Authoritarian gems

[Mahkato]

I would thoroughly enjoy a thread where we can collect the best wisdom :rolleyes: of our authoritarian compatriots. I'll start with a few good ones I got this afternoon:


I've been trying very hard to see life your way and I really, really don't agree with it. Quite frankly, the federal government should be in charge of every necessary good and service for the health and safety of it's citizens. That includes heavily regulating the entire free market and restricting all goods and services to only those which can be demonstrably proven as safe and effective.

You're a freedom junky. I respect that, even if I consider it misguided. Freedom is a crutch held by those who still have imaginary friends. Humankind has never had any freedom, we are always at the mercy of those that are stronger than us. Our government is the best chance we've ever had at being free and discarding it is simply foolhardy.

and


You have the right to participate in government the same as the rest of us. What you don't have is the right to insist that your freedoms take precedence over our ability to self govern.

And from someone else:


Wealth in today's society means money, and money is social fiction. The only reason why one person is more wealthy than another is that society agrees that stacks of colored paper is worth something, so whoever has more is more wealthy. If society suddenly decided that colored paper was worth nothing, then the "wealthy" would have nothing of value. That gives society the "right" to dictate who gets to be wealthy and who doesn't, at least in terms of monetary wealth.

[Grubb556]

Well the last quote could be true in a libertarian society.

[Freedom 4 all]

Government is the best chance of being free? Opposite day much?

[VBRonPaulFan]

that first one is full of lulz. who deems what necessary? who deems who demonstrably proven?

[Mahkato]

I'm impressed by this guy's dedication (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/hkjx5/theres_a_secret_patriot_act_senator_says_you_may/c1w7sse) to our Wise Overlords and his hatred for The Rich.


Since the not-rich outnumber the rich by so many, policy decisions should be tilted in the non-rich's favor, and since these policy tilts are unlikely to bankrupt the rich, they can 'deal with it', while they continue to be rich.


As a progressive, I feel this is a problem that requires fixing. Some possible solutions include laws about the pricing of education, and the funding of programs that will pay for the educated of the non-rich (such as public schools and student loan funding). If those programs require taxing the rich to make them affordable, so much the better, because it attacks the problem from both directions. It funds programs that help the non-rich, and it lessens the resources that the rich have to create the problem in the first place.

Anyone who can't see the pure brilliant truth of this, such as Ayn Rand, deserve all of the ad-hominems in the world.



the mere existence of rich people jacks the price of basic things like education outside of the reach of the masses, that is the rich infringing on the freedom of the poor to access education.


The invisible hand only applies to markets that are perfectly liquid, like potatoes. Anything that is even slightly inelastic, like education or healthcare, throws the invisible hand out the window.


Similarly, in education, it is in the best interests of the rich to have just enough people educated, just enough, to keep their business going, and to keep the rest of the population uneducated so that they will work for low wages.


You claim a libertarian is not defined by incurable selfishness, but then you follow it up with "what about childless individuals, why do they have to pay for other children's education?". How is that statement not pure selfishness?


Can you really imagine that the US would be where it is today without public education?


History shows that the Libertarian ideal is flawed over and over and over again. Sure, Progressivism has had plenty of failures, but it isn't a dogmatic ideal with only one solution to all problems like Libertarianism (cut taxes, deregulate!). Progressivism will try most anything it takes to raise the actual living situations for the most people, and throw away the things that don't work once tried. For example, none of us lefties want to try a Lenin/Mao style system again, we typically want a regulated and taxed, but not centrally planned, market instead.

I should probably get off the interwebs now and get some real wealth production accomplished.

[ClayTrainor]

“We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.”

– Hillary Clinton

[Freedom 4 all]

I keep seeing things on the news "See how the STATE/GOVERNMENT is spending your money". And I have to think to myself....It's not my money any more. They tell me that I have to give them X amount of dollars for them to provide a service. Do I need to ask McDonald's what they are doing with the money I just gave them for the food?

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/hl6i6/should_i_really_care_how_the_government_spends/

[flightlesskiwi]

In response to your second question, were it left to me, I would pay no taxes of any kind, and demand government benefits nonetheless. I would do so because it would be in my interest to do so, regardless of whether it was unsustainable or not. If the choice arose, I would be selfish and narcissistic, and place the fiscal desires of my family above the needs of my state, my country, and my town.

That's why it shouldn't be my decision."
:eek: