There are always outliers in every case, but it's not like gov't can force a massive change without the society actually going in that direction in the first place.
Gov't can't today dictate that all cars must fly instead of drive on the roads. Why can't the gov't do so? Because we don't have real flying cars yet.
Once the economy/society creates the flying cars (if ever), then the gov't can come up with whatever laws outlawing normal driving cars, because even with a huge demand for flying cars and most people buying those instead, some people would still drive.
Same with child labour. Same with racism. Same with anything that society moves towards first and then some politician decides it's time for him to make a name for himself on a non-controversial issue that will only concern a tiny minority of cases but not the general population, who has already accepted the new reality WITHOUT the need for any such laws.
It's not about 'going', it's about setting the affairs in an appropriate manner in the global economy. The physical location doesn't matter anymore, didn't you know that, headsqure?
- if YOUR principles take over, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.
That's exactly what happened in those revolutions you are referring to, and it continued for decades much after the revolutions themselves were over.
YOUR ideology is going to cause that, it's a fact, because it was your ideology that caused it in those previous cases.
USA was designed to be the freest country in the world artificially and it created the most of the wealth in a short period of time while it had that maximum amount of freedom, and the people became wealthier for it, not poorer.
Your problem I already know - you are a jealous person, hungry for power, but jealous of natural success of others, and you wish to steal much of that, not just to participate in a voluntary exchange in the free market, you want actual redistribution of work of some towards others (and really, the underlying goal of all such ideologues is gain of personal power). I see you as an impotent tyrant, impotent, because you just can't get there yourself, but somebody ELSE will get there with the same ideology, and there WILL BE poor people dying on the streets.
Same as after the Russian revolution there were people dying on the streets, people killed in the civil wars, people starving because the 'new regime' simply took everything from them that they ever worked for and created.
There were no people dying on the streets prior to the Revolutions, and that's the sad part - someone like you is going to lead the people in that direction and they don't even understand it.
As to your implication that it will somehow concern those who DO understand it - yes, it will concern them, in that it will decrease their overall wealth, because wars are just bad for the economy, they don't produce anything of any value that the markets want, they destroy.
But plenty of the people who know what this is all about have better plans today, than they had long ago, it's a global world.
There is only one law, that, which governs. The government of USA was puny, tiny, compared to what it is today exactly when the individual freedoms were maximised and allowed the people to create the most wealth (and then they squandered it over the next 100 years of-course by growing government and reducing freedoms).
Government has the authority to set the law based on the silent or explicit cooperation of the majority. If people rise today and march towards your capital city and then take down the government, then it's over, that gov't doesn't exist at all, but unless the people do it, then the gov't has at least the implicit cooperation from the people.
Every State is responsible for upholding some form of criminal and contract law, and the size of the business has no bearing on what the gov't can do to it (indeed, we KNOW what the gov't can do to businesses, anything, from total annihilation to enormous illegal bailouts and even starting illegal wars to provide for very lucrative contracts).
Size of government does not matter.
Size of government does not matter as long as it can perform the actual mandate that is given to it, and none of what YOU are talking about is in that mandate.
Certainly private health care and private insurance did a much better job at actually getting care to the people than gov't mandated BS system does. Same with everything else, including SS, individual freedom to live one's life as one sees fit, this includes the right to do drugs. Then there are wages and money, education, due process etc.
As to your fallacy of a question:
so do we kill the patient, or cure him?
you are obviously approaching it from your tyrannical anti-freedom perspective, which includes establishing a big enough gov't to steal and redistribute wealth and to affect the free market forces in order to achieve some form of socialist/fascist goals (and yes, fascism is a form of socialism too, it's just smarter than socialism).
The correct question is this: are you interested in freedom or not? People came to USA to get freedom, freedom from their tyrannical governments, and freedom allowed the people to become very wealthy, the creation of wealth was unlike anywhere else in any previous time period on this planet. That was done with almost a non-existing government, definitely without 99% of all the regulations, definitely without any income/corporate/payroll taxes, definitely without SS, Medicare, wage and price controls, currency printing and all of the unconstitutional wars.
