It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
So, we have someone that accuses Anarchists and Libertarians of being Marxist and then he begins to argue for the use of Marxist ideas.

Hmmmm..............let me see. Yep, right out of the playbook. Accuse your enemies of one thing while being the very thing that they are accusing.

Cass? Saul?

Who are you or who did you train under?


Yep, people are not charged with fraud and THEN you blame capitalism.

Kind of funny, are you one of the new type of doctors? Do not treat the cause, treat the symptoms.

Let me see, right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Cause the downfall of capitalism by fraud and other things, then blame capitalism, then suggest the new system.

Go away commie, we know your playbook. You did not take away the internet soon enough.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Let me put it to the commie marxists in a better breakdown.

Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with fraud by the banks.

Fiat currency has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with fraud by the banks.

Bundling worthless mortgages into debt investment vehicles has nothing to do with capitalism. It is fraud by the banks, congress, and the financier corporations.

Spending more than you have has nothing to do with capitalism. It is fraud by congress.

Taxing individuals for their labor has nothing to do with capitalism. It is slavery by the government.

Free marketsare NOT the problem. Fraud and slavery is the problem.

Get it yet asshats. No. Not clear enough for you yet?

Or is the increasingly stupid acts you play just that, an act. Yes, we that are knowledgeable enough know. We are not stupid. Go market your wares elsewhere. As far as I know in CAPITALISM, I get the choice of NOT buying your CRAP.

See, in a COMMUNIST MARXIST system, I have to buy your CRAP, like the Health Care bill you COMMIES have instituted. Sorry, I will take the gulag instead of supporting your system. Get them up and running. Because there are a lot of us out here that will fight you to the death!

[edit on 5/14/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


What nonsense, I never argued for use of any Marxist ideas.

It is the free market ideology that allows all this fraud to take place.

This is the fact you refuse to face.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




You don't remember when Gingrich gutted Glass Seagal? Numerous people predicted what would happen at the time, and it happened. At what point do you wake up to reality?


Ya.. banks would get greedy and collapse. THATS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!!! Now is our neo-socialist/fascist dictators didn't decide they couldn't risk loosing their personal savings because they were to far invested into these organizations and prop them up with economic steroids ... we wouldn't be in a depression anymore. Free Markets have more volatile "up down" swings.. because it's based on actual economics. Fascist markets, like the ones you support, are striving for the utopian Keynesian perpetual growth model. It's a bunch of crap.

I'd rather a free market that crashes than a shell market that grows at insane rates but we never see the benefits.




What you support is legalized fraud.


No, what I support is Capitalistic Economics. Now, I have an understanding of economics, and I assure you this is not a "Free Market" .. never was, never has been since the mid 1850's. I support companies that commit fraud being allowed to die. Citi should be dead. BoA should be dead. GM should be dead. But YOU ... you support keeping them alive, regulating them not only so they perform within an imaginary boundary set by the uncle sam, but so that they cannot die. Because that would hurt the economy as a whole.

Any market regulated by government is destined for Fascism. .. you cannot inject government into corporations without an entanglement ensuing.. eventually each needs the other to survive. Citi cannot exist without government assistance, the government cannot exist without citi employing hundreds of thousands, producing a huge portion of our GDP and being the largest home lender.

Free Market philosophy: Let em' burn. Let it allll burn to the ground, let the Government go with it. If it didn't work, it doesn't deserve to live.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


There never has been a free market, and one did not exist before the 1850ties in the U.S.. A banking system not only can survive under a proper set of regulations, banks have done just that for decades at a time.

It is the deregulation that creates the market fluctuations that take down those banks.

Notice how S&L's are doing fine. That is because of the regulations put in place after Reagan's deregulation, which caused massive bankruptcies due to wide spread fraudulent abuse by those who were put in charge of those institutions.

The problem with your concept is that the people who robbed these banks through fraudulent means get to walk away with the money while those who thought they had put their money into sound investments pay for the corruption of the executives.

