Other Resources The Political Joe » When will American's embrace Libertarian views? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2013-09-10 7:15 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by tuwood

Yes... they were legally entitled to it, and they accepted it. The exact same way I am legally entitled to write off my mortgage on my taxes and claim my MIL as a dependent. In my case, I do pay taxes, so I get to keep more of my money by taking advantage of what is offered me. For those that do not pay taxes.. well they are just accepting what somebody wants to give them.

But the problem is not with the people that take, it is with the system that gives. After a point, there is no accountability. If somebody is going to give me something, why not take it?

But just like in your case, that was not good enough for you, even though you were raised in it. You wanted something different. Slaves or not to an entitlement system/mentality...I still believe people want to be free. And they want to be in charge of their own life and no have to live off somebody else. There will always be some that do, but I do not think that is what makes up the core of Americans.

I agree completely

And to touch on another subject... taxes. Another thing I think Libertarians get dismissed by that somehow there should be no taxes.

I want a strong defense force. It has to be able to reach out and touch somebody where they live... I just don't want to do that. Nor do I want to maintain a strong military force around the world. I want a social security. I think it is important to provide health care to those that need it. I want a strong program for infrastructure. I feel it is vital for commerce and defense. All this cost a lot of money, and I am willing to pay it.

But enough already with the ridiculous tax code. You can take my deductions. I will pay my part... I am just tired of paying for all the needless entitlements and military industrial complex.. and now the new intelligence industrial complex... of and free medical and college for everyone.

Tell me what I need to pay for core services, and paying off our debt. I understand it needs to be progressive, but just make it a flat rate. Consumption tax or Fair tax, I don't care. When we get our financial house in order, then we can talk about giving everyone ice cream and college for everyone... but until then, we are on a path of unsustainability. :p



Edited by powerman 2013-09-10 7:18 PM


2013-09-11 12:47 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
GREAT COMMENTS BY EVERYONE!  Strong opinions backed by intelligent arguments.  Carry ON!
2013-09-11 1:19 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Pector55
Originally posted by Left Brain

Don't you guys think that "the poor" are just growing, as a class, in sheer numbers, faster than "the rich"?  From my vantage point you can't consider that a small point.  Poor people tend to have a lot of kids......really poor people tend to have even more kids.  Yes, "good people" of BT, I realize that's a generalization.....but I work a lot in poor neighborhoods, so I tend to take my opinions firsthand.

 

I do agree.  Why wouldn't they, they are subsidized to do so.  Hence another big government failure.  Granted, it's not lucrative but it's a way to get by and it's a lifestyle.

Meanwhile, some people go to school, work 60-80 hrs a week, make 6 figures and still consider a 2nd part time job because colleges want as much as $40k a year.  Yes, the system is stacked against the hard working, honest person.  I told my daughter that when she applies for college grants, she is going to be a lesbian, native American / Eskimo on the application.

You got that right. I swear our country is going to be overrun by the ignorant

Come on...even I'm not that cynical.

Bottom line is this, scavenging has always been, and will always be an effective survival strategy. There are those that are content to live off others. We can't get rid of them... but it is also a standard of living I have no desire to live at.

Welfare fraud, and the guy on food stamps with Cadillacs are fun to highlight, but I do not think it is the norm. Fraud is fraud, and it will always exist. All we can do is minimize it.

In a country as rich as ours, we can indeed afford certain "social protections". A minimum subsistence for the elderly. Medical care for theme and those that have no other choice. Preexisting conditions covered. A minimum wage... and most importantly, a hand up for those that have fallen. With all that, we will certainly have fraud, waste and abuse.... but we can afford it.

All that will be expensive, but it is the right thing to do. The American people still want the dream. They still want to be free, and they still will work hard. If the government will get out of their way, it can still be that way. People came from every corner of the world... AND STILL DO... for that dream. The one that says if they work hard, they can build a life for themselves and their family.

But if we continue to foster this mentality that the collective is more important that the individual, that government is th solution to all problems, and government can engineer the perfect society... then that dream will indeed die. Because it is men and women that build things, not government... even by proxy. People have to know they are in charge of making this world better. When the responsibility is passed, it stops working.

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

 

2013-09-11 2:49 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by jeffnboise

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

 

I agree, Washington is an easy target, but it's the People that put them there. We get what we deserve.

But where is the accountability with the collective? I understand that people don't always have it, but how will that change with the collective?

Liberals like to rant about corporations as if they are some evil Borg entity consuming all that lays before them... I don't. But I do understand, that at some point, corporations take on a life of their own. They do what is best for them, without necessarily regard to others. And it is great to say boycott them and hit them in the pocket book... but how exactly do you boycott Johnson and Johnson... or Exxon/Mobil, of Chase/BOA/JP Morgan for that matter. Too big to fail, and too big to reign in.

I feel government is that now. Too big to reign in. Not some evil tyrannical entity acting as one... just a crap load of agencies all doing what is best for them and not others... too big to control.

So then how does that change with "the collective" socialist mentality? I'm not using "socialist" as a dirty word, but as an accurate political term. When does the collective become too big to control, and tramples on the rights of the individual?