The correct question is this: WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO GO NEXT, when you turn USA into what they ran away from in the first place?
Well, I know how to do it, today it's a bit different, you don't just run away from a country, you run away from the system by using it in such a manner, as to prevent the system from tracking all of your activities.
Personal freedoms cannot be 'gleefully tramped upon by the free market', because personal freedoms - rights of the individual, are only meaningful in the context of the relationship between the individual and the collective.
There is no such thing as a 'right' that defines interaction between two peers, two individuals or two businesses or individual and a business (businesses are people, and what I mean by that is that people own businesses. Corporate protection by gov't creates a different kind of a business - a gov't protected entity that is above a normal individual or a business).
A 'right' is only there to set limit the amount of interference that gov't can impose upon an individual or a business. A 'right' is not there to define interaction between 2 individuals, it has no meaning in that context. One person killing another person is just murder, but it's not violation of a right to life in the sense that it is not an organisation that has law in its hands that is killing the individual with the silent cooperation of the voting (or non-voting) majority.
What I am saying is that there is no meaningful definition of the word 'right' outside of the interaction between and individual and the collective.
As to free market 'trampling' upon freedoms - that's a pure nonsense declaration designed to confuse the weak-minded.
Free market is not lawlessness, it is a system that sets into law what a contract is, what private property is and it is designed to maximise individual rights, including right to property and it is designed to uphold the contract law.
If the contract law is not upheld by the government, then it must be upheld in other ways, so private courtrooms and private security force and private insurance is just as good and I have no preference towards the government solution at all.
Free market is a system of voluntary participation, which part of 'voluntary' means 'trampling freedoms'? None. It's your Orwellian inner-tyrant talking.
It is none of your business what other people decide to do with themselves. It is not your life.
You are completely free to limit yourself to whatever, you are absolutely outside of your boundaries telling people how you want them to behave.
You also don't understand simple economics - with more demand and with enough freedom there will be more supply, it's the law, it's not up to negotiations.
You feel that your three kids have more of a right to live than my one kid, simply because they out number my kid, and thus can take whatever the fuck they want from my one kid.. You are proposing tyranny of the majority. And it is wrong.
Oh, and as to the profit motive - that's right. That's the ONLY motive that increases the overall wealth in the market because it allows allocating resources efficiently. There is no other mechanism known to men to do so, no amount of central planning, no amount of dictatorship and totalitarianism can do as good of a job allocating resources as private individuals and businesses within the context of free market (market free of gov't intervention).
The more profit the better.
Profit is VIRTUE IN ITSELF, because it is the only real indicator telling us whether the enterprise is worthwhile or worthless and which way to move.
There is no child labour because of industrial revolution and capitalism, which increased productivity of the population to the point, when parents didn't have to send their kids to work.
Or did you think somebody forced the parents to do so? Or do you believe that gov't has wealth that it gets from anywhere else rather than stealing it from the people who produce it?
Gov't has nothing, children always worked until free market capitalism and industrialisation increased people's productivity by applying savings as investment to build/acquire better tools.
It's capital that makes people more productive, because capital creates better tools, and so instead of a stick, the person gets a shovel and then an excavator and can do work of hundreds of people by himself.
Without free market capitalism and industrialisation children still would have worked since very young age, and now, that USA has abandoned the principles of freedom, children WILL WORK ONCE AGAIN, and they will starve and that's what your bankrupt ideology is leading to, circlehead.
As to pinkertons, etc. - I would absolutely protect my private property with private security force, and that's my absolute right as a property owner and it's my responsibility as well.
Gov't is tyranny, and those who promote more of it are the tyrants.
I don't know what you think you mean and what you think your quotes are and clearly I am not going to bother rereading any of your insane comments.
