Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

page: 15
19
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Let me share my sense of proper governance and to begin, I'll suggest a definition of two terms according to how they seem to fit presently.

Liberal - A liberal likes to take legal title of assets from the individual and transfer them to government.

Conservative - A conservative likes to take legal title of assets from the individual and transfer them to corporations.

Oddly enough, today's liberal does not transfer back any legal title of assets held by corporations and return them to individuals and today's conservative does not transfer from government to individual.

Here is my sense of proper governance.

All rights stem from ownership of assets. ALL RIGHTS.

Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism, which is basically an oligarchy (power held by a few) made up of government and corporations. In his day, government was top dog. In our version of fascism, corporations are top dog.

Outlaw corporations. Except for very few cases (such as a "commons") transfer ALL ownership of assets FROM government and corporations back to the individual.

The inherent problem with libertarianism is that it fails to see the perversion inherent in incorporation.

Humans are nothing more than slaves in a high tech corporate feudal system. They are "employed" by the corporation and this does not make them a part of it. They simply enter into a contractual relationship with it.

Think about it. Who manufactures all goods for a corporation? Humans. Who comes up with all the ideas/innovation? Humans. Who OWNS all things produced? The corporation. What of all ideas? The corporation.

Libertarianism, to my understanding, does not address this perversion.

Manufacturing should be done by associations of human beings. All items produced should be owned by the human beings. All ideas (patents) owned by humans.

You get my drift.


Tony (o2)




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by o2bwise
 


Well, that is taking it to the extreme.

Let me put it this way, how do you form a collective enterprise then?

The problem of the corporation, IMO, is the liability issues in regard to a corporation. If the corporation does something that would harm another or infringe on an individuals rights, they are not punished like an individual.

Bringing conservative into the argument is a misnomer. Not relevant to the discussion.

Individual rights is the basis of any FREE society.

As stated previously in the thread, a corporation is a contractual created entity that is required to follow corporate law created by the government.

Those that would want to form a corporation are giving up their rights as individuals, IMO.

This is where the whole problem of the government comes in. The government does not like to give up control, they want control of both corporations and individuals.

Where in a pure Libertarian society, let us say you have a sole proprietor and a corporation.

The sole proprietor acts as an individual so all their rights would remain intact. Whereby the corporation would have to give up those rights and follow corporate law.

This could cause problems if the government gave the corporation the same rights as individuals or attempted to remove the rights of individuals and define them the same as the corporations.

Your thoughts?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by o2bwise
 


Oh would you were wise! True to the anti-freedom crowd, you are tragically just one more idealist who would suggest new definitions for terms that have been long defined.

No matter which dictionary you turn to the definition of the word liberal doesn't even come close to the invention you offered. So too with the definition of the word conservatism which has nothing to do with the fanciful notions you've imposed upon that word.

The "legal" assets you refer to in terms of corporations were gained by obtaining a state granted charter, and as such, the problems began there. If "liberals" truly want to see the people have the opportunities they deserve, they would do what was necessary to do away with state granted charters and demand that all corporations provide accountability in the form of a human owner, or owners. Hell, make the stockholders liable for the shenanigans of a corporation and watch stocks plummet and those who agree to buy stocks begin demanding more responsibility in how a corporation acts, but try to find a so called "liberal" willing to discuss that idea.

Your sense of government is nothing more than a Marxist sense of the term. Amusingly you support your argument by pointing to Mussolini which is rather telling about what you believe. You understanding of oligarchies and economics is woefully primitive, and John Kenneth Galbraith offered a more concise term in oligopoly, but what the heck, most Marxist don't even bother to read Marx, why would they read Galbraith?

Your sense of outlawing corporations is certainly understandable, but one does not need to outlaw the corporation only to revoke state granted charters, and all the privileges that come with them. This will quite effectively defang the corporatist, and of course, your dream of relying upon a government to seize all assets and transfer them to the individual is a socialist dream that will never work. Having money or wealth is not the same as being wealthy, and if one is not willing to be wealthy, then no amount of wealth handed to them will make them wealthy. One has to be before they can do, and then one has to do before they can have. This is the natural cycle of behavior, be do have.