When a corporation dies, the executives who robbed that corporation still get to keep the money they stole through fraudulent means. Oh dear, my corporate entity died, I will now go back to my mansion and mourn with my trophy wife, and then right my memoirs about how brilliant I am.

What you support is a cleptocracy.

By the way, it is state law which establishes a corporation as a person, not federal law.

What you fail to recognize is that the free market people you support set up this failure from the beginning, along with the bailout. They are the fascists. They are the ones all for business controlling government. Ever since the con of the free market began, those who support this new cleptocracy have been working to put corporations in charge of government.

I know a little about economic too, and it is more voodoo than science.

The real answer is not to grant banking charts to institutions that do not follow a specific set of laws to protect the depositors. Part of those minimal laws for a bank charter should be tying liability to the executives of those banks.

The banking system should be put back under control of the U.S. Treasury, and the fed res eliminated. Private institutions should not be given the level of privilege enjoyed by the fed res..

Even more, I don't think that under law, institutions that deal in areas like banking and insurance, which are critical institutions for the public good, should be allowed to function as for profit institutions.

People shouldn't be allowed to profit off of the misery of others. It is also time to put usury laws back in place, and restrict interest rates back to a reasonable amount. Our banking system has gotten by with far too much by abusing the privileges they are granted.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Here is the main reason people are clinging to these social programs....scared. Back during a better time, a man had to be a man. We have all sorts of pantywastes running this country and telling the men to leave it to the government to protect us. So scared are these men. It would be terrible to go back to a time where these social programs never existed and families would need to depend on each other. Communities would have to depend on each other. But instead, give us your money and we will give you a broken system to which you will depend on. This system abuses you daily, but thats ok. You won't have to stress about being a man. You can instead be a pantywaste, and know that you will at the very least be alive and oppressed and a great chance of having your own house. Instead of free, where you might have to depend on someone you know personally, instead of a beureaucrat.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by ventian]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





What you call for is nothing but the allowance of fraudulent business practices.


What you do is pretend that regulation prevents fraudulent business practices. One doesn't need to read any link to know that this practice is rife, in a regulated market. Further, Rights are Rights, and if it is fraud, there need not be any regulation in order for the person who has been defrauded to turn to a government and pursue justice.




What you call for is no different than allowing a rapist to finish with his business before anything is done about it, and then explaining the crime off as a natural function.


Now you are pretending that because there is a government, all rapists are caught before or in the middle of the act, which is more than naive. Further, are you now advocating heavy regulation on sexual practices to prevent rape? Rape is rape, fraud is fraud and theft is theft, all are crimes with a victim, and as such need no regulation in order for justice to work. No amount of regulation will prevent the murderer from murdering, the rapist from raping, and the thief from stealing. Justice always works in the negative, in the sense that justice can only be put back in when there is an absence of justice.




There is no such thing as a free market. It is ignorance of reality.


There are black markets across the world, and your understanding of reality is woefully lacking any depth of perception.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Libertarians are really just republicans in disguise who just don't want to be associated with the republican party.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Libertarians are really just republicans in disguise who just don't want to be associated with the republican party.



Please tell me more. Libertarians have their own set of values, where republicans cater to whatever the cause is at the time of election. Hell, republicans don't even know where their party sits most of the time, they just make up their minds at election time. A libertarian is nothing like a social conservative. They won't the most minimal government possible. Republicans want the most government they can get without resorting to "socialism".

People wouldn't vote libertarian if the republicans were the same party. They would simply vote republican. As I stated earlier, these people are just like the left, scared of life without constant government security. (which is funny because there really isn't any government security).



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Stop trying to pretend that you understand my perspective, because obviously you don't.


Further, Rights are Rights, and if it is fraud, there need not be any regulation in order for the person who has been defrauded to turn to a government and pursue justice.


That is a pretty mangled statement you have made here, but there is an intelligent question in there.

What is the relationship between government and our rights?

The purpose of government is to defend the rights of the individual , as per the beliefs of our founding fathers and John Locke upon whose theories our constitution was written. I have already provided a link which shows this.