Surviving of the fittest is completely relative to the situation, so if the situation is such, that the ones surviving are in possession of something, be it real wealth or a printing press - they are the fittest then at that moment. However I don't think you've seen anything yet, nobody had to REALLY SURVIVE yet and those who are just printing money right now and those who you think are NOT surviving (which is nonsense as well), they are not yet in the position to know whether they ARE in fact fittest or not.
The people who really are the fittest are those who actually over-produce something that others want and can exchange the fruits of their labour with others.
And I am just saying that colonising the Moon is just as a fine goal as any to steal a bunch of money, and nobody even has to go there, but fine movie footage can be produced regardless.
To the contrary, rockets would help get stuff to the Moon, which currently is a big obstacle to a lunar colony.
- so you are saying that the Moon is a big obstacle to a lunar colony? Obviously, that's what I said, that's why he'll need a lot of movie shooting gear and a professional to do it.
Oh, Gingrich also talked about colonising Mars. He'll need to bring tons of red mud to shoot footage of that environment.
At Chernobyl they had to dive into the water to release a valve (suicide mission, obviously). As I recall the first team couldn't even find it, because ultra-intense alpha radiation had turned the water into H2O2 and it oxidized their suits, skin, and equipment too quickly.
- where do you get your insane information, do you just come up with it as you go alone?
The very fact that I have conceded that we may not be to the point that I have described says otherwise.
- no it doesn't. You don't get the numeric advantage and you don't get the fact that you'll have bloody war on your hands with your ideas about forcing people to behave how you want them to behave so you can rule them.
Even when it takes 40 years or 75 years, eventually people rise up and destroy the dictatorship.
Meanwhile, the fact that you apparently have no problem with humanity reaching such a breaking point says you've got some problems of your own.
- I do not impose my view of how people should apply their own rights upon others, I don't want to be a dictator.
I want free market, where people hit the problems and search for solutions within the context of individual freedom. I am much better person than you.
As I said earlier: your government is who governs you.
USA people have FAILED to uphold the Constitution, they have failed to make sure that only people who uphold the Constitution are in power and any transgression in this regard is punished.
My point stays: you deserve the gov't you have and the gov't you have is the gov't you have created, and now it is what it is.
It's the gov't that is responsible for all of the moral hazards and destruction of the economy. You like some of the moral hazards provided (fake money, FDIC, FDA, EPA, HUD, FHA, SS, Medicare, etc.etc.), and that's total corruption of the government process, by expecting all of those things you give green light to all other things that gov't does (illegal wars, killing, destruction of privacy, corporate control of gov't, etc.)
As to menacing - that's retarded. It's called setting an ACCENT on something.
Why would I blame myself and what kind of argument is that?
I said: the children shouldn't be paying for these immoral obligations placed upon them by the former generations, and this is correct. Their ancestors have moved to USA in a search for freedom and better life, clearly the children can do the same thing - move in a search of freedom and better life for themselves.
As to fascist-socialist: any fascist is a socialist. Left/Right is meaningless in this sense, fascism is a socialist movement, the difference is very minor. Fascists are simply smarter than socialists, in that Fascist do not seek to control the production process, they just want to promote their single party system and impose huge taxes on companies and people to achieve their goal of 'unity' and totalitarianism, it's really similar to any religious ideology that wants to impose its ideas of 'purity' upon others, but it is not trying to actually run businesses, they leave that to individuals and provide protection from competition but tax the profits to the maximum possible.
Socialists are dumber, they want more control over the means of production, and they have their own religion of creating an 'equal society', also a quasi-religious and an impossible goal, which can never be achieved, because most people don't want to be equal to others, people actually want to excel in something and live better than the other guy. Forcing communal ownership of businesses of-course means that the socialists will get worse results from their labour, it's akin to running businesses by committee, not by real owner in search of profits. Socialists are all about huge regulations and taxes of businesses and labour, all that nonsense, for the supposed equality, but in reality it's of-course just another way to create a dependent class and rule it.