I believe at the core the individual trumps the collective. That is true freedom. And no, the individual does not trump what is fair for others. But an individual can't trump another's individual right. That's where it ends. If we limit the size of government, we limit the size of corporations, and we limit the size of "group think", then it seems to me we get to a place that is pretty nice to live. Obviously that is my personal view of Utopia"... we all have our perfect pie and want a slice... but it seems to me that is where the most freedom is.

2013-09-11 4:15 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

 

I agree, Washington is an easy target, but it's the People that put them there. We get what we deserve.

But where is the accountability with the collective? I understand that people don't always have it, but how will that change with the collective?

Liberals like to rant about corporations as if they are some evil Borg entity consuming all that lays before them... I don't. But I do understand, that at some point, corporations take on a life of their own. They do what is best for them, without necessarily regard to others. And it is great to say boycott them and hit them in the pocket book... but how exactly do you boycott Johnson and Johnson... or Exxon/Mobil, of Chase/BOA/JP Morgan for that matter. Too big to fail, and too big to reign in.

I feel government is that now. Too big to reign in. Not some evil tyrannical entity acting as one... just a crap load of agencies all doing what is best for them and not others... too big to control.

So then how does that change with "the collective" socialist mentality? I'm not using "socialist" as a dirty word, but as an accurate political term. When does the collective become too big to control, and tramples on the rights of the individual?

I believe at the core the individual trumps the collective. That is true freedom. And no, the individual does not trump what is fair for others. But an individual can't trump another's individual right. That's where it ends. If we limit the size of government, we limit the size of corporations, and we limit the size of "group think", then it seems to me we get to a place that is pretty nice to live. Obviously that is my personal view of Utopia"... we all have our perfect pie and want a slice... but it seems to me that is where the most freedom is.

So, how does it 'end'?  Where is the punishment? And who exacts it?  The individual?  Or a 'collective' legal system.  IMO This is where the "individual" v. "collective" argument falls short.  Unless you live on an island unto yourself, then the individual rights of all your family, neighbors, friends etc get an equal voice in every decision, ever made....every.. single.. one.  Can you say 'chaos'. 

Mankind was formed in tribes.  Hierarchy and peers and majorities ruled the day.   The framers of the constitution got it wrong  IMO.  They crafted our country when they were bitter and resentful and short sighted.  It's NOT about individual rights and liberties.  And we've spent nearly 250 yrs. chasing our tails; living proof that the more RIGHTS you give an individual-the more infringed the rights of their neighbors become.  I don't know the answer, or if there IS an 'answer'.  But we'd better learn to all just get along.

 

2013-09-11 4:48 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
I think people will embrace it when we learn not to be greedy and when we learn to accept others for who they are. Until then we will need laws to protect ourselves and others. We will have a small government when that is what we need.


2013-09-11 4:54 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by jeffnboise
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

 

I agree, Washington is an easy target, but it's the People that put them there. We get what we deserve.

But where is the accountability with the collective? I understand that people don't always have it, but how will that change with the collective?

Liberals like to rant about corporations as if they are some evil Borg entity consuming all that lays before them... I don't. But I do understand, that at some point, corporations take on a life of their own. They do what is best for them, without necessarily regard to others. And it is great to say boycott them and hit them in the pocket book... but how exactly do you boycott Johnson and Johnson... or Exxon/Mobil, of Chase/BOA/JP Morgan for that matter. Too big to fail, and too big to reign in.

I feel government is that now. Too big to reign in. Not some evil tyrannical entity acting as one... just a crap load of agencies all doing what is best for them and not others... too big to control.

So then how does that change with "the collective" socialist mentality? I'm not using "socialist" as a dirty word, but as an accurate political term. When does the collective become too big to control, and tramples on the rights of the individual?

I believe at the core the individual trumps the collective. That is true freedom. And no, the individual does not trump what is fair for others. But an individual can't trump another's individual right. That's where it ends. If we limit the size of government, we limit the size of corporations, and we limit the size of "group think", then it seems to me we get to a place that is pretty nice to live. Obviously that is my personal view of Utopia"... we all have our perfect pie and want a slice... but it seems to me that is where the most freedom is.

So, how does it 'end'?  Where is the punishment? And who exacts it?  The individual?  Or a 'collective' legal system.  IMO This is where the "individual" v. "collective" argument falls short.  Unless you live on an island unto yourself, then the individual rights of all your family, neighbors, friends etc get an equal voice in every decision, ever made....every.. single.. one.  Can you say 'chaos'. 

Mankind was formed in tribes.  Hierarchy and peers and majorities ruled the day.   The framers of the constitution got it wrong  IMO.  They crafted our country when they were bitter and resentful and short sighted.  It's NOT about individual rights and liberties.  And we've spent nearly 250 yrs. chasing our tails; living proof that the more RIGHTS you give an individual-the more infringed the rights of their neighbors become.  I don't know the answer, or if there IS an 'answer'.  But we'd better learn to all just get along.

 

OK, so WOW. And I'm not at all being a smart Alec. Help me understand. I seriously want to know. Because this is the front line of the debate these days...

