It's sort of sad to see the weak impeding the strong.
By having seven kids on the taxpayers' dollar you're not helping anyone.
I'm writing up a thread on welfare that will cover a lot of it. It can't cover most of the issues in detail as that would take a while. I've heard hour long lectures on single topics, and there is no way I'm going to go to that extent, but I should cover the basics of the argument against it, and the opposing side can make their argument as well.
Because I want to see you try and say removing welfare helps people.
Because both of them are.
Wow! A whole lotta nothing, as per usual, sobiet or whatever.
I'm rather surprised you're not valiantly defending the Republican party.
In reference to Libertarianism, I only said it wasn't social conservative. Unless you're implying it is...
Ron Paul is a bible-thumping idiot, but you seem to support him.
I can imagine some predictable examples of human right violations done by the states, yet I can give just as many if not more human right violations done by the federal government. Also, slavery as an example doesn't make sense as an example of states rights as it was allowed by the federal government.
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state."
So he claims that the left wants a separation of church and state because they hate that churches "teach morality and civility, and do what government never could"?
I will admit it's a bit of a weird phrasing. He's probably trying to appeal to people who go to church, or maybe he believes this, eh doesn't really matter, the point is that the government shouldn't try to instill morals into the people, but rather the people should be left act on their own moral judgement.
Oh, also, I think argument regarding the government never being able to create a moral society hinges on that in order to do so there must be force, and force is immoral, and therefore it is impossible to create a moral society that requires immorality to make it. That might not be what he had in mind, I don't know.
Congrats on being the inevitable bandwagoner to come in with no real arguments whatsoever.
I was pretty liberal in high school, but once I graduated and saw the world for what it was (a bad joke in my opinion), I figured that blindly following one politcal mindset is a foolish endeavor.
The elections of 2008 and this batch of GOP candidates (sans Paul and from what I have heard Huntsman) only prove that politics is a nasty business.
Gay soldier getting booed, people saying they want others to die if they cant pay is bad.....but that doesn't mean the whole of America is like that. This is the end result of almost exclusive control of politics by the Idealouges of the left and right.
There can be no middle ground, because politics is fundamentally the allocation of powers and power can sway any human being.
Normally I try to avoid personal insults, but god damn, he's just dense.
Every single thread that has Libertarianism mentioned has at least one little hardcore Ron Paul fanboy who tells everyone else who makes any comments on Libertarianism that they don't understand it. Then they proceed to give a different definition of it than the last person.
Why the fuck does the definition of that ideal fluctuate SO much on this site? Pepin, you've given literally a different description of it then others I've seen.
Do you not understand the leanings of a social leftist?
And they favour ethics, not morals. Morals is a right wing thing.
When you had shit like this daily:
(And his whole rant against Hollywood)
Plus if you recall entire protests with poorly spelled signs declaring liberals to be traitors.
It was very, very prevalent.
I don't see how you get that conclusion but no, I hate 4chan and everything it represents.
I personally would have liked it more if he would have just said that the people are the moral authority. If you're very pro-state you may not also like it as you believe the state has a role in making people better. It's one of his more iffy quotes as you kind of have to accept the church as a legitimate moral authority to accept what he is saying, and it is very easy to misunderstand. The root of the argument, that the state shouldn't be the moral authority is something I quite agree with.
1. The non aggression axiom
2. Private property rights
There has been a lot of thought in so many different areas you'd be surprised. A lot of it goes into the best system that would allow for these two principals to be upheld most effectively. There are a lot of books on it, and if you want some recommendations I can give you some.
any kind of leftist is anti-government and that included libertarians which are by no stretch right-wing. the model communist country is 100% stateless and socialists that are more center include state socialists. the right-wing is the corporatist or collectivist faction as both status quo and common-collective in the form of nationalism are right-wing tenets. you've got it 100% completely fucked up even if we took the US as a model.
Also, I don't believe left in this instance refers to socialist or communists. I believe it refers to democrats.
The amount of information in the OP has overloaded my brain.
You're not helping the American stereotype much (Here's a hint: not everybody in the world follows US politics, we don't always know what you're talking about).
I suppose you're argument would be acceptable on grounds of a revolution or some similar change in which the people people dump their current government and quickly move to the new one. But I'm having a difficult time accepting that people can be anti-government while at the same be time expanding its powers, which is as far as I'm aware, is necessary in most transitional plans where the government already exists. Where I think I'm getting hung up with the claim transitional phase.
A libertarian wouldn't support expansion of government power and would like to shrink the role of government, which is in essence being anti-government. I can certainly say that Republicans aren't anti-government, of course some are, but in general...
What I would do is require those who really need help to apply for a government program that helps with that, and they would be checked on every month or so.
It'd save the people that really do need help and create jobs.
"1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program. By any standard, these figures add up to a lot of money. That is why the Department of Labor has been hard at work on the problem."
You: "welfare is bad, it creates dependency and why should we give people money for doing nothing?"
Others: "Can you cite a source that states this?"
You: Either you stop posting or post something that isn't logically sound, ala Fox News.
You're right Megafanx, I didn't bother to look up my facts which was incredibly stupid of me.
Federal Regulation? People tend not to like that. Precedents to set a standard? in the past it hasn't worked.
I for one want states to take care of education rather than the government though. Is that more of a republican or democrat view?