The 'right/left' ideology has no meaning, in fact those are terms so loaded, anybody using them doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and clearly doesn't want to talk about the actual issues behind the thinly veiled lack of understanding.
You have a natural right to children except in cases of emergency
You have a natural right to freedom unless it's war on drugs. You have a natural right to freedom unless it's war on terror. You have a natural right to property unless it's EPA. You have a natural right to life unless it's Obama with a drone.
RIGHTS, just like the CONSTITUTION are needed more than ever EXACTLY when it's an 'emergency', because I can put you into a state of emergency on a daily basis and deny you the rights so easily, you won't know what hit you, and then you will have no right, 0 rights, and you know what? Judging by your approach and attitude I don't even care. You sound exactly like a person who wants to limit the rights of other people with the power of gov't, in my book that's the only real reason to deprive YOU of your rights.
The two parents and one kid get the government handouts/rations and kids 2 & 3 get none
- gov't has NOTHING.
Whatever gov't 'has' it has to STEAL from people who in fact create that wealth. You'll eventually find out that people's natural instincts to their rights to life and procreation and property will put them at odds with whatever 'government' is, and gov't only exists by the silent cooperation of the crowd.
I see your approach leading to just another bloody conflict, another civil war, but looks like that's exactly something you'd be all for - why, it'd kill off a few million people.
Slashdot Mirror
There are always outliers in every case, but it's not like gov't can force a massive change without the society actually going in that direction in the first place.
Gov't can't today dictate that all cars must fly instead of drive on the roads. Why can't the gov't do so? Because we don't have real flying cars yet.
Once the economy/society creates the flying cars (if ever), then the gov't can come up with whatever laws outlawing normal driving cars, because even with a huge demand for flying cars and most people buying those instead, some people would still drive.
Same with child labour.
Same with racism.
Same with anything that society moves towards first and then some politician decides it's time for him to make a name for himself on a non-controversial issue that will only concern a tiny minority of cases but not the general population, who has already accepted the new reality WITHOUT the need for any such laws.
It's not about 'going', it's about setting the affairs in an appropriate manner in the global economy. The physical location doesn't matter anymore, didn't you know that, headsqure?
if you are poor, do you just die in the street?
- if YOUR principles take over, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.
That's exactly what happened in those revolutions you are referring to, and it continued for decades much after the revolutions themselves were over.
YOUR ideology is going to cause that, it's a fact, because it was your ideology that caused it in those previous cases.
USA was designed to be the freest country in the world artificially and it created the most of the wealth in a short period of time while it had that maximum amount of freedom, and the people became wealthier for it, not poorer.
Your problem I already know - you are a jealous person, hungry for power, but jealous of natural success of others, and you wish to steal much of that, not just to participate in a voluntary exchange in the free market, you want actual redistribution of work of some towards others (and really, the underlying goal of all such ideologues is gain of personal power). I see you as an impotent tyrant, impotent, because you just can't get there yourself, but somebody ELSE will get there with the same ideology, and there WILL BE poor people dying on the streets.
Same as after the Russian revolution there were people dying on the streets, people killed in the civil wars, people starving because the 'new regime' simply took everything from them that they ever worked for and created.
There were no people dying on the streets prior to the Revolutions, and that's the sad part - someone like you is going to lead the people in that direction and they don't even understand it.
As to your implication that it will somehow concern those who DO understand it - yes, it will concern them, in that it will decrease their overall wealth, because wars are just bad for the economy, they don't produce anything of any value that the markets want, they destroy.
But plenty of the people who know what this is all about have better plans today, than they had long ago, it's a global world.
Nonsense.
There is only one law, that, which governs. The government of USA was puny, tiny, compared to what it is today exactly when the individual freedoms were maximised and allowed the people to create the most wealth (and then they squandered it over the next 100 years of-course by growing government and reducing freedoms).