Individual rights are not a set of arbitrary opinions and wish lists that keeps anything from happening. It is a set of rights laid out in the constitution. Ones that can be amended if everyone agrees. If there is conflict, it goes to SCOTUS. I'm sorry, but that is kind of a big deal. That no government or group can take from me  my Flying Spaghetti Monster given rights. I like it that way.

And Jeff I'm genuinely asking... what is it you see not working in our society that individual freedoms are standing in the way of? What impediment are they causing that is holding us back from true greatness?

2013-09-11 5:01 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by chirunner134 I think people will embrace it when we learn not to be greedy and when we learn to accept others for who they are. Until then we will need laws to protect ourselves and others. We will have a small government when that is what we need.

Here is something I do not really get or have an answer for... all the great Empires have collapsed... but perhaps that wasn't so much the government as it was the people becoming disconnected from community. Where is that point when you see people but have zero connection to them? In a village, or small town... or perhaps even in a big one way back when you were closer connected to life... you depended on your neighbors, on the community. But then things get so big, there just isn't that connection.

I mean I don't know the people in my city. I can see American's suffer in New York on 9/11 and feel a connection for my countryman, but as a whole... who care's about New York? Who the heck cares about Colorado Springs? How can we possibly care about 7 billion people on the planet? I have wondered if the majority of our problems are simply from the disconnect that happens, and not so much the nuts and bolts of liberal v conservatives... or Bloods v Crips.

2013-09-11 5:29 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

Our country won't be overrun by the 'ignorant'-it will be overrun by the individuals who either fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that they are, in fact, THIEVES!  All the PollyAnna ideas, Free Trade, Capitalism, Fair, effective Democracy etc etc. are predicated on the notion that individuals will PLAY FAIR. That Individuals won't cheat, steal, lie.  But individuals DO lie, cheat, steal.  My 'hope' (my dream) is that the "collective" can influence/coherce the individual to play fair.   The best written, most well intentioned policy decision amounts to absolute s##t the very second an individual breaks the rules.  The problem isn't that we are a corrupt nation with a non-functioning form of govt.  The problem is that we are a corrupt PEOPLE with a system of govt. being consumed by liars, crooks and perverts.   Let's fix THAT!

 

I agree, Washington is an easy target, but it's the People that put them there. We get what we deserve.

But where is the accountability with the collective? I understand that people don't always have it, but how will that change with the collective?

Liberals like to rant about corporations as if they are some evil Borg entity consuming all that lays before them... I don't. But I do understand, that at some point, corporations take on a life of their own. They do what is best for them, without necessarily regard to others. And it is great to say boycott them and hit them in the pocket book... but how exactly do you boycott Johnson and Johnson... or Exxon/Mobil, of Chase/BOA/JP Morgan for that matter. Too big to fail, and too big to reign in.

I feel government is that now. Too big to reign in. Not some evil tyrannical entity acting as one... just a crap load of agencies all doing what is best for them and not others... too big to control.

So then how does that change with "the collective" socialist mentality? I'm not using "socialist" as a dirty word, but as an accurate political term. When does the collective become too big to control, and tramples on the rights of the individual?

I believe at the core the individual trumps the collective. That is true freedom. And no, the individual does not trump what is fair for others. But an individual can't trump another's individual right. That's where it ends. If we limit the size of government, we limit the size of corporations, and we limit the size of "group think", then it seems to me we get to a place that is pretty nice to live. Obviously that is my personal view of Utopia"... we all have our perfect pie and want a slice... but it seems to me that is where the most freedom is.

So, how does it 'end'?  Where is the punishment? And who exacts it?  The individual?  Or a 'collective' legal system.  IMO This is where the "individual" v. "collective" argument falls short.  Unless you live on an island unto yourself, then the individual rights of all your family, neighbors, friends etc get an equal voice in every decision, ever made....every.. single.. one.  Can you say 'chaos'. 

Mankind was formed in tribes.  Hierarchy and peers and majorities ruled the day.   The framers of the constitution got it wrong  IMO.  They crafted our country when they were bitter and resentful and short sighted.  It's NOT about individual rights and liberties.  And we've spent nearly 250 yrs. chasing our tails; living proof that the more RIGHTS you give an individual-the more infringed the rights of their neighbors become.  I don't know the answer, or if there IS an 'answer'.  But we'd better learn to all just get along.

 

OK, so WOW. And I'm not at all being a smart Alec. Help me understand. I seriously want to know. Because this is the front line of the debate these days...

Individual rights are not a set of arbitrary opinions and wish lists that keeps anything from happening. It is a set of rights laid out in the constitution. Ones that can be amended if everyone agrees. If there is conflict, it goes to SCOTUS. I'm sorry, but that is kind of a big deal. That no government or group can take from me  my Flying Spaghetti Monster given rights. I like it that way.

And Jeff I'm genuinely asking... what is it you see not working in our society that individual freedoms are standing in the way of? What impediment are they causing that is holding us back from true greatness?

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

2013-09-11 6:06 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by jeffnboise

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

The Constitution is just some piece of paper, and the only power it has is what we give it. Yes, it is laws... but WE agree it is a set of individual rights, and limits to federal power... not to mention all the other stuff on how to run the government. So sure... that's what we have. But it most certainly protects my individual rights, just ask SCOTUS.

