Question for the teabaggers out there...

VINNY GOOMBA

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.

In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.

I don't see it happening, though.

There are a whole lot of things in this life that I am a lot more concerned about protecting than just my "stuff" like wages and property. You're dreaming of some delusional ideal of westward expansion where rugged plain folk lend each other sugar and help each other plow fields. Life will never be like this again. The world is too interconnected for the kind of isolated depencence that built that kind of communal spirit, and it has nothing to do with government and everything to do with computers, the internet, phones, tv, mass media and telecommunications, etc. In addition, such small communities are vulnerable, there is power and strength in numbers and always will be. The moment you reduced things to the local, they'd start working their way back up to gargantuan size again... because being just a bit bigger than your neighbor means the next time your community is in trouble, the easier it will be to take what you need from the weaker community next door. This is the one recurring pattern of history... imperial buildup, top heavy excess, a collapse, smaller fractured society, move to rebuilding and alliances, back to imperialism. The US, British Empire, Rome, Greece, Persia, etc...

I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.

In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."

soulsinging

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.

In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."

We had something like that. It was called feudalism. It's never "up to them" when it comes to sharing property. Somebody will always try to simply take it from you and if you can't stop them, you're sol. Inevitably, the bigger and stronger will take more and end up ruling. So do your prefer the guy on top to be a warlord that took everything you had and turned you into a serf working on what is now his property; or a giant, bloated bureacracy without the means or incentive to care much about you and that would rather give you a few free perks to keep you quiet than try to take shit from you? At least now we sorta get to vote for who's in charge. You decentralize things, there will be no vote. The ones that try will be rounded up and executed. Like good old Africa... where there is no empowered central authority/government, you just have a bunch of small communities and tribes killing each other for resources endlessly and the only ones capable of offering any sort of protection from the slaughter are the most brutal human beings in the area.

VINNY GOOMBA

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.

In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."

We had something like that. It was called feudalism. It's never "up to them" when it comes to sharing property. Somebody will always try to simply take it from you and if you can't stop them, you're sol. Inevitably, the bigger and stronger will take more and end up ruling. So do your prefer the guy on top to be a warlord that took everything you had and turned you into a serf working on what is now his property; or a giant, bloated bureacracy without the means or incentive to care much about you and that would rather give you a few free perks to keep you quiet than try to take shit from you? At least now we sorta get to vote for who's in charge. You decentralize things, there will be no vote. The ones that try will be rounded up and executed. Like good old Africa... where there is no empowered central authority/government, you just have a bunch of small communities and tribes killing each other for resources endlessly and the only ones capable of offering any sort of protection from the slaughter are the most brutal human beings in the area.

I never called for the abolition of the federal government-- just for its role to be limited to enforcing contracts, and providing us with defense, which would not allow for towns to swallow each other whole. This still allows for communities, as in states, cities, and towns to rule themselves as they see fit. What I've always pushed for is limited Constitutional government. The document is there-- it could use some tweaking, but it is still, on paper, the best system out there. It just needs to be strictly adhered to, which takes a certain devotion on the part of the people-- which, seems to be emerging, but isn't quite there yet.

I think I really need to re-read what I write here sometimes. People seem to confuse me as an anarchist for whatever reason.

Pepe Silvia

Jasunmark wrote:

aerial wrote:

Latest thing I heard on tv is if you don't purchase the Obama insur. plan there will be a $25,000 fine and could do prison time. How do you like that?!

If there were any truth to that I'd be very angry. Luckily for us both, that's not true. Not even close. There is NOTHING in ANY version of the bill that says if you don't purchase the public option insurance that you'll be fined or sent to jail. Anyone who's telling you any different is full of crap.

And that's the real problem. We haven't been able to debate the REAL issues because we're so busy dealing with bullshit lies. There are no "Death Panels." There is nothing in the bill that limits coverage to people under 40. There is nothing that says any of he things have people so upset.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/200 ... re-reform/

Under the Finance Committee bill, Americans would be required to buy corporate health insurance or pay an ”excise tax” of $1,900. If you don’t pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to one year in jail, or both. Read that again.

Under questioning last week, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted that the individual mandate would become part of the Internal Revenue Code and that failing to comply “could be criminal.” Mr. Barthold noted in a follow-up letter that the willful failure to file would be punishable by a $25,000 fine or jail time under Section 7203. Failure to pay the mandate would be enforced as tax evasion.

Prince Of Dorkness

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/pay-the-mob-or-go-to-jail-by-nikki-alexander-larry-kalb-on-healthcare-reform/

Very good. Now find a reputable new source, not some blog on a free host written by who knows who.

I can also send you to a blog like that claiming the moon landing was faked and one that says if gravity was real, we'd see people orbiting mountains.

Pepe Silvia

Jasunmark wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/pay-the-mob-or-go-to-jail-by-nikki-alexander-larry-kalb-on-healthcare-reform/

Very good. Now find a reputable new source, not some blog on a free host written by who knows who.

I can also send you to a blog like that claiming the moon landing was faked and one that says if gravity was real, we'd see people orbiting mountains.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910050002

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 33458.html

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/ ... tion_.html