If people are poor, it is because they are being poor, doing that which continues to keep them poor and so what they have is what they have been and done. If people are to be wealthy, they must first be wealthy before they can do that which ensures they have wealth. All who earned their wealth followed this process, and the vast majority of those who inherited wealth usually lost it because they ignored the natural process.

The inherent problem with your understanding of libertarianism is that you have failed to actually go to the source and read the philosophy and economic theories of a libertarian, and instead have relied upon the oppositions view of what libertarianism is.

As long as you and others keep insisting that humans are nothing more than slaves to function as serfs or employees then you yourself will fail to follow the process of do be have that will get you the wealth you believe is rightfully yours. You will not get wealthy by being an employee, unless of course, you become a corporate officer, but we both seem to agree those clowns need a reality check, and they, much like all of us, should go into business for themselves and make their own damn way.

Think about it; if you just manufacture goods for your own privately owned business and sell those goods yourself then you would only be a slave to your own desires and dreams. If you would rather be an employee that is fine too, but don't pretend that you understand the value of labor until you have actually spent time signing paychecks on the front of a check instead the back of one.

Libertarianism is concerned with the freedom to choose ones own destiny, and if you believe that to be a perversion then those who want to be free should be aware of this and take what you have to say warily.

Manufacturing should be done by those who want to manufacture, and if one wants to do it by themselves, they should have the freedom to do so, and if one wants to hire other employees to help with that manufacture they should have the right to make such a contract, and those who agree to such a contract should be in agreement with the contract or not make that contract.

Get my drift?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Heres how I see this part of the debate. Liberals want to point to the poor as an excuse for complete government take over. Liberals point to corporations "taking over" everything as a reason to strip freedom from everyone else. But why go so big? WHY NOT JUST TAKE DOWN THAT CORPORATION!!! Most corporations that get as big as walmart don't do it fairly or justly, theres a always a littl ebit of dirt. My idea on how to solve huge corporation conquest over everyday people (like what happened in the early 1900's) Is for THE GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Destroy the corruption and re-aline the balance. take down a company and go after them when they do something unlawful, and allow a way for another company to rival that company. Have THE GOVERNMENT work like a corporation. Have it come in, solve the issue at hand, and then go away. Liberals and commies want to government to come in, "solve the problem" (which they never really do anyways....), and then STAY THERE. FOREVER. That's a problem. Because enough of that and you get a Communism market.

The government needs to be fixed first off. I don't thik the Founding Fathers ment for incumbets to stay in office for 30 to 40 YEARS!!! I think they ment for the positions to change and change often. When you get these corrupt incumbents in there (like there are right now, and there are a lot), they are A. a lot easier to corrupt and B. don't easily bring change about. They get paid off to keep us stuck in economic crisis all the time and get us in stupid wars by lobbiest groups. I don't like Obama, and when he started spewing the word "Change", he ruined it. But That is what we need. We need "Change". We need someone like Ron Paul in office (or hopefully his son Rand in the near future haha) or Alan Keys(would've been a better black president than Obama fo sho) or Pat Buchanan. Thats what we REALLY need, not these military monkey spenders or liberal program commie spenders. WE.NEED.TO.SAVE.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
JPZ:


Oh would you were wise! True to the anti-freedom crowd, you are tragically just one more idealist who would suggest new definitions for terms that have been long defined.

Dude, I think you are looking for argument where there need not be any.

For example, the context around my definitions of liberal and conservative included a sense of what I thought such labeled folks are like today. Liberals like big government and conservatives seem to take no issue with massive corporations.

I think the best way for people to be governed is a system which protects, so much as possible, a free pursuit of rights and I believe rights are tied to ownership of assets.

How easy is it for a human to labor in such a way that all his ideas are his? Or if he works in manufacturing, he owns a piece of what is manufactured?

We are enslaved to transnational corporations, whether they be commercial banks, central banks, food companies (Monsanto), etc. etc. And there is no way in hell any state is going to labor in behalf of its people and revoke corporate charters.

I tried to summarize how i think man ought to be governed - in such a way that his pursuit of ownership of assets is an unimpeded as possible. I summarized my sense of a utopia that I believe will never exist.

The prophecies are clear on that matter anyway.