But what I am asking about.. I apologizing if that is not what you are talking about... is the discussion these days of "collective rights" are more important to individual rights. And that the collective can trump the individual (mob rule to me). That's fine if that's what you want, but it isn't what we have.

For example... back ground checks... we decided we want prohibited people... that actually can't happen... because a felon has rights. We say he forfeited them... but you can't actually do that... never the less, that's what we got, and back ground checks do not in any way infringe upon my RTBA. So society get's a measure of safety, but my RTBA is intact.

Taking all guns... the collective (51%) decides that they don't want them. You can't do that, it infringes on my RTBA. Now the collective can indeed repeal the 2A. The collective at that point only needs a 2/3 majority, and then we can have the country we want with no guns. But as it stands... no.

We could get bogged down in what meets the 1st example, and what can be twisted to meet the 2nd, but the fact remains, I do have rights, and I don't want the mob taking them. And the SCOTUS says they can't. There is a lot of those examples today with safety, environment, and so on... yet they still have to work within the frame work of our constitution.

I do not see that as chaos. I do not see that as the Founders getting it wrong. I also don't see how it would be so much better, or the benefits you think we would have if it was different. So what would the benefits be? Did I just read you wrong? What issues would you see working better?

2013-09-11 6:17 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by chirunner134 I think people will embrace it when we learn not to be greedy and when we learn to accept others for who they are. Until then we will need laws to protect ourselves and others. We will have a small government when that is what we need.

Greed isn't necessarily a good word for it, because that gets thrown around in a lot of ways.  Most of my extended family thinks I'm the greediest person on earth, but it's because I don't give money where they WANT me to give money.  As in, I don't give it to them.  However, I give a huge chunk of what I earn to charity and do a lot of other things with my time, but that's irrelevant to most because I am choosing where to spend my money and the collective (aka government) isn't.

I also don't think we should be forced to accept others for who they are.  What if somebody's a serial killer, I'm not going to accept him.  What if somebody's a wife beater, I'm not going to accept him.  We have to have a level of acceptable behavior that doesn't infringe on individual rights or the rights of others but we can't just accept everything because that's anarchy.

I do agree that we need a smaller government. 

 



2013-09-11 7:10 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by jeffnboise

So, how does it 'end'?  Where is the punishment? And who exacts it?  The individual?  Or a 'collective' legal system.  IMO This is where the "individual" v. "collective" argument falls short.  Unless you live on an island unto yourself, then the individual rights of all your family, neighbors, friends etc get an equal voice in every decision, ever made....every.. single.. one.  Can you say 'chaos'. 

Mankind was formed in tribes.  Hierarchy and peers and majorities ruled the day.   The framers of the constitution got it wrong  IMO.  They crafted our country when they were bitter and resentful and short sighted.  It's NOT about individual rights and liberties.  And we've spent nearly 250 yrs. chasing our tails; living proof that the more RIGHTS you give an individual-the more infringed the rights of their neighbors become.  I don't know the answer, or if there IS an 'answer'.  But we'd better learn to all just get along.

I think you're mixing apples and dinosaurs.

There are two distinctly different things that you're talking about.  Every collection of people across the globe have a set of rules or laws that they live by.  Sometimes those laws are put forth in an oppressive way (think dictator), or a religious way (think theocracy) and then there's this thing called democracy where the people elect representatives who are "supposed" to represent their constituents to create laws based on everyone's collective input.  This system is supposed to give everyone an equal say in the laws of the land, so New York representatives aren't putting in place laws for Nebraskans and vice versa.

However, our founding fathers recognized that people who are put in power have throughout history tended to shift more towards the "dictator" route where they oppressively put laws in place that aren't truly what the "collective" wants or needs.  So, they guaranteed you, me, and even Powerman (debatable) individual rights that shall not be infringed.  These individual rights set limits as to what laws the representatives are allowed to put in place and act as a balancing mechanism.  The 2nd Amendment was put in place for what I call the ultimate balancing mechanism because ultimately he who has the guns will eventually get to dictate to those who don't.

So, in essence we already have something similar to what I think you're advocating when it comes to our laws.
As for individual rights I won't go so far as to say they're, but if we were to eliminate our individual rights and allow the government to determine what individuals can do I think you wouldn't be to accepting of that.

Don't forget, the "collective" was very religious when our country was founded.  If there were no individual rights then your kids would likely be going to religious indoctrination schools and the president would be head of the church.  We'd probably be a full on theocracy, to be honest if there weren't individual rights.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but I'm trying to give an example of why we have to have individual rights.  The collective will eb and flow over time.

2013-09-11 7:44 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Well tupuppy you might be right about greedy being overly used. Entitled is another word I getting sick of hearing.

If you invited your over to do work for your company over the weekend and not pay them I would say that is greedy. Not wanting to pick up the check for everyone at dinner is not greedy even though they might think it is. Some of the thinking people are greedy is because not walking in each other shoes its hard to understand there point of view.

When companies are willing to water down milk and add plastic to it to increase profits I do not think you give up government regulations. I know it happened it China but things like that happen here too just not as extreme.

