Ok, Hoon, now I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you really don't understand where I am coming from. Quotes from "fantasy novels" aren't appropriate references when one is talking about issues of philosophical conviction, eh? So, I suppose Plato's Dialogues (including the Republic, which was the basis for Republican Rome, and an inspiration for the American republic, too) is out, eh? I guess Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is also out? As much as I hate her fucking guts, Ayn's Rands entire life's work is also out, I suppose....along with the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible, too? Either address the ideas being articulated, or don't, but don't ignore the arguments being presented to you for some intellectually lazy retreat through the back door. Freedom is only possible in the absence of COERCION. Liberty only exists in the absence of authoritarian relationships between individuals. Now, maybe Freedom and Liberty in the sense that I am presenting them only exist in an idealized sense, but we are talking about ideals and you were the one waxing eloquently about the nature of the relationship between freedom and equality, positing a bunch of spurious shit that I took issue with. I directed you to an author whose ideas on the subject influenced my own so that in the event that you were TRULY curious, you could go and read for yourself. The bottom line is that a man is not free if he is able to be coerced by another in the pursuit of his basic needs. Freedom FOR self-actualization is useless without freedom FROM coercion and aggression.
Rich people don't invest money in new companies when they are left with huge piles of money. Where've you been? Rich people don't create jobs, consumers (i.e. working people with money in their pockets and a demand for commodities) create jobs. The only reason Ron Paul's "eliminate the IRS" talk makes any sense at all is because he simultaneously says "eliminate this bloated, imperial, military." http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12 http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...to-reward-true-job-creators-nick-hanauer.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/05/1013749/-Tax-Cuts-for-the-Rich-DO-NOT-create-jobs http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/do-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-create-jobs/67723/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_employment_charticle.html
Neither. I am simply dismissing the irrelevant portions of your argument, and you have now strayed so far from your original point (Ron Paul wanting to decriminalize racial and other forms fo discrimination) that nothing you are saying is relevant at all. As far as our own definitions of "freedom", you and I are using different dictionaries,. You seem to think that Wilson's writings are relevant - I, on the other hand, find them to be idealistic tripe. We're not liable to agree on that point, or many others, as long as you maintain your blinkered and narrow field of view. You are an anarcho-socialist, I am a centrist-libertarian. We do have some common ground - but there are also some gaping chasms between our philosphies that just ain't getting bridged. Oh, and were we to take your definition of freedom literally, then any one of us would be perfectly within our rights to refuse service to anyone we chose, on the basis of any criteria we wished, without government interference. So, in effect, you've actually taken up your own argument that the civil liberties act should be repealed because it coerces compliance with an artifical and arbitrary social standard.
According to the post you made WRT Ron Paul's commentary on the CRA1964, he says: "The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please ...The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." Are you suggesting that denying the federal government "legitimate authority" to pass the CRA1964 which he has characterized as a violation of the Constitution" should be interpreted as something besides an advocacy for its repeal? That's why I'm trying to figure if you are being obtuse or not. I told you that my issues with Ron Paul are ideological and rest on dramatically different definitions of "liberty." Those differences are directly related, in my view, to our relative class positions. I agree. Whatever. So long as you're civil, I'll engage you as a reasonable person, as I do not presume to have all the answers to life, the universe and everything. No, you are wrong. You could not "take my definition of freedom literally" and superimpose it on the society that we live in, presently. The idealized notion of liberty that Wilson is articulating above--and which I agree with in principle--taken as an organizing principle, would translate into a much different polity. It would be much smaller, for one, and the terms of its political organization would not lend itself to economic transactions between subordinates and superiors, which is exactly the relationship between industry and consumers in a "free market" industrial/post-industrial economy. That said, I don't know that I have ever heard of a "centrist libertarian." "Centrist" is sort of a wishy-washy catch all for "I support the status quo so long as the status quo ensures my comfort and convenience" and "libertarian" is one of the most misused terms in political discourse, right after "socialist."
I am almost curious if you are really this big of a douche in real life or if you just put on a whiny front to get attention from people who fairly obviously don't like you or your alternate universe perception on reality. I bet you are also one of those people that was rich growing up and shopped at Goodwill just so the punk rock kids didn't know you slept on Egyptian cotton. If I am wrong, which I very highly doubt, then I am sort of sorry.
Once again trickle down does not work it put us in a recession the last 3 presidents that implemented it. If it is used again with the state we are in we will go into a depression. I don't think anyone wants to be on a bread line.
Don't you have some pure white cousin you could be inviting to swim in your tiny fucking gene puddle with right about now? Do you really believe for a second that I give a fuck what you think...about anything?
just curious, who are the 3 presidents that implemented it? And, what is trickle down? I mean trickle down is just a phrase by liberals for some economic actions or not? There is no Economic action called trickle down, never has been.
Obviously you do care, hence your well thought out reply. And I thought Leninists were supposed to be well spoken... tisk tisk. You remind me of one of the red skinheads that used to go to Peabody's and try to start shit and then run as soon as chairs got thrown at them.
Yet again you reply, I am starting to think you put people you don't like on a pedestal. I bet you are one of those "I am better than you" kinda fucks that talks shit under your breath when you walk past somebody with your eyes on the ground. If you respond again, I would start to think you are spicy for me, ya yellow cunt.
Going to ignore your irrelevant points. Read more carefully. That was his commentary on the bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, explaining why he would not endorse that particular bill. He has never called for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. And if you accuse me of being obtuse, willfully or otherwise, again, I will be taking offense. You are the one who claimed to be interested in civl discourse - so be civil. How was my statement wrong? There are always two sides to an economic transaction - vendor and consumer. Under your system, as a vendor, would I not have the freedom to refuse my services - large or small - to, for example, green eyed people with a limp? As a consumer, would I not be within my rights to refuse to employ the services of anyone with enlarged earlobes and hairy nostrils? You can't have it both ways.
If I could like this a thousand times, I would. What is peeping through here is Ron Paul's true political alignment - Plutocratic. He reasons that ones wealth is the key issue, but he is dead wrong. This was in fact Jefferson's same argument over 200 years ago that was countered by Hamilton's which is immortalized in the phrase ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal......." This is the pay dirt. So if you don't have lots of property - what good does protection for property being enforced over civil rights get you? If you are not a millionaire, don't vote for Paul - bottom line.
Supply side economics... http://www.bobandsean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/trickledowneconomicscolor1.jpg (image is too big, and I'm trying to not antagonize Hoon)
I don't even agree with theft of any kind so theres really no point of talking about it. Why is it right to steal from anybody? Just because the majority says that we should take money from people of all classes doesn't mean it is necessarily right.
If rich people don't invest their money in new companies, how come that there are "working people with money in their pockets"? Are these people employed by the government? And if so, where got the government the money from to pay them? And what if non rich people start a company that, if they are lucky, become a success and therefore makes these people rich. Or the same if rich people start a new company to become richer. Isn't true that because they wanted to become rich or richer they've created jobs and invested money, money that probably came from other rich people or companies that invested their money into the new business without knowing if the business will bring back profits to them? Many times new companies don't become a success and the investors lose money. And by looking at things in the right light, 'trickle down economics' is just verbal acrobatics by either activists or clueless people that got the sequence of how money flows wrong.
Anyone in the US who invests money in a US company to produce jobs in the US hasn't been paying attention for the last 30 years. The way to capitalize, in the US, is to take your money, invest it in a manufacturing enterprise in Malaysia, or Cambodia, or China or Mexico, where you can pay your workers slave wages. Then, with your profit, you buy a moderately successful competitive venture, you liquidate it to remove your competition, getting richer in the short term at the expense of inflicting massive unemployment on your (former) employees and economically devastating communities (see: Flint, Detroit, Buffalo, Akron, etc. etc). You take THAT profit, and you dump it into a Super PAC that you use to either bribe your "elected" representative, or you get one of your buddies in office to stave off anti-trust/unfair competition action long enough to change the laws to make the illegal shit you are doing, legal. That's how you get rich in the US, son. That, or you invent Facebook or some shit where you make your money by selling people's personal information to marketing agencies. I have to say though that watching you dropping trou for a capitalist American Dream that Eurotrash like you couldn't begin to understand the consequences and social implications of is just fucking funny. How do you like your socialized health care up in Yorkshire? I ask because I come from a place where, until relatively recently, you could die in the fucking emergency room if you didn't have proof of health insurance and where still, if you are uninsured, a broken arm could prevent you from ever owning a car, or a home. The NHS covers my whole family and saves me $14,000/year which makes me FUCKING OVERJOYED to pay my taxes in the UK. Now, why don't you go back to supporting the rights of delusional bigots to spout ignorant, xenophobic, shit on public transportation? Your foray into political economics was fucking FAIL.
hello Micheal Moore, didn't know you live in england now. Apart from talking utter rubbish as usual you should know that Liverpool isn't in Yorkshire, hahaha, you are as daft as it gets. Following your logic, it must be the biggest wonder on earth that after 30 yrs of rich people doing what you say, the unemployment rate in the US is not 100%. I am not using socialised health care kidda, especially not the NHS because i am a german citizen who is resident in Spain. It is only that my job brings me to Merseyside. So you save 14000 dollars a year, who is paying that what you are saving? I assume that the NHS still have to pay the nurses, doctors, machines, hospitals, maintenance and so on.
I could finally vote this year. All i know is i am voting for this guy. He's the lesser evil than the rest of them. I don't think they will let him win but i know my vote will count. I believe he is the guy that the United States need right now. I love how this guy thinks...esp his foreign policy. His background is excellent. Aside from being an airforce vet, he's also an obgyn. I really hope he wins.