The purpose of regulations is to establish what conduct is acceptable by a business, and what conduct violates the rights of the customers. When the business fails to follow the standard practices established by law, the offended party then has established legal recourse to hold the person behind the business entity responsible for their actions.

Do you understand the purpose of law?

No, we can't prevent crime from happening, but we can punish those who commit those crimes, and sometime we can even prevent those crimes from taking place, or stop them before they have progressed too far, and take the steps necessary to prevent the criminals from ever perpetrating those crimes again or at least make it far more difficult.

The concept of the free market is that the market system will police itself through magical voodoo economics. What happens is that the crooks still commit their crimes, but rarely have to pay for their crimes, and the victims have no recourse to recover what was illegally taken, or to have justice served. This is why it is known as voodoo economics, and it is against all the principles on which the U.S. was founded.

Once again, read what John Locke wrote. His influence is over the development of the U.S. constitution is not only well documented, it is bloody obvious to anyone who has bothered to read his treaties.

WHAT is so completely frustrating about this discussion is that none of you are simpletons, (neither are you as smart as you seem to think) and yet you refuse to read Locke, and engage in an intelligent conversation. Instead you would rather hurtle insults at me, or insult my intelligence, along with trying to put words in my mouth.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by poet1b]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


C'mon Nixie, you can come up with some kind of reference right?

Libertarians believe in almost the exact opposite of the Dem and Repub philosophy of the Nanny State.

You know the type, the ones that think government will solve all the problems.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





There never has been a free market, and one did not exist before the 1850ties in the U.S.. A banking system not only can survive under a proper set of regulations, banks have done just that for decades at a time.


If there has never been a free market, then one didn't exist after the 1850's either. That is what never means...at least in reality. In reality, since Congress saw fit to fix the price of silver to gold, from the very beginning there has never been a free market system in the U.S. Further, whether banks survive or fail is irrelevant to free markets, and banks have nothing at all to do with supply and demand. Unless they are loaning money, but debt is a form of slavery, and in a free market system, it is unlikely that debt would be in such demand.




It is the deregulation that creates the market fluctuations that take down those banks.


There are natural cycles to markets, all markets. You are, in all likelihood, equating the stock market to a free market, but the stock market deals in publicly trades stocks and bonds and exchanges and has nothing to do with private companies. Banks fail because they have made colossal mistakes to cause that failure, and as such, should fail.




Notice how S&L's are doing fine.


A savings and loan is not a bank, and the primary difference lies in how the process of loans are made. Where banks will loan money they don't have to loan, an S&L will only loan as much money as they have deposited in their bank, making them much more of a one on one type business, dealing with the communities they serve rather than attempting to rule communities.




That is because of the regulations put in place after Reagan's deregulation, which caused massive bankruptcies due to wide spread fraudulent abuse by those who were put in charge of those institutions.


This is just not true. Prior to 1982 a savings bank was not even allowed to offer checking accounts, let alone credit cards, or loans outside mortgages and student loans. After 1982, (Reagan's Presidency was from '81 to '89), S&L's began to flourish.




The problem with your concept is that the people who robbed these banks through fraudulent means get to walk away with the money while those who thought they had put their money into sound investments pay for the corruption of the executives.


It is regulation that has caused this cleptocracy you accuse others of advocating. A crime is a crime, and only regulation grants license to commit crimes.




When a corporation dies, the executives who robbed that corporation still get to keep the money they stole through fraudulent means. Oh dear, my corporate entity died, I will now go back to my mansion and mourn with my trophy wife, and then right my memoirs about how brilliant I am.


Corporations, being state granted charters, are legal fictions and accountable to the people. That so much crime has happened without any accountability only underscores how bad regulation is.




What you fail to recognize is that the free market people you support set up this failure from the beginning, along with the bailout. They are the fascists. They are the ones all for business controlling government. Ever since the con of the free market began, those who support this new cleptocracy have been working to put corporations in charge of government.


You mean the free market that has never existed? You keep calling the free markets you yourself admit have never existed as cleptocracy, while then advocating Marxist ideals who advocates plunder. You are accusing others of your crimes.