I thinking more as groups of people getting along with other groups. Like people who feel there freedom is restricted because they can not harass gay people for being gay.
2013-09-11 9:06 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by chirunner134 Well tupuppy you might be right about greedy being overly used. Entitled is another word I getting sick of hearing. If you invited your over to do work for your company over the weekend and not pay them I would say that is greedy. Not wanting to pick up the check for everyone at dinner is not greedy even though they might think it is. Some of the thinking people are greedy is because not walking in each other shoes its hard to understand there point of view. When companies are willing to water down milk and add plastic to it to increase profits I do not think you give up government regulations. I know it happened it China but things like that happen here too just not as extreme. I thinking more as groups of people getting along with other groups. Like people who feel there freedom is restricted because they can not harass gay people for being gay.

I thought you might be referring to the gay issue on the tolerance piece, but I didn't want to assume. 

I also think the gay issue is a great example for both your post and Jeff's.  Back in the day the "collective" society didn't approve of same sex relationships so they didn't allow the civil laws to reflect them in marriage as well as other legal capacities.  However, as the "collective" mentality has changed for whatever reason and good or bad the civil laws are starting to reflect the will of the collective and many states are allowing for same sex marriages.  Obviously it's still a hot button issue and it's not the same everywhere, but I don't think anyone's ever accused our system of being fast.  Also, these are not individual rights that are changing they are civil laws that are changing.

I obviously have personal thoughts and feelings about SSM, but back to the Libertarian meme of this thread, I don't think the government should be in the "marriage" business at all for straight or same sex marriages.  I think the government should set up a civil union/partnership process with agreed upon restrictions such as your partner can't be a close relative type of stuff and be done with it.  If I want my best guy friend to inherit my stuff and have legal say in my medical care then so be it.
Churches can still have marriages and use whatever rules they want to, but the state component is the same.

2013-09-11 9:38 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by tuwood

I obviously have personal thoughts and feelings about SSM, but back to the Libertarian meme of this thread, I don't think the government should be in the "marriage" business at all for straight or same sex marriages.  I think the government should set up a civil union/partnership process with agreed upon restrictions such as your partner can't be a close relative type of stuff and be done with it.  If I want my best guy friend to inherit my stuff and have legal say in my medical care then so be it.
Churches can still have marriages and use whatever rules they want to, but the state component is the same.

Now see, right there... that's just brilliance. I do not disapprove of SSM on a religious basis... I disapprove of it because I'm not gay and I don't get it. For a while, I just didn't care... I mean it was a small issue really. But it got bigger... and finally, there is no rational way I could oppose SSM just from a individual freedom standpoint. None what so ever.

So just like you say, it should not be about mob rule. The government should not be in the business of protecting the mob and giving it perks. It should give perks to citizens. And the SCOTUS, ruled based on equal protection that that is exactly the case. And I agree with it 100%.

Both sides can actually agree on freedoms... they just can't agree on the same ones and what their vision of Utopia entails. Liberals seem to want to force what they want on others, but don't touch their abortions or speech, and same with conservatives with religion and guns... you know how those conservative love to cling to their guns and religion... Tongue out

2013-09-12 10:13 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

Sorry!  (shaking my head in my hands) I'm in a professional 'rut', so  I'm gonna ask that we pivot away from my previous comments and write them off as the insane musings of a jaded, Federal employee.  Foot in mouth   I could explain myself in far greater detail, but my shrink would feel like I'm cheating on her.  Sadly, I have a Pavlovian response anytime I hear the term 'smaller govt,'-in my own mind all I hear is 'blah blah...let's eliminate federal assistance programs...blah blah.'   It's my problem and I am seeking help for it. 

I'll be watching from the sidelines if anyone needs a crazy person. 



2013-09-12 12:00 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by jeffnboise

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

The Constitution is just some piece of paper, and the only power it has is what we give it. Yes, it is laws... but WE agree it is a set of individual rights, and limits to federal power... not to mention all the other stuff on how to run the government. So sure... that's what we have. But it most certainly protects my individual rights, just ask SCOTUS.

But what I am asking about.. I apologizing if that is not what you are talking about... is the discussion these days of "collective rights" are more important to individual rights. And that the collective can trump the individual (mob rule to me). That's fine if that's what you want, but it isn't what we have.

For example... back ground checks... we decided we want prohibited people... that actually can't happen... because a felon has rights. We say he forfeited them... but you can't actually do that... never the less, that's what we got, and back ground checks do not in any way infringe upon my RTBA. So society get's a measure of safety, but my RTBA is intact.

Taking all guns... the collective (51%) decides that they don't want them. You can't do that, it infringes on my RTBA. Now the collective can indeed repeal the 2A. The collective at that point only needs a 2/3 majority, and then we can have the country we want with no guns. But as it stands... no.

We could get bogged down in what meets the 1st example, and what can be twisted to meet the 2nd, but the fact remains, I do have rights, and I don't want the mob taking them. And the SCOTUS says they can't. There is a lot of those examples today with safety, environment, and so on... yet they still have to work within the frame work of our constitution.

