agreed
Again, go ahead.
You want the Constitution to be changed or expanded or more clearly defined....then you'd better do something to actually AFFECT those changes, expansions, definitions. Screaming in the streets and sleeping in tents won't do that.
How do YOU define "general welfare"?
I want land
I don't think everyone gets "enough", we should demand equal sex!!! LOLz
Massive load!
Marlboro Man delusion.
Libertarian hogwash.
See: Day in the life of Joe Republicon.
We live in a communal society.
The notion of "individuality" is an insidious and despicable divide and conquer ploy.
That's why the corporate world works together, has the various chambers of commerces and socializes all losses and privatizes all profits.
The Borg, huh? "Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Think of it this way: every time you talk about yourself, you use the word 'we': 'we want this', 'we want that'. You don't even know how to think of yourself as a single individual. You don't say 'I want this', or 'I am Hugh'. We - are all - separate - individuals. I am Geordi. I choose what I want to do with my life. I make decisions for myself. For somebody like me, losing that sense of individuality is almost worse than dying." quote LOLz
Then why bother US? Keep your individuality to yourself! Hide it so WE don't get it! And get off OUR internet and OUR Forum and all the myriad commons WE have provided for you (and those great bastions of individuality, corporations) which you take full advantage of and then fraudulently claim you succeed and prosper all on your own. And if this isn't deliberate deception, it's clinical delusion. Or perhaps it's all of the above, fundamentalist belief. In that case, the Hillbilly Taliban is having a book burning tonight, don't be late.
Yes, you are your "own" person, all you, within your skin. But your "individuality" ends at your nose, don't believe it? Try living on in.
The truth is this "Individuality," like "Equality," are just ploys of deception in the Class War ~ which is very real.
Excuse me who do you think you are? You are in the minority here, why don't you leave!! You know a ploy of the elite you speak of is removing freedom and you sure go for it hook, line and sinker. Oh and yes OWS is for liberty otherwise why would they have protested NDAA2012?
"Why?" Because I'm not espousing the exclusivity and divisive (infamous RW ploy against organized populism) of "individualism" (the ultimate minority) on a forum for organization and unity for change ~ to shed the yoke of 1% tyranny and gain 99% liberty and freedom.
WE need Unity, not separatism. Movements are co-opted by division.
I think you may be lost in semantics ("elite, individual, we, philosophy...") and new to the war with words in this Class War, that for practical reasons I'll say is 70+ years old, when FDR pushed back on the 1%. Not just one year. Maybe no one told you about the others and the big pic. Do some reading. Search a nation of laws not men. Review the (group NOT individual) struggles of the labor/civil rights movements. Learn crab mentality. Recognize/identify the the real enemy, the greedy few in the 1% . Drop the Ron Paul/Ayn Rand sociopathy, and the empty Herman Cain-isms.
Divide and conquer, or Unite and Win! Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 never EVER again!
FDR prolonged the depression by 9 years helping the largest of corporations and hurting the little businesses but do try again. FDR was the uber-elites best friend.
Did you get that from the Ayn Rand for tots Sunday School workbook?
FDR proved that when you apply a liberal approach with a helpful Congress to a problem like the great depression all boats rise with the tide. Millions of unemployed Americans were saved and, building on that, our great middleclass was established and flourished.
Ever since, Republicons have down their vile best to destroy FDR's and others' wonderful American PROGRESS.
No such cooperation today with today's quasi-treasonous crypto-fascist Republicon opposition in congress and any other position from which they can snipe or throw bombs.
Raygun and Walmart did more to kill Small Business in America than the A-Bomb did to Japan.
Correcting you is a no-brainer. Getting you to learn something will probably be a waste of time.
Forum Post: Troll Tactic For Today: Divide OWS From The Democratic Left-Wing
Posted 1 day ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 4:53 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (2758) This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Anybody reading all the concentrated attacks here on Obama can clearly see the underlying strategy. First, Big Money makes sure that Romney gets the nomination (one way or the other) because he is strongest against Obama. Then, a huge propoganda campaign (already getting underway) to divide the left upon itself, and voila! Fascism!
Can you say Karl Rove?
My advice, press on regardless, but don't be a sucker.
BFT, did you get suckered?
More platitudes grouped together to try and form a coherent philosophy; actually nothing more than sophistry: not much more than saying, "The way to end wars is to have peace."
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. <Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.> The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".
So no, it is a Philosophy!!
Ah, yes, and the way to end poverty is to have abundance. A philosopy must be coherent. A meaningless collection of cliches hardly makes a philosophy. The presentation is not systematic and does not rely on rational argument. Instead, it abstracts real problems of existence and simplifies them into absurd generalizations, such as the way to be rich is not be poor.
The philosophy is applying individual liberty to all government is able to do. Therefore making a totalitarian government impossible. It would mean no NDAA, no SOPA, no Gitmo.. It is not my fault you don't understand how freedom works.
[Removed]
What is civilization and how does it work.
Pls visit www.amend2012.org. Need to spread the words and stop those bastards ruining the foundation of this country.
Ill check it out and yes we need to stop them.
How does a society that believes all of this then form a social contract to do the things individuals cannot do? If there is a government, what does it do and how does it accomplish it if each person decides whether or not they choose to support it?
Read above it is done at the state level.
In theory, I agree with almost everything stated. There are parts that are workable right now and parts that are not. I think the parts that rely on global adherence, even if true, are unrealistic. A statement like: "Man's ultimate expression of his freedom should be his flying as a bird does, free and unfettered." Trying to evaluate this statement is futile, since we can't fly. Evaluating a statement that relies on global acceptance of a single idea is, likewise, futile. In the end it would not be the ultimate freedom, but the ultimate tyranny, forcing everyone to think as I think, do as I do. And force is the only way to get global acceptance, I think.
[Removed]
but I ain't go no property
I have very little property but i am entitled to it, i am not a slave.
I don't think some will ever get it, this is truly the only path to unity.
Maybe we should all wear name tags. That will make the city friendlier.
Go ahead wear one but making people do this is against liberty, obviously.