EPT1. Free market; free from government encroachment, freedom of the individual.
2. Free groceries.
DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
1. Free market; free from government encroachment, freedom of the individual. 2. Free groceries. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the term liberal in the literature just means classical liberalism (though classical liberals were a diverse bunch, with people like mill who also recognized social welfare). it is only in popular politics that people use liberal to talk about the left. so i guess this new american usage of the term must have been a unique historic creation. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
While the majority may still be fine with being brainwashed 24/7 today, it just shows that there's enough of a minority that is aware of their lies, to make them go that far as to call us "radicals". But thats all we're not. The radicals are the ones promoting endless war, centralized power, and a bankrupt society, enslaved by debt. All we want is peace. A true republic under law as it was meant to be. The MSM couldn't be more wrong. I hope people can see through this eventually. See through it all. It's not left or right, it's up and down, folks. Let go of your preconceived political notions and realize you're being conned. Also, Glenn Beck sucks cawks, lols. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2009 07:47 HeadBangaa wrote: No, I invented it. but you are not too relevant | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 07:51 Railz wrote: I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market. Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On April 16 2009 07:59 TanGeng wrote: Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems. Yes but, the policies come from the Companies exercising their right to a free market by freely investing in other countries. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 08:01 Railz wrote: Yes but, the policies come from the Companies exercising their right to a free market by freely investing in other countries. What is the definition of "free market" that justifies subsidization? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Herbert Croly, philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as modern liberalism in the United States. Croly presented the case for a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind," ideas that are now an integral part of American government. Croly founded the periodical, The New Republic, still in circulation, which continues to present liberal ideas. His ideas influenced the political views of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In 1909, Croly published The Promise of American Life, in which he proposed raising the general standard of living by means of economic planning and in which he opposed aggressive unionization. In The Techniques of Democracy (1915) he argued against both dogmatic individualism and dogmatic socialism. Take it for what it's worth. It's also interesting that the private media is responsible for the misrepresentation and lack of coverage for libertarians, and company. You can call them "elitist", but at their heart they're serving parent corporations like GE, Disney, etc. The coverage might be improved with a national news charter.  | ||
|
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On April 16 2009 06:52 HeadBangaa wrote: I am preparing for a local tea party in San Diego. I've made 20 bootleg copies of America: Freedom to Fasicm, which I will distribute. i was expecting something pretty far out, but this is a really interesting documentary | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Ahh yes CENTRAL planning - in moderation! The true pragmatist. As long as you agree with the flavor of government paternalism, it doesn't suck that much. On April 16 2009 08:57 Jibba wrote: Take it for what it's worth. It's also interesting that the private media is responsible for the misrepresentation and lack of coverage for libertarians, and company. You can call them "elitist", but at their heart they're serving parent corporations like GE, Disney, etc. The coverage might be improved with a national news charter. I think it's fine. Libertarians have the internet and complain all you want about the private cable channels, but they are hell of a lot better now that there cable channels in addition to the broadcast networks. Back then the TV stations ran on the government script and had the fairness doctrine to boot. Can't imagine how a national news charter wouldn't just be a step backwards. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:28 Savio wrote: "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman" there's one flaw. there HAS to be losers. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On April 15 2009 16:07 Tyrant wrote: I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people. You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize. Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship. Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2009 09:26 TanGeng wrote: Ahh yes CENTRAL planning - in moderation! The true pragmatist. As long as you agree with the flavor of government paternalism, it doesn't suck that much. in light of the prevalent social realities then, seeing government as a potential force for good is rather understandable. the typical thought process for government control in the period tends to be, recognize problem, recognize a situation where the problem is no more, and put government in-between. the problem being the lack of attention to the means of achieving social objectives, but that does not mean the objectives themselves are at fault. the charge of paternalism relies on the characterisation of government action as control rather than the enforcement of justice. there are plenty of coercive mechanisms in a political scheme applied to imperfect society, libertarian ones included. the enforcement of one's property claim is forceful, but it is not paternalistic because the action is understood as maintaining justice etc. the question is merely whether there is an actionable standard of justice in the government's aims, not the general presence of government. i dont know anything about that guy. the pragmatist flavor in the american left owns more to people like dewey, so you are barking up the wrong tree here. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7290 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:41 Jibba wrote: Are you sure? I remember Beck being on board for the Patriot Act at the beginning and unless he's changed within the past year or two, he was certainly for it in the latter years of the Bush administration. I was mostly indifferent until I saw the rapture idiots he brought on to talk about Iran and how Ahmajenidad was the black knight in Revelations. This is when he officially became fucking douche bag to me. I could disagree with him and that was fine, but hes a fucking nutbag. That and all the "left behind" bullshit and "is obama the anti-christ?" I was down by the state capitol here in Lansing, Michigan today. It was a sad sight. 99% were old white men and women who are completely close minded and douchebags. The our religion is right, what do you mean you arent christian, gays are going to hell, still using the word "colored" morons. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 09:41 cz wrote: Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all. That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few. For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia. For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there. For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong. For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities. The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more. But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that! | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
That is the way people think before they understand economics. That is what I have called on these forums "misguided common sense". And its simply not true. In a free market system, voluntary exchange by definition (including trade) makes both participants better off and nobody loses. It is not a zero sum game. That doesn't mean the world is perfect, but it does mean that there is nothing inherently built into a free market that means there has to be losers. The closest argument you could have is these 3 cases: monopoly, externalities, and public goods. Those are the classic cases of when the market fails but we have already instituted ways to deal with all 3. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On April 16 2009 08:07 TanGeng wrote: What is the definition of "free market" that justifies subsidization? Subsidization is usually a form to start up or save an industry. Lets take an easy subsidized market within USA borders; its agricultural industry is right up there as one of the oldest and overly subsidized industry - but it stemmed from a necessary evil when farmers were not planting the correct crops that would've eventually led to disruption of food exports and soil exhaustion. The problem with laissez faire Free Market is it emphasizes personal profit, which is all well and good but places no weight on the future. For the record, I believe the agricultural industry is beyond the point where it needs to be subsidized, but the point stands, research and production still needs guidance and humans are still stuck with that humanistic trait called greed. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
If things continue the way they are today then revolution may be the only option available to the American people to regain their freedom and liberty. If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so. Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants, this time may come again lest we allow our freedom to be stolen from us in the name of a war on terror which is imaginary and created for precisely the purpose of creating a police state system with an invisible threat to give it legitimacy. 9/11 was an inside job and those responsible for this remain in control of the American political system today. These popular press headlines serve to shift peoples focus from the legitimate struggle of true American patriots branding them as radical extremists and terrorists while ignoring the moderates who are calling for much the same thing though would like to avoid violence if possible. Those who would fight for their freedom will be branded as terrorists and taken off to Guantanamo bay and other offshore torture camps like those in Turkmenistan or Poland. Obama said he would shut these places down but instead he has expanded them. The people now are coming to realise the truth of the situation and so I believe that the tyrants will fail, but only if the people stand up and defend their freedom. This is not about left and right, both sides work for the same people, this is about the entire political system. | ||
| ||