I do not see that as chaos. I do not see that as the Founders getting it wrong. I also don't see how it would be so much better, or the benefits you think we would have if it was different. So what would the benefits be? Did I just read you wrong? What issues would you see working better?




This points out the basic philosophical difference between statist and liberty ideology. Where do your rights come from? Statist believe rights are given to you by man and place their faith in government. The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country. Neither side will ever convince the other side on who is right or who is wrong and the ideology is as much a part of you as your views on social issues.

But my bearings are in line with this Democrat;

"The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK
2013-09-12 2:04 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

The Constitution is just some piece of paper, and the only power it has is what we give it. Yes, it is laws... but WE agree it is a set of individual rights, and limits to federal power... not to mention all the other stuff on how to run the government. So sure... that's what we have. But it most certainly protects my individual rights, just ask SCOTUS.

But what I am asking about.. I apologizing if that is not what you are talking about... is the discussion these days of "collective rights" are more important to individual rights. And that the collective can trump the individual (mob rule to me). That's fine if that's what you want, but it isn't what we have.

For example... back ground checks... we decided we want prohibited people... that actually can't happen... because a felon has rights. We say he forfeited them... but you can't actually do that... never the less, that's what we got, and back ground checks do not in any way infringe upon my RTBA. So society get's a measure of safety, but my RTBA is intact.

Taking all guns... the collective (51%) decides that they don't want them. You can't do that, it infringes on my RTBA. Now the collective can indeed repeal the 2A. The collective at that point only needs a 2/3 majority, and then we can have the country we want with no guns. But as it stands... no.

We could get bogged down in what meets the 1st example, and what can be twisted to meet the 2nd, but the fact remains, I do have rights, and I don't want the mob taking them. And the SCOTUS says they can't. There is a lot of those examples today with safety, environment, and so on... yet they still have to work within the frame work of our constitution.

I do not see that as chaos. I do not see that as the Founders getting it wrong. I also don't see how it would be so much better, or the benefits you think we would have if it was different. So what would the benefits be? Did I just read you wrong? What issues would you see working better?

This points out the basic philosophical difference between statist and liberty ideology. Where do your rights come from? Statist believe rights are given to you by man and place their faith in government. The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country. Neither side will ever convince the other side on who is right or who is wrong and the ideology is as much a part of you as your views on social issues. But my bearings are in line with this Democrat; "The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK

I like that! 

2013-09-12 3:38 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by jeffnboise
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by jeffnboise

'constitution=law of the land'  That's a GIVEN!   My statement was questioning the origins of the document-NOT it's current existence.  I'm in Law Enforcement, so it's kinda a big deal to me, too.   Many folks who wrap themselves up too tight in the constitution, however, develop a rather short memory for exactly what all is going on in there.   Drug Use, Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights-they're all covered in there.  Yet almost every day-on this very forum someone states how they would simply 'circument' a current law.  Or simple disregard any laws that may be pending (think 2A here).

There is no such thing as an Individual Freedom.  There are laws, rules and regulations that govern our actions; that tell us what IS and what IS NOT acceptable behavior.   That's not freedom-that's simply following someone else's law.  Laws created, bargained, and passed by a Collective.  

OK, that I understand. But not really...

Sorry!  (shaking my head in my hands) I'm in a professional 'rut', so  I'm gonna ask that we pivot away from my previous comments and write them off as the insane musings of a jaded, Federal employee.  Foot in mouth   I could explain myself in far greater detail, but my shrink would feel like I'm cheating on her.  Sadly, I have a Pavlovian response anytime I hear the term 'smaller govt,'-in my own mind all I hear is 'blah blah...let's eliminate federal assistance programs...blah blah.'   It's my problem and I am seeking help for it. 

I'll be watching from the sidelines if anyone needs a crazy person. 

Excellent Jeff. I feel we have made a real break through today. See you next week at 4:00. Tongue out

 

Oh ya, and I am hopelessly cynical. Laughing



Edited by powerman 2013-09-12 3:55 PM
2013-09-12 3:53 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by Jackemy1  This points out the basic philosophical difference between statist and liberty ideology. Where do your rights come from? Statist believe rights are given to you by man and place their faith in government. The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country. Neither side will ever convince the other side on who is right or who is wrong and the ideology is as much a part of you as your views on social issues. But my bearings are in line with this Democrat; "The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK

I disagree. If that is how you see it, that is fine. No problems here. But that does not work for me.

By the above statement you paint this into a religious corner. Even if it's not a Christian one. I believe there is something bigger than me. I'm not talking Supreme beings. I think there is a bigger purpose to this all... and maybe there isn't, but just because I say there is and that is how I want to believe, there is. I believe people at their core want to be free. If given the choice, they would choose it. I believe people want to be free from harm and oppression. We can simply call it the  "human spirit". I know people are capable of all bad things, but they are also capable of all the good ones too.