Government has the authority to set the law based on the silent or explicit cooperation of the majority. If people rise today and march towards your capital city and then take down the government, then it's over, that gov't doesn't exist at all, but unless the people do it, then the gov't has at least the implicit cooperation from the people.
Every State is responsible for upholding some form of criminal and contract law, and the size of the business has no bearing on what the gov't can do to it (indeed, we KNOW what the gov't can do to businesses, anything, from total annihilation to enormous illegal bailouts and even starting illegal wars to provide for very lucrative contracts).
Size of government does not matter.
Size of government does not matter as long as it can perform the actual mandate that is given to it, and none of what YOU are talking about is in that mandate.
Certainly private health care and private insurance did a much better job at actually getting care to the people than gov't mandated BS system does. Same with everything else, including SS, individual freedom to live one's life as one sees fit, this includes the right to do drugs. Then there are wages and money, education, due process etc.
As to your fallacy of a question:
so do we kill the patient, or cure him?
you are obviously approaching it from your tyrannical anti-freedom perspective, which includes establishing a big enough gov't to steal and redistribute wealth and to affect the free market forces in order to achieve some form of socialist/fascist goals (and yes, fascism is a form of socialism too, it's just smarter than socialism).
The correct question is this: are you interested in freedom or not? People came to USA to get freedom, freedom from their tyrannical governments, and freedom allowed the people to become very wealthy, the creation of wealth was unlike anywhere else in any previous time period on this planet. That was done with almost a non-existing government, definitely without 99% of all the regulations, definitely without any income/corporate/payroll taxes, definitely without SS, Medicare, wage and price controls, currency printing and all of the unconstitutional wars.
The correct question is this: WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO GO NEXT, when you turn USA into what they ran away from in the first place?
Well, I know how to do it, today it's a bit different, you don't just run away from a country, you run away from the system by using it in such a manner, as to prevent the system from tracking all of your activities.
Personal freedoms cannot be 'gleefully tramped upon by the free market', because personal freedoms - rights of the individual, are only meaningful in the context of the relationship between the individual and the collective.
There is no such thing as a 'right' that defines interaction between two peers, two individuals or two businesses or individual and a business (businesses are people, and what I mean by that is that people own businesses. Corporate protection by gov't creates a different kind of a business - a gov't protected entity that is above a normal individual or a business).
A 'right' is only there to set limit the amount of interference that gov't can impose upon an individual or a business. A 'right' is not there to define interaction between 2 individuals, it has no meaning in that context. One person killing another person is just murder, but it's not violation of a right to life in the sense that it is not an organisation that has law in its hands that is killing the individual with the silent cooperation of the voting (or non-voting) majority.
What I am saying is that there is no meaningful definition of the word 'right' outside of the interaction between and individual and the collective.
As to free market 'trampling' upon freedoms - that's a pure nonsense declaration designed to confuse the weak-minded.
Free market is not lawlessness, it is a system that sets into law what a contract is, what private property is and it is designed to maximise individual rights, including right to property and it is designed to uphold the contract law.
If the contract law is not upheld by the government, then it must be upheld in other ways, so private courtrooms and private security force and private insurance is just as good and I have no preference towards the government solution at all.
Free market is a system of voluntary participation, which part of 'voluntary' means 'trampling freedoms'? None. It's your Orwellian inner-tyrant talking.
None of your business.
It is none of your business what other people decide to do with themselves. It is not your life.
You are completely free to limit yourself to whatever, you are absolutely outside of your boundaries telling people how you want them to behave.
You also don't understand simple economics - with more demand and with enough freedom there will be more supply, it's the law, it's not up to negotiations.
You feel that your three kids have more of a right to live than my one kid, simply because they out number my kid, and thus can take whatever the fuck they want from my one kid.. You are proposing tyranny of the majority. And it is wrong.
- your words were something to the tune of murder (well, either my kid gets food, or your three kids get food. And like fuck I'm letting my kid starve"). I have every right to self-defence from murdering thugs like you.