Tony (o2)



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by o2bwise
JPZ:


Oh would you were wise! True to the anti-freedom crowd, you are tragically just one more idealist who would suggest new definitions for terms that have been long defined.

Dude, I think you are looking for argument where there need not be any.

For example, the context around my definitions of liberal and conservative included a sense of what I thought such labeled folks are like today. Liberals like big government and conservatives seem to take no issue with massive corporations.

I think the best way for people to be governed is a system which protects, so much as possible, a free pursuit of rights and I believe rights are tied to ownership of assets.

How easy is it for a human to labor in such a way that all his ideas are his? Or if he works in manufacturing, he owns a piece of what is manufactured?

We are enslaved to transnational corporations, whether they be commercial banks, central banks, food companies (Monsanto), etc. etc. And there is no way in hell any state is going to labor in behalf of its people and revoke corporate charters.

I tried to summarize how i think man ought to be governed - in such a way that his pursuit of ownership of assets is an unimpeded as possible. I summarized my sense of a utopia that I believe will never exist.

The prophecies are clear on that matter anyway.


Tony (o2)


Why do u believe in a protective gov? You dont believe you can protect yourself properly?? o.0?

Man SHOULDNT be governer, man should govern himself. No man should tell another what to do. he has the right to disagree with a man's choiuce or opinion, but never should he force a man to do something that he is not willing or wanting to do.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


No, I didn't side step your question, I answered it directly and precisely.

While you didn't answer my question.

Do you really buy all this hippie commune street vendor nonsense that Zodeux is selling? Do you really see street vending as the ultimate form of capitalism?

If all businesses were street vendors, then who would pay the taxes needed to build the streets?

You still don't see the clear Marxist ideology behind Zodeaux's vision of the free market?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


How do you build streets, you ask? What would be a fair way to secure street funding? How about sales tax on fuel? Hmmm. How about sales tax on vehicles?

What is the biggest detriment to roads? Heavy vehicles like semis. How about tax on fuel and trucks?

Did you know, right now the government does not even pay for road improvements on existing roads, when new construction goes up? The developer pays. Hear that? Private business pays for it.

Imagine THAT.

You really need to understand that I am a construction specialist. I have supervised road construction, public works including severs, storm drains systems, multi residential and commercial projects, cable infrastructure, electrical infrastructure, fire department infrastructure, etc etc etc.

Who do you think paid for all that? The private company. Period, then they are forced to give that property to the government and their cronies.

So the private company creates it, pays for it and then the government and cronies profit from it.

Yeah, sounds like to me I know what the HELL I am talking about. People that learn out of books and theory alone have NO FRELLING clue how the world works. Only what is spoon fed them.

I am not classicly trained in all of these forms and definitions. But I am surely trained in the REAL WORLD APPLICATION.

Let me put it to you straight. The government makes private companies pay for all this # and then they take control. The end user, the purchaser of the properties or goods are forced to pay for all the improvements.

You KEEP thinking that the GOVERNMENT in some majical frelling way pays for these things.

THEY DO NOT PAY ANYTHING! You do, I do, everyone does. Then, on top of it, they convince you to pay your labor to sustain them even further.

Get off your ass and learn something, in the real world.

I have run my own business. I grew up on a business farm. I have family that have run business.

The government does NOT produce anything. They cannot, they are not producers. They are takers. PERIOD.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Which is exactly why when our government appoints people to lead any project or department, they should be professionals in that field who can adequately direct operations and direct what needs to be done.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


C'mon now, that does not make sense.


The problem is, the government tells their people not to make decisions.

One inspector we had told me a story.

They were building this one building, to make a small deviation to the plans, they had to change the configuration of a wall. The city would not allow the change to be made without a whole other study to be done. They wanted architectural and engineering to be redone, etc etc etc.

The problem was, by just basic knowledge the change would actually increase the strength. The higher ups were #ting bricks. None of them, even after the arc and eng okayed it, wanted to okay it.

Finally the lowest man on the totem pole, the inspector said he would sign it off. This is what they had been waiting for.

No one wants to make a frelling decision because they want to cover their ass from any responsibility. It is the litigious nature of our country. Plus, it is the mentality of people in government. That is why they go into government. To cover their asses. Plus, being in government, to get fired for negligence or for not doing your job can take years.

I had one inspector that was so bad, I hated for him to show up.

I know the codes pretty damn well. But I do not know them perfectly. I can build things perfectly in my eyes, but not to their damn codes. Their codes sometimes, make no damn sense. So, the inspector is my back up eyes and code sniffer. That guy caused me to screw up several things on one project. When I got done with it, I went down to the city and told them I never want to see him on my site again. They told me there was nothing they could do because of the union contracts. Frelling ridiculous.

Some builders would want someone like him. Not me. I want the most strict inspectors there are. I do not want anything to slip by.

You know, kinda like the FRELLING mess we have in the GULF.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I have just 1 question for you endisnighe. I know you are rather wealthy and well to do, so I want you to think about this for a minute.

You are a male (presumably), you grew up in an impovershed neighborhood in Detroit. You have left desperate poverty to a rather lower middle class neighborhood, you work 9 hour days and make $10.00 an hour. You have a drill sargeant for a boss at your job where you are a carpenter. You never truly succeeded because you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed and your parents were never home and were drug dealers.

You live paycheck to paycheck with your wife raising two kids. Hard worker, moderately determined. Then it happens, your boss lays you off and you begin collect $245 per week unemployment checks from the government. You search for a job, calling up friends and talking to people in businesses that aren't even hiring. You return home every day depressed, anxious and angry.

Then you see on television a group of angry people protesting in the streets, they are demanding government get out of their lives and stop supporting the bumbs. They are rather upper middle class and obviously have a job and are doing rather well.

HERE IS THE QUESTION: Honestly, how would you feel being that guy watching them on television and hearing them call you a bumb?

I am doing nothing more than making you look at it from the other point of view, and I just ask you to take that question very serious as if it were real. I don't care if you continue to answer libertarianism, that's fine, I just want to know how you would feel.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This is more that I wanted to say about the Platform of the Libertarian Party, and that is it seems this parties goal is to replace the U.S. Constitution with the ideological nonsense of the free market.

If that isn't communism, then what is?

There are so many unrealistic views in this platform, I don't have time to go through all of them, but just a few. I am not going to quote the entire, only the more glaring problems.

In the statement before they list their principles.


They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.


Sorry, but this is completely in opposition to the beliefs of the writers of our nations constitution, who believed it was the role of government to protect the rights of the individual. While the platform states that one individuals rights should not interfere with another, they want to pretend that the market system will do such a thing, which is a communist theory.

1.X

No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.


What about criminals? While I think currently our law enforcement has gone too far, we still need government to establish law against criminals, and people certainly have the right to act in self defense of themselves, loved ones, and property. The additional points in this 1.X category cover some areas of crime, to which I mostly agree, but what the contradiction. Violent crime is not addressed, nor the removal of violent criminals from society.

2.X

Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems.


Free markets and property rights do nothing to prevent environmental pollution on one private person part to mess with another's property rights. Most often environmental pollution is not identified until long after the damage is done. Only with a well developed field of law accompanied by scientific studies that identify the environmental pollutants and the levels that cause harm can we prevent our environment from being poisoned by numerous toxic wastes.

As far as taxation goes, how about private interests pay taxes in commissary to their use of government. Businesses that operate at a local level shouldn't have to pay federal taxes, and this would include all people who earn a living by selling their labor or ideas, except indirectly through the goods and services they purchase that cross state and federal borders. If you do business that crosses state and national borders, then you fall under federal regulation, and you should pay taxes for the costs incurred by the federal government in regulating these areas of commerce, as per the U.S. Constitution. The same goes with companies that handle toxic waste, and other national concerns controlled by the federal government.


We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.


This is a complete contradiction of the U.S. Constitution and the beliefs on which our government was created, and an extremely foolish concept. Certain natyural resouces should never be controlled by private interests, such as the water supply, ports, lakes, and rivers, the air, frequencies we use for communications, roads that cross numerous properties, and on and on.

The government has a clear role in protecting individual rights from private interests which create large and powerful corporate entities that are capable of seriously abusing the rights of individuals and paralyzing local, state, and federal governments to prevent them from prosecuting those corporations for their crimes.

If anything, we need government to better establish what standards should be met to be qualified to work in certain capacities. With current technology, there is no reason a person shouldn't be able to take courses over the internet, take the tests, and get qualified to work in a chosen field without ever having to pay some private institution for ones education.

Forcing individuals to get approved by private organizations not held to a national standard in order to work in a particular field is an extreme way of denying an individual his rights or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An individual should not have to join some fraternity to participate in the markets.

3.X

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade.


Once again, this is in complete contradiction to the U.S.Constitution which clearly identifies the role of the U.S. government in conducting treaties with foreign nations. What needs to change is that these treaties should be negotiated with the best interest of the people of the U.S. in mind, and not other nations and corporate rights as is currently being done.

The idea that the U.S. government can be replaced by an economic system, especially one that is idealistic to the point of being unrealistic is the kind of pursuit that communists undertake.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I am not wealthy. I am not in debt. I am 2.5 months away from being broke. I have been without work for almost 2 years now. Been working under the table when I can find odd jobs. The IRS can kiss my ass. The only reason I was able to live for this long was because at my last job, I worked approximately 60-72 hours per week, on a SALARY. My bosses treated me well at the end of the years. They also gave me a interest free loan to buy my truck. Paid that off in two years. Nice how free market system works huh?

When I was working that last job, I made pretty good money. The one thing I have NEVER done. Is borrow. Not since my college days. No credit cards. No bank loans. Nothing. That is why right now, I am getting a little spooked.

I can no longer do the labor part. My body is used up. My mind is a steel trap. I can supervise building anything from an aircraft to a dam.

I have spent my entire life learning. Never stopped learning. I have applied myself my entire life.

That is what this country needs. Is people to do EXACTLY the same as me.

When I was an aircraft mechanic, the first four months was the leanest I have ever lived. There was a stretch where I went without pay for 2 months. Hold first pay, then are paid every two weeks. I know what it means to live without. I remember a time where I ate at pantry out there.

Now, I own several things free and clear. I help people when I can and I am as charitable as I can be.

There is nothing I would not do for family and friends. Building a deck for my sister and brother and law this weekend. Putting up fascia and soffit for my nephew tomorrow. Fixing my sisters plumbing next week. A friend needs a new bathroom in about a month. For nothing. They will give me food while working for them, that is all I will except. I am doing these things because I can. It hurts like hell, arthritis, but I will not give up. Sooner or later something will come along. If not, I will start a business up again, even if I have to do it under the table.

That is what you do to survive. You help others. You trust in your fellow human beings. You trust that others will do the same for you.


How would that make ME feel? It would make me want to buckle down and work harder. Teach myself more things. Get DOWN to business.

I grew up on a dairy farm and started working on it when I was 6, I thought it was fun. By the time I was 8 I realized it was not fun, it was a DUTY. For my family and for me. We went out of business when I turned 18. Spent the rest of my life on my own.

Honor, commitment, duty.

Life is one big #hole and if you let it, it will crap all over you. If you fight hard enough, you might actually dig out of the crap and learn something.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


You are still not answering my questions.

You are talking about neighborhood development and local government.

Who pays for the streets in a neighborhood? The people who buy the homes in that neighborhood, as they should. The contractors pass the costs on to the home buyers. Without streets and utilities, no one would buy homes in those neighborhoods, so of course the developers must add streets. Those streets then become communal property which has to be policed. Most people prefer that these areas should be controlled by the local government, in which they can participate. You should know that these newly developed neighborhoods also depend upon city streets to get to and from those neighborhoods, traffic lights, signs, capacity of sewer systems maintained by the city, and on and on. If you work as a developer, you should know these things.

You can always develop outside of the city, and set up a condominium style community which then control the roads and utilities, and thus retains ownership. If you want to build in a community, you have to follow the rules established by the community, as is their right.

Back to the questions you are avoiding. Shouldn't the home owners who paid for the sidewalks and streets have the right to prevent vendors from using those sidewalks and streets as places to conduct private business?

The Interstate system is paid for by the federal government. I know plenty of people who have worked in these areas, and I know who pays for what.

The federal government has paid for a great deal of the technological developments through R&D, and massive public works projects. When properly ran, we have a pretty good system here in the U.S., which has unfortunately been sabotaged by free market politicians who want to undermine our constitution, end enslave the masses.

When you support the free market communists ,you support those who seek to ignore and undermine the U.S. Constitution.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Actually your story about no one wanting to do their job and sign off on changes is very common in the corporate world as well.

There have been numerous times that I identified necessary changes to fix ongoing problems. I did the research, developed a plan for the changes, identified the rules allowing the changes, test parameters, on and on, only to run into some bureaucrat who wouldn't sign that all had been done because they didn't understand the technical aspects.

Corporate bureaucrats are even more enamored with the principle of CYA, because they have far less job security.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I can relate, our stories aren't that much different, just that I worked as a tech, it is what I like to do. I just turned 49, probably we are about the same age.

From my understanding illegal immigration destroyed the home construction industry,vastly cutting wages.

As far as the aging body goes, I recommend avoiding drinking too much coffee, and to much acidic stuff. I have definitely identified a direct correlation between too much coffee and aching joints. Green Tea with a squeeze of lime really helps. Also, remember to do sit ups regularly, that is what saves your back.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I hope you understand that I was not stereotyping you as wealthy because you are libertarian, I thought on a previous thread you said you were wealthy, I must have misread it.

I definitly believe in hard work. My moms side of the family has never accepted any help from the government until now. My grandfather always said that whatever a man can't get from work or from family he doesn't deserve. You should be ashamed to be a charity case. But he is now retired, but only after hurting his knee, leg and shoulder. He was always a hard worker, he cut off half of his hand at a(i forgot the name) a business in Bethlehem, PA since he was 17 until about 18 years ago, so about 33 years. He lost half his hand, worked two jobs, and still took care of his family without any help from government.

My father has always been lazy, he lost many jobs because he didn't want to work and my mom always took care of him while working. It always pissed me off when he would lay up and collect money without doing any damn thing except bitch and drink. I believe if you want something you work for it, PERIOD. I could never except money from anyone outside my family, I would rather be homeless. I live by the bare minimum, I live in a small home and have very few bills and I walk wherever I need to go.

I spent some time without electricty, I still see running water and electricity as a luxury. I spent time in the woods of Washington about 70 miles from the nearest person without any electricity or water, we had to heat it on the fireplace and run a hose to do dishes. It was on a goat farm. Books became my best friend and we went shopping once a month. I didn't mind.

I want to move back west soon and get some land and become self sufficient and off the grid. Hard work, whether it is through education or through labor is the only way to be happy.

I know you are probably reading this and thinking how can I be a socialist, it's only that I hate corporations, corrupt elite, and I want everyone to have, even though I don't mind going without.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


You might of thought I was wealthy because of the job I had.

Problem is, I was paying outrageous gas bills the last two years I was in California. I was running a $100/week in gas. That is $5200/year.

Now, take 40% of my salary and give that to the fed and the state in income tax alone. Add into that the medicare/medicaid, social security, California social and medicare. Next all the other taxation and my take was about 30-40% take home. I think I paid my dues.

Duty, Honor, Commitment. Save your money. Once you realize that the government is not there, without a bunch of strings, to help you out you will attempt to prepare for the future. Also, pride before the fall. Set aside pride and allow yourself to ask for help.

No man is an island. I believe voluntary socialism is fine. It is what is behind the family, charity and community.

My life and family has not been a picnic. Quite a few problems and turmoil. That is what life is about. You can never trade in your family. They are your rock. They can also be your anchor. Sometimes you have to be either one.

If a community can become that way, more power to it.

Be a rock. Steadfast and non withering in your endeavors.

[edit on 5/19/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Why do u believe in a protective gov? You dont believe you can protect yourself properly?? o.0?

Man SHOULDNT be governer, man should govern himself. No man should tell another what to do. he has the right to disagree with a man's choiuce or opinion, but never should he force a man to do something that he is not willing or wanting to do.

Sorry, should have written "secure."


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


o2



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The interstate systems are funded by the taxation on fuel. Period. After the federal gov takes their cut and gives their contracts to their cronies.

If you do not allow privatization of systems and call them private, how can you say vendors should not be allowed to use the streets as their sales location?

Privatize a community and then you could disallow it.

Cannot do both at the same time, can you?





top topics
 
19
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join