Now I don't know if my belief in a higher purpose/state, or human spirit qualifies as a "Ethereal thing" for your example, but it certainly isn't a religion. It isn't a divine entity that gave me my desire to be free. As it stands right now, God does or does not exist. If not, then the Constitution is exactly that... a peace of parchment. But no matter how you look at it, our Founders were inspired to be better, and so they shaped what we have.We as a people aspire to be better... it's a work in progress. Tongue out

I just get tired of the same old argument, that you have to believe in Devine gift giving to buy into the Constitution, or you are... well Godless commies... I mean that is what it comes down to right? Human/secular powered statistics... or devine/righteous liberty loving people.

2013-09-13 9:40 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by Jackemy1  This points out the basic philosophical difference between statist and liberty ideology. Where do your rights come from? Statist believe rights are given to you by man and place their faith in government. The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country. Neither side will ever convince the other side on who is right or who is wrong and the ideology is as much a part of you as your views on social issues. But my bearings are in line with this Democrat; "The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK

I disagree. If that is how you see it, that is fine. No problems here. But that does not work for me.

By the above statement you paint this into a religious corner. Even if it's not a Christian one. I believe there is something bigger than me. I'm not talking Supreme beings. I think there is a bigger purpose to this all... and maybe there isn't, but just because I say there is and that is how I want to believe, there is. I believe people at their core want to be free. If given the choice, they would choose it. I believe people want to be free from harm and oppression. We can simply call it the  "human spirit". I know people are capable of all bad things, but they are also capable of all the good ones too.

Now I don't know if my belief in a higher purpose/state, or human spirit qualifies as a "Ethereal thing" for your example, but it certainly isn't a religion. It isn't a divine entity that gave me my desire to be free. As it stands right now, God does or does not exist. If not, then the Constitution is exactly that... a peace of parchment. But no matter how you look at it, our Founders were inspired to be better, and so they shaped what we have.We as a people aspire to be better... it's a work in progress. Tongue out

I just get tired of the same old argument, that you have to believe in Devine gift giving to buy into the Constitution, or you are... well Godless commies... I mean that is what it comes down to right? Human/secular powered statistics... or devine/righteous liberty loving people.




Hey, I didn't make up my statement on my own. What I said is just fact and not my opinion.

Thousands of years or human experience, wisdom, virtue and faith brought the age of Enlightenment. It just so happened that America's founding and founders were heavily influenced the Enlightened philosophies of that time period. The Declaration of Independence is arguably the greatest political document of the Enlightenment age. Our country was the first country born from the Age of Enlightenment. It is what it is.

My point is Conservative and Liberty folks ideas about the rights of humankind fall in line with the philosophies of Enlightenment and by historical happenstance the political ideology that sparked the creation of this nation. Statist's thinking fall in line with the philosophies of Thomas More, Plato, and Hobbes.I am not aware of anyone who signed on the Declaration of Independence who was influenced by More, Hobbes, or Plato but there are many examples today of their influence in American political ideology. Heck, the majority of the citizens of this nation agree with the ideology of statism over the political ideology developed in the age of enlightenment.

It is just different ways to view our existence.

Now the Constitution has nothing to do with God any other divinity. The Constitution is just a simple contract between the government and the citizens. I guess the only thought I have regarding the different perspective between Statist and a Liberty types who confers right in this contract.

A Statist would argue the rights are conferred from the State to its citizens. A Liberty type would argue that the individuals confer rights to the government in the form of enumerated powers in exchange.for common good. So you see, you really don't need to believe is God to believe in the US Constitution but understanding that this country was founded in that divine belief helps to understand the roots of this country.



Edited by Jackemy1 2013-09-13 9:47 AM


2013-09-13 10:07 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by Jackemy1  Hey, I didn't make up my statement on my own. What I said is just fact and not my opinion. Thousands of years or human experience, wisdom, virtue and faith brought the age of Enlightenment. It just so happened that America's founding and founders were heavily influenced the Enlightened philosophies of that time period. The Declaration of Independence is arguably the greatest political document of the Enlightenment age. Our country was the first country born from the Age of Enlightenment. It is what it is. My point is Conservative and Liberty folks ideas about the rights of humankind fall in line with the philosophies of Enlightenment and by historical happenstance the political ideology that sparked the creation of this nation. Statist's thinking fall in line with the philosophies of Thomas More, Plato, and Hobbes.I am not aware of anyone who signed on the Declaration of Independence who was influenced by More, Hobbes, or Plato but there are many examples today of their influence in American political ideology. Heck, the majority of the citizens of this nation agree with the ideology of statism over the political ideology developed in the age of enlightenment. It is just different ways to view our existence. Now the Constitution has nothing to do with God any other divinity. The Constitution is just a simple contract between the government and the citizens. I guess the only thought I have regarding the different perspective between Statist and a Liberty types who confers right in this contract. A Statist would argue the rights are conferred from the State to its citizens. A Liberty type would argue that the individuals confer rights to the government in the form of enumerated powers in exchange.for common good. So you see, you really don't need to believe is God to believe in the US Constitution but understanding that this country was founded in that divine belief helps to understand the roots of this country.

OK, I understand the roots of the country and where our laws came from, but you said, "The Liberty crowd believe rights are God (or whatever etheral thing that floats you boat) given and place their faith in God and country"... and then finished with... "But my bearings are in line with this Democrat; "The right's of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God" - JFK".

So you framed your statements around God to begin with. I'm glad to see I don't have to believe in God, nor do I want to make it sound as if you think I do, but it does not even have to go there. It is very simple to say the People have the power and confer that to the government versus the State has the power and give it to the people and leave it at that... in fact, if it was packaged as such and sold accordingly, I do believe many more people would buy into it.That is what we have, it just seems lost on some.

This argument does sort of have a history of falling into the trap of religion... that I don't have to listen to your stupid socialist government because my rights come straight from the hand of God and he trumps you. I'm good with the People keeping the power simply because it's better than the State having it.Wink

 

As it stands... I have never thought our government to be evil. They never took a thing in their life... The People willingly gave it. I think too much has been given. I would like to reverse that trend.

2013-09-13 11:27 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
I do find it a bit funny. Talking to my gf about this last night. She grew up in Yugoslavia and even voted for Bosnia to leave the state. As she explained it to me that communism is ultimately is suppose to become a libertarian style government if they even had one. That the People are all equal and deserve the same rights because those are human rights and not something granted by a ruling class.

Until we reach a star trek like world I doubt it will ever work.



2013-09-13 1:58 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by chirunner134 I do find it a bit funny. Talking to my gf about this last night. She grew up in Yugoslavia and even voted for Bosnia to leave the state. As she explained it to me that communism is ultimately is suppose to become a libertarian style government if they even had one. That the People are all equal and deserve the same rights because those are human rights and not something granted by a ruling class. Until we reach a star trek like world I doubt it will ever work.

I was talking about that with a friend the other day too.  If you look at it in the purest form Communism is almost the perfect example of "everyone is equal" type of government.  Everyone does their fair share and everyone gets the same.

However, we came to the conclusion that it's counter to human nature where people want to be better, stronger, and faster than everyone else.  So, when you do have a communist government there is always corruption and people gaming the system to one up everyone else.

Capitalism on the other hand is more geared towards our human nature because it allows the competitive and driven people to work their way to the top and the lazy slugs to fall to the bottom.  However, a pure form of capitalism would be really bad as well because if you find yourself injured or in a mental state where you're unable to work you're pretty much dead.

So, the US in concept is trying to balance both philosophies in that we provide a capitalistic economy, but we have safety nets for those that need some help.  The big issue is the safety nets aren't really safety nets any more, they're ways of life for far to many.  We also have corruption within both systems as well which doesn't help either.

2013-09-13 8:48 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by tuwood

Capitalism on the other hand is more geared towards our human nature because it allows the competitive and driven people to work their way to the top and the lazy slugs to fall to the bottom.  However, a pure form of capitalism would be really bad as well because if you find yourself injured or in a mental state where you're unable to work you're pretty much dead.

So, the US in concept is trying to balance both philosophies in that we provide a capitalistic economy, but we have safety nets for those that need some help.  The big issue is the safety nets aren't really safety nets any more, they're ways of life for far to many.  We also have corruption within both systems as well which doesn't help either.

You can't really confuse economic systems with government systems.

As far as the bolded... I don't really have any idea how true that statement is. I have a feeling, that is is not as true as many want to think. The way it is used... is the common complaint of too many people living off their hard work... the 47%. And it makes for good stories and sound bites on FOX, but I don't buy it.

Like we said... if people are entitled to a benefit... then they are. And many MANY people on the top end of things, do exactly the same thing... take everything they are entitled too. Take every tax deduction they can, shuffle money to shelters, do wehat ever they legally can to pay as little as possible. How is that any different than those on the bottom taking every advantage given to them????

Now fraud is just fraud. Illegal activity. And there are just as many on top doing it as there are those on the bottom.  It's only breaking the law if you get caught right?

I actually don't know any in the middle that work hard and pay their way and don't take ANY benefits for themselves so that other people can receive it. Do you?



Edited by powerman 2013-09-13 8:58 PM
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » When will American's embrace Libertarian views? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5
 
 
RELATED ARTICLES
date : February 28, 2012
author : IManTagalong
comments : 2
This is an article about my experience as a husband of a triathlete, while she trained for the Orangeman Triathlon
 
date : April 12, 2007
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 0
For athletes, the saying “Drink responsibly” holds true for all fluids. Don’t let dehydration—or overhydration—hurt your ability to enjoy exercise and perform at your best.
date : April 2, 2006
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
The weather is warming and the season is getting started for many triathletes. Keep these tips in mind to avoid heat cramps, exhaustion and stroke.
 
date : April 2, 2006
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
I am a 36 y/o male and this will be my fifth season doing triathlons. I have noticed that whenever I run for any period of time over 40 minutes I get a "pins and needles" feeling in my right foot.
date : December 4, 2005
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 0
At ADA’s annual meeting registered dietitians presented the following information that addresses some of the nutrition questions and concerns of health-conscious exercisers and competitive athletes.
 
date : July 29, 2005
author : Ron
comments : 5
You have just imported a plan successfully, how to best view and print it? Let me count thy ways.
date : February 13, 2005
author : AMSSM
comments : 2
So how sick is too sick to train? The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine answers just that and many other questions.
 
date : January 24, 2005
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
New athlete injury Q&A with the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.