I know a little about economic too, and it is more voodoo than science.


Which only goes to show you know nothing at all about economics except for what you are told to think about it. There is a term favored by the left wing media known as "voodoo economics" which is a pejorative used to denigrate supply side economics, but Rupert Murdoch, his FOX station, and acquisition of the NFL, at a time when he couldn't even afford the shows he had running is a testament to supply side economics, but why would a Marxist know anything about that?




The real answer is not to grant banking charts to institutions that do not follow a specific set of laws to protect the depositors. Part of those minimal laws for a bank charter should be tying liability to the executives of those banks.


The real answer is not to grant charters at all, then you won't have the problem with corporatism that we have today. Any foreign corporation that wishes to do business in the U.S. will have to operate as a private business, liable for every mistake they make personally, and not conveniently separated from their company.




The banking system should be put back under control of the U.S. Treasury, and the fed res eliminated. Private institutions should not be given the level of privilege enjoyed by the fed res..


Private institutions are private, and only a Marxist would advocate dictating what a private institution can and can not do. What a private institution can not do, are the same things any private individual can not do. Whatever a private individual can do, a private institution can do.




Even more, I don't think that under law, institutions that deal in areas like banking and insurance, which are critical institutions for the public good, should be allowed to function as for profit institutions.


Of course you don't, you're a Marxist, and will declare the collective as superior to the individual at every turn. You will claim insurance has something to do with the public good, when it should be clear that gambling has little to do with the public good, and banking is banking, and without a complicit government creating legislation that in turn creates a system forcing people to do business with banks, banks just wouldn't be the problem they are today.




People shouldn't be allowed to profit off of the misery of others. It is also time to put usury laws back in place, and restrict interest rates back to a reasonable amount. Our banking system has gotten by with far too much by abusing the privileges they are granted.


You sure spend a lot of time declaring what people should not be allowed to do. What the hell would some guy who thinks it is okay to dictate what others can and can not do know about freedom, let alone free markets? Your empty platitude about profiting off of the misery of others, does nothing to justify your clear and present advocacy of tyranny. You have no more respects for the Rights of an Individual than you have any understanding of economics.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I consider myself a Libertarian, but my philosophy boils down to this:

People should have the right to do what they want to make themselves happy, as long as it doesn't infringe on another persons rights to do the same.
Be it smoking weed,being gay,wanting to be a prostitute,whatever.If it is a persons choice,nobody else has the right to say that they can't when it has no effect on them whatsoever.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by endisnighe
 


What nonsense, I never argued for use of any Marxist ideas.

It is the free market ideology that allows all this fraud to take place.

This is the fact you refuse to face.


Explain to me one more time, WHAT THE HELL does fraud have to do with a free market failure.

Pleas tell me all knowing one.

Fraud is a crime. Period. If it is not prosecuted it is the FAILURE of the government enforcement. Not the free market.

Arguing with you and others is like a cat chasing it's tail.

Until you acknowledge that crime such as fraud is the responsibility of the government to prosecute, I no longer address you at all.

Law is law is law!

If you do no harm to another, you are not committing a crime. If you commit a crime and the government let's you off because you are regulated by the government and they are complicit in the crime, what is that?

Is that the free market? My God listen to yourself.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Stop trying to pretend that you understand my perspective, because obviously you don't.


I would never dare to presume to understand what goes on in the mind of a Marxist, all I can do is go by your words posted here, and respond to that. It seems rather obvious that you don't understand your own "perspective", as you are continually contradicting your self.




The purpose of government is to defend the rights of the individual , as per the beliefs of our founding fathers and John Locke upon whose theories our constitution was written. I have already provided a link which shows this.


You continually reference Locke, seemingly ignoring that Locke had declared the pursuit of property as a fundamental right. What's up with that?




The purpose of regulations is to establish what conduct is acceptable by a business, and what conduct violates the rights of the customers. When the business fails to follow the standard practices established by law, the offended party then has established legal recourse to hold the person behind the business entity responsible for their actions.