AFAIC you are a murdering tyrant, and I am the proponent of freedom, case closed.
Oh, and as to the profit motive - that's right. That's the ONLY motive that increases the overall wealth in the market because it allows allocating resources efficiently. There is no other mechanism known to men to do so, no amount of central planning, no amount of dictatorship and totalitarianism can do as good of a job allocating resources as private individuals and businesses within the context of free market (market free of gov't intervention).
The more profit the better.
Profit is VIRTUE IN ITSELF, because it is the only real indicator telling us whether the enterprise is worthwhile or worthless and which way to move.
There is no child labour because of industrial revolution and capitalism, which increased productivity of the population to the point, when parents didn't have to send their kids to work.
Or did you think somebody forced the parents to do so? Or do you believe that gov't has wealth that it gets from anywhere else rather than stealing it from the people who produce it?
Gov't has nothing, children always worked until free market capitalism and industrialisation increased people's productivity by applying savings as investment to build/acquire better tools.
It's capital that makes people more productive, because capital creates better tools, and so instead of a stick, the person gets a shovel and then an excavator and can do work of hundreds of people by himself.
Without free market capitalism and industrialisation children still would have worked since very young age, and now, that USA has abandoned the principles of freedom, children WILL WORK ONCE AGAIN, and they will starve and that's what your bankrupt ideology is leading to, circlehead.
As to pinkertons, etc. - I would absolutely protect my private property with private security force, and that's my absolute right as a property owner and it's my responsibility as well.
Gov't is tyranny, and those who promote more of it are the tyrants.
Free market cannot in principle oppress you, there is no legal body that is above you in the eyes of the law to do so.
Libertarian, n:
A person who understands the difference between government oppression and free market and prefers free market.
Yeah, well, HTML5, whatever.
I believe ALL videos should be done in ASCII (3D ASCII for things like Avatar).
AFAIC that's a BS story. I cannot find ANY reference to this information in Russian.
I don't know what you think you mean and what you think your quotes are and clearly I am not going to bother rereading any of your insane comments.
Surviving of the fittest is completely relative to the situation, so if the situation is such, that the ones surviving are in possession of something, be it real wealth or a printing press - they are the fittest then at that moment. However I don't think you've seen anything yet, nobody had to REALLY SURVIVE yet and those who are just printing money right now and those who you think are NOT surviving (which is nonsense as well), they are not yet in the position to know whether they ARE in fact fittest or not.
The people who really are the fittest are those who actually over-produce something that others want and can exchange the fruits of their labour with others.
And I am just saying that colonising the Moon is just as a fine goal as any to steal a bunch of money, and nobody even has to go there, but fine movie footage can be produced regardless.
First: that's no Moon.
Second:
To the contrary, rockets would help get stuff to the Moon, which currently is a big obstacle to a lunar colony.
- so you are saying that the Moon is a big obstacle to a lunar colony? Obviously, that's what I said, that's why he'll need a lot of movie shooting gear and a professional to do it.
Oh, Gingrich also talked about colonising Mars. He'll need to bring tons of red mud to shoot footage of that environment.
Hey, the government can print infinite amounts of money, so they're the "richest".
- your understanding of the basics of economics is similar to that of a cricket.
Printing money does not create wealth, wealth is not currency created out of nothing, it's production output of work that is valued by the market.
The rich are not those who have the most paper, they are those who have production capacity, so your other point is also clueless.
At Chernobyl they had to dive into the water to release a valve (suicide mission, obviously). As I recall the first team couldn't even find it, because ultra-intense alpha radiation had turned the water into H2O2 and it oxidized their suits, skin, and equipment too quickly.
- where do you get your insane information, do you just come up with it as you go alone?
Again: it's survival of the fittest. 'Fittest' doesn't have to be anything specific, if it means 'richest' so be it.
The very fact that I have conceded that we may not be to the point that I have described says otherwise.
