>Talk about imperialist running dogs of the capitalist pig regime.
These "running dogs" you refer to (I believe a reference to Mao's description of capitalists if I recall his writings correctly) are not capitalist pigs, for that assumes we are a capitalist society. Capitalism is the only economic system consistent with human rights. In its pure form, you have individuals peacefully trading the fruits of their labour with other individuals so that all parties may have a mutual benefit. Obviously that is not what we have today, where "power-elite" control things trhough force for their own gain, typically legislative force such as tariffs, subsidies, etc. So rather than criticize these "capitalist pigs", perhaps a better criticism would be to refer to them as "statist pigs" or "mercantilist pigs", for American society is not capitalist nor are people avouching for the managed trade of the WTO and other global arrangements, which are not actually capitalistic free trade despite what they call it. America is a mix of mercentilism (economic intervention to redistribute wealth to the hands of the rich when the rich vote the mercantilists into office) and socialism (economic intervention to redistribute wealth to the hands of the poor when the poor vote the socialists into office).
So a better way to put it would be, "Talk about imperialist running dogs of the mercantilist pig regime." To which the answer is not the subtle reference to Mao's communism, for that is also just statist control over trade, exactly like the mercantilists being denounced as pigs.
>...that's why they're homeless in the first place, they decline to participate. Now, these people won't be able to stay anonymous > and get fed or get medical care from the government.
I think the question is being looked at wrong. These "benefits" are not free. Rather, they are at the expense of others. So what you describe here are people who willingly put themselves on the street and demand a right to other people's labour. Rather than asking if they should be anonymous in their ability to be a willing freeloader of the system as described above, perhaps the question should be if they have a right to actively seek a lifestyle at the expense of others rather than taking the difficult moral high-ground of taking responsibility for their own lives.
As I believe Ayn Rand once said, "The government has a legal monopoly on the use of force against a legally disarmed public." (I'm probably misquoting that from memory, so I apologize if it's not exact.) When one talks about government the rules change. One needs to act so that this monopoly on legal force does not get abused. There is a big difference between free information used for non-coersive cooperation between free people versus free information used for involuntairy coersion from the entity holding the legal monopoly on force.
Re:liberal (Clarification)
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
I'm not entirely certain how that post could be modded down as flamebait. It is very historically accurate.
Liberalism was essentially "usurped" by the socialist movement in the early parts of the 20th century. Perhaps usurped is not a good word since I don't think it was some sort of intentional plot, heh heh, but it's the only word I can think of at the moment. Whatever the case may be, liberalism's definition has changed drastically since the founders. Early writing by Ayn Rand, for example, do not directly refer to the words "liberal" but certainly reflects sentiment, albeit her personal opinion, of regret over this very political shift from old liberalism to modern socialistic liberalism. So the claim of the orginal post that our nation was founded on the principles of liberalism truly is factually misleading without clarification since the definition used by those long dead founding liberals truly is completely different than the definition modern readers will think of when they read the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
>Talk about imperialist running dogs of the capitalist pig regime.
These "running dogs" you refer to (I believe a reference to Mao's description of capitalists if I recall his writings correctly) are not capitalist pigs, for that assumes we are a capitalist society. Capitalism is the only economic system consistent with human rights. In its pure form, you have individuals peacefully trading the fruits of their labour with other individuals so that all parties may have a mutual benefit. Obviously that is not what we have today, where "power-elite" control things trhough force for their own gain, typically legislative force such as tariffs, subsidies, etc. So rather than criticize these "capitalist pigs", perhaps a better criticism would be to refer to them as "statist pigs" or "mercantilist pigs", for American society is not capitalist nor are people avouching for the managed trade of the WTO and other global arrangements, which are not actually capitalistic free trade despite what they call it. America is a mix of mercentilism (economic intervention to redistribute wealth to the hands of the rich when the rich vote the mercantilists into office) and socialism (economic intervention to redistribute wealth to the hands of the poor when the poor vote the socialists into office).
So a better way to put it would be, "Talk about imperialist running dogs of the mercantilist pig regime." To which the answer is not the subtle reference to Mao's communism, for that is also just statist control over trade, exactly like the mercantilists being denounced as pigs.
> ...that's why they're homeless in the first place, they decline to participate. Now, these people won't be able to stay anonymous
> and get fed or get medical care from the government.
I think the question is being looked at wrong. These "benefits" are not free. Rather, they are at the expense of others. So what you describe here are people who willingly put themselves on the street and demand a right to other people's labour. Rather than asking if they should be anonymous in their ability to be a willing freeloader of the system as described above, perhaps the question should be if they have a right to actively seek a lifestyle at the expense of others rather than taking the difficult moral high-ground of taking responsibility for their own lives.
As I believe Ayn Rand once said, "The government has a legal monopoly on the use of force against a legally disarmed public." (I'm probably misquoting that from memory, so I apologize if it's not exact.) When one talks about government the rules change. One needs to act so that this monopoly on legal force does not get abused. There is a big difference between free information used for non-coersive cooperation between free people versus free information used for involuntairy coersion from the entity holding the legal monopoly on force.
I'm not entirely certain how that post could be modded down as flamebait. It is very historically accurate. Liberalism was essentially "usurped" by the socialist movement in the early parts of the 20th century. Perhaps usurped is not a good word since I don't think it was some sort of intentional plot, heh heh, but it's the only word I can think of at the moment. Whatever the case may be, liberalism's definition has changed drastically since the founders. Early writing by Ayn Rand, for example, do not directly refer to the words "liberal" but certainly reflects sentiment, albeit her personal opinion, of regret over this very political shift from old liberalism to modern socialistic liberalism. So the claim of the orginal post that our nation was founded on the principles of liberalism truly is factually misleading without clarification since the definition used by those long dead founding liberals truly is completely different than the definition modern readers will think of when they read the claim.