If a right has been abrogated or derogated, no regulation is required in order for justice to be put in. You can declare this thought as mangled as you wish, it is the law. Rights are rights, and customers don't have special rights outside of the rights that all people have. If a customer has been a victim of fraud or some other crime, it is irrelevant what regulations have been put in place, and what is relevant is the crime committed. Any so called "crimes" outside the one that presents a victim, are just legislative fiats, and have nothing to do with law.




Do you understand the purpose of law?


The purpose of any law enforced by government is to protect and defend the rights of all individuals. All law is universal, and there is no such thing as special privileges under law, and all are equal under the law.




No, we can't prevent crime from happening, but we can punish those who commit those crimes, and sometime we can even prevent those crimes from taking place, or stop them before they have progressed too far, and take the steps necessary to prevent the criminals from ever perpetrating those crimes again or at least make it far more difficult.


People can prevent crimes by protecting themselves, but the idea of giving up the right to self protection in order to be protected by government that demonstrably fail at that protection time, and time again, is patently absurd. People must learn to protect themselves, and in the marketplace caveat emptor is as ancient as Latin is.




The concept of the free market is that the market system will police itself through magical voodoo economics. What happens is that the crooks still commit their crimes, but rarely have to pay for their crimes, and the victims have no recourse to recover what was illegally taken, or to have justice served. This is why it is known as voodoo economics, and it is against all the principles on which the U.S. was founded.


The concept of a free market is that anyone can compete in that market without gaining permission to do so, and anyone can buy what is sold on that market without gaining permission from government to do so. Policing has nothing to do with it, other than a customer who has walked away from a seller dissatisfied will probably not do business with that seller again, and may even go as far as to convince others not to do business with that seller again, and this becomes the policing you are referring to. Your insistence on using the term voodoo only illustrates how much you've fallen prey to propaganda. You are certainly not coining this term voodoo to describe markets, you are echoing what many Marxists have all ready said before you.




Once again, read what John Locke wrote. His influence is over the development of the U.S. constitution is not only well documented, it is bloody obvious to anyone who has bothered to read his treaties.


Once again I will tell you I have read John Locke, and it is becoming increasingly clear that you haven't. Are you even aware that John Locke advocated the ownership of private property?




WHAT is so completely frustrating about this discussion is that none of you are simpletons, (neither are you as smart as you seem to think) and yet you refuse to read Locke, and engage in an intelligent conversation. Instead you would rather hurtle insults at me, or insult my intelligence, along with trying to put words in my mouth.


For the last time, I have read John Locke, and until you acknowledge that Locke advocated the ownership of private property you will continue to look like the one who has not read Locke, and all you have read is what www.marxist.org has told you to think about Locke.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 

Um...actually, here is where we DO have this party. The Libertarian party just never seems to manage to get a candidate into the presidential election. In my local (and often state) elections there is always someone running on the Libertarian ticket, and occasionally they even win



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaz13
 


A lot of people need to get your attitude. This bullcrap that people need to worry about what others are doing needs to stop.

Enforcement of law where if someone hurts another or infringes on their rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

That is it. Thanks for the comment.

reply to post by riiver
 


There are a few in my state that I am helping with computer work.

Thanks for commenting.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe


If you do no harm to another, you are not committing a crime.

Forgive me if I am nit-picking, but I must ask: how valid is this statement? Is it really true? Is something as petty as subtle manipulation count as "not harming" or is it indeed harm? This interests me because it can either make or break the very idea of freedom and liberty.

Tell me why kids in the west are allowed to be brainwashed by the media, by what we watch and listen to? Libertarians are up in arms if governments propose to ban something such as an extremely offensive song, video game, or show. After all, they are that it's our choice to subscribe to this supposed harmful material, not the state's job to regulate it. But is this so? Is it right to argue this?