- no it doesn't. You don't get the numeric advantage and you don't get the fact that you'll have bloody war on your hands with your ideas about forcing people to behave how you want them to behave so you can rule them.
Even when it takes 40 years or 75 years, eventually people rise up and destroy the dictatorship.
Meanwhile, the fact that you apparently have no problem with humanity reaching such a breaking point says you've got some problems of your own.
- I do not impose my view of how people should apply their own rights upon others, I don't want to be a dictator.
I want free market, where people hit the problems and search for solutions within the context of individual freedom. I am much better person than you.
As I said earlier: your government is who governs you.
USA people have FAILED to uphold the Constitution, they have failed to make sure that only people who uphold the Constitution are in power and any transgression in this regard is punished.
My point stays: you deserve the gov't you have and the gov't you have is the gov't you have created, and now it is what it is.
It's the gov't that is responsible for all of the moral hazards and destruction of the economy. You like some of the moral hazards provided (fake money, FDIC, FDA, EPA, HUD, FHA, SS, Medicare, etc.etc.), and that's total corruption of the government process, by expecting all of those things you give green light to all other things that gov't does (illegal wars, killing, destruction of privacy, corporate control of gov't, etc.)
As to menacing - that's retarded. It's called setting an ACCENT on something.
Why would I blame myself and what kind of argument is that?
I said: the children shouldn't be paying for these immoral obligations placed upon them by the former generations, and this is correct. Their ancestors have moved to USA in a search for freedom and better life, clearly the children can do the same thing - move in a search of freedom and better life for themselves.
As to fascist-socialist: any fascist is a socialist. Left/Right is meaningless in this sense, fascism is a socialist movement, the difference is very minor. Fascists are simply smarter than socialists, in that Fascist do not seek to control the production process, they just want to promote their single party system and impose huge taxes on companies and people to achieve their goal of 'unity' and totalitarianism, it's really similar to any religious ideology that wants to impose its ideas of 'purity' upon others, but it is not trying to actually run businesses, they leave that to individuals and provide protection from competition but tax the profits to the maximum possible.
Socialists are dumber, they want more control over the means of production, and they have their own religion of creating an 'equal society', also a quasi-religious and an impossible goal, which can never be achieved, because most people don't want to be equal to others, people actually want to excel in something and live better than the other guy. Forcing communal ownership of businesses of-course means that the socialists will get worse results from their labour, it's akin to running businesses by committee, not by real owner in search of profits. Socialists are all about huge regulations and taxes of businesses and labour, all that nonsense, for the supposed equality, but in reality it's of-course just another way to create a dependent class and rule it.
The 'right/left' ideology has no meaning, in fact those are terms so loaded, anybody using them doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and clearly doesn't want to talk about the actual issues behind the thinly veiled lack of understanding.
You have a natural right to children except in cases of emergency
You have a natural right to freedom unless it's war on drugs.
You have a natural right to freedom unless it's war on terror.
You have a natural right to property unless it's EPA.
You have a natural right to life unless it's Obama with a drone.
RIGHTS, just like the CONSTITUTION are needed more than ever EXACTLY when it's an 'emergency', because I can put you into a state of emergency on a daily basis and deny you the rights so easily, you won't know what hit you, and then you will have no right, 0 rights, and you know what? Judging by your approach and attitude I don't even care. You sound exactly like a person who wants to limit the rights of other people with the power of gov't, in my book that's the only real reason to deprive YOU of your rights.
The two parents and one kid get the government handouts/rations and kids 2 & 3 get none
- gov't has NOTHING.
Whatever gov't 'has' it has to STEAL from people who in fact create that wealth. You'll eventually find out that people's natural instincts to their rights to life and procreation and property will put them at odds with whatever 'government' is, and gov't only exists by the silent cooperation of the crowd.
I see your approach leading to just another bloody conflict, another civil war, but looks like that's exactly something you'd be all for - why, it'd kill off a few million people.
Whoever has richer parents, duh.
- good. Survival of the fittest, however that's expressed.