Corporations employ massive teams of professionals in marketing and psychology. They know how to appeal to the masses. In the case of today's western youth, we are told sex is for pleasure, consumption is our end goal, getting what we want when we want is the dream we should all strive for. It is displayed in movies, television and music. Any true libertarian, I would imagine, would argue that these are the premises of freedom, our ability to choose. Yet somehow, our ability to chose has driven us to this materialistic-orientated society that has us all crying out for change.

We only have our own freedom to blame for our folly.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 





We only have our own freedom to blame for our folly.


It is hubris that is the source of folly, not freedom. Indeed, it is oft' repeated that pride comes before the fall, but this is not so, it is always hubris that comes before the fall, and pride, real pride can only come with accomplishment. Hubris, on the other hand, will rarely lead to accomplishment, and if it does, it was an accident, not because of hubris.

You point to much that is apparent in today's society and somehow declare that freedom. Of course, people are free to engage in propaganda, but it is hubris to think otherwise, and folly to think one shouldn't learn how to defend themselves against propaganda. First, it is necessary to recognize propaganda, and once recognizable, it becomes necessary to reveal it to all who will listen, as propaganda.

So what if corporations engage in this propaganda to sell their products? You are not powerless against this propaganda, and if you are not powerless against it, it is hubris to believe others are. Just because others have abdicated their own power, does not mean they are powerless to take it back. Even so, as powerful as you may be, you have clearly engaged in blame in your post, seemingly not recognizing that blame is wholly irrelevant. Problems don't get fixed by affixing blame, problems get fixed through accomplishment. Those who are adept at accomplishment have little cause to blame. Those who are adept at failure, often find plenty of time to blame, though sadly, it is rare that they will place this blame on themselves. Even so, blame is irrelevant, even if the fault belongs with us, how does blame fix that problem?

We can aspire to inspire all of humanity to greatness, or we can endeavor to convince all of humanity that they can never be free, are powerless, and others need to be protected from them. One effort is based on love, the other is fear based. Why choose fear over love? What can possibly be gained by fear, other than fight or flight? What can be gained through love? Compassion to begin with, and a willingness to make efforts in co-operation, and communication will follow. We do not co-operate with those we fear, even if we might acquiesce to their demands. When we offer love, this will not necessarily assuage another person's fear, but it is a start. Smile at your enemy, it only confuses them, and smile at your allies, for they will surely understand what you are smiling at.

Freedom is the only logical answer to peace. All other solutions, are merely that; solutions. A salt solution is salt and water, and is not any answer to a problem, merely a solution. We need answers, and the best answer I have ever found is freedom, and love. I know of no better answer. Learn to love, and your compassion will arm you against the fear that any propaganda may bring. Learn to be free, and you will find it much easier to love.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country

Originally posted by endisnighe


If you do no harm to another, you are not committing a crime.

Forgive me if I am nit-picking, but I must ask: how valid is this statement? Is it really true? Is something as petty as subtle manipulation count as "not harming" or is it indeed harm? This interests me because it can either make or break the very idea of freedom and liberty.

Tell me why kids in the west are allowed to be brainwashed by the media, by what we watch and listen to? Libertarians are up in arms if governments propose to ban something such as an extremely offensive song, video game, or show. After all, they are that it's our choice to subscribe to this supposed harmful material, not the state's job to regulate it. But is this so? Is it right to argue this?

Corporations employ massive teams of professionals in marketing and psychology. They know how to appeal to the masses. In the case of today's western youth, we are told sex is for pleasure, consumption is our end goal, getting what we want when we want is the dream we should all strive for. It is displayed in movies, television and music. Any true libertarian, I would imagine, would argue that these are the premises of freedom, our ability to choose. Yet somehow, our ability to chose has driven us to this materialistic-orientated society that has us all crying out for change.

We only have our own freedom to blame for our folly.


Gonna jump in, trying not to start anything here honestly as we all have our own opinions. The media has been regulated by the government for years on end, and look at the results. The government cannot control manipulation no more than they can control drugs. We are still being manipulated and our freedoms regulated while we are taxed to pay for it. If the media manipulation stopped tomorrow, then there would be one thousand cult leaders take up the slack, as entertainment would fall and people would need something to do.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join