PDA

View Full Version : A good response to Elizabeth Warren's quote?




AlexAmore
09-30-2011, 09:46 PM
I'm about to go to bed so I can't think, but my Aunt on facebook posted this
http://front.moveon.org/the-elizabeth-warren-quote-every-american-needs-to-see/

I could respond to it but my responses always tend to be in an email and the size of a book. A good facebook sized response would be nice if you think of one off the top of your head.

Thanks.

TCE
09-30-2011, 10:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSadCyMu_Dk

gerryb
10-01-2011, 12:20 AM
There is no business in this country allowed to succeed without our permission. None. You create a nice business for yourself, Great! -- We’ll find you.

But I want to be clear. You don't have a choice. We tax you and your employees and subsidized your big corporate competitors (and bail out the failed ones). We have marauding hordes of agents to ensure you are following the onerous regulations the corporate giants wrote, and then exempted themselves from. We tell you the taxes we take are for schools, but neglect to mention it’s for bombing them.

In spite of all this, you manage to eke out a living. Terrific! We can take a bigger hunk of it. Now look, we won't use it for building roads or schools or to hire police (but that is a good ruse!), because part of the underlying government/corporate contract is to say we are going to do one thing, but really do another.

gerryb
10-01-2011, 12:29 AM
Here are some parts of a facebook conversation... I am only posting my side of the conversation. I had a clear goal in mind as a multi-part response.. First post was to evoke a response/reaction, and the 2nd and 3rd parts to expose them to my ideas. I could have probably went with just the last part, had I thought on it more and was not confrontational by nature on these things... something I still have to work on =P.


It's a shame the "underlying social contract" she speaks of is the use of mob rule -- coercion and force backed up ultimately by the barrel of a gun.. not a very noble cause at all, and frankly that is not something that can legitimately be called society by many measures. It's like saying slavery was noble and good, because society sure got a lot of good things built by it. Just because the system has become corrupted beyond all imagination is not a good argument for keeping it corrupted. All those things "the rest of us did" to support the "factory out there", were done by use of government force and threat of harm if individuals did not comply with the mob authority. It's a failure of logic and a circular argument to say a road, or a police service, a fire service, or any other thing which the government has given itself a monopoly in (all of which did not have government monopolies in past times) that provides value would not exist if everyone was not forced to pay for them.


At this point they said they don't understand my politics(because I agree with them on certain things and have championed their issues in the past (farm/food freedom, gay rights(introduced them to the idea of getting the government out of marriages)...


Haha =). The basic principle of my philosophy is volunteerism and charity, and the abolishing of tyranny, mob rule and coercion put another way, I am for Liberty and against statism. As a nation we started out with a strong foundation to have a free society, but it has been seriously eroded over time, to the state we find ourselves in today where every aspect of our lives is regulated by several central authorities, usually to a very large degree and our actions coerced by policy whether economic or social. As I see it(In very very general to keep it short) some folks "on the left" want to use the government to regulate and control the economy, how people consume, conduct trade, and force "humanitarianism" by legislating morality(aka reallocation of wealth via the IRS and Federal Reserve). Some folks "on the right" want use government to regulate and control social values, how people conduct their personal affairs, and force "social order" by legislating morality. "Moderates" want to use government to regulate a hodge podge of both. And "libertarians", which is the most popular term for my line of thinking, want to use government to uphold the rule of law and order by ensuring personal rights are not infringed (such as prosecuting bodily harm, protecting the right of people or groups to contract, produce, & consume what they choose, and sell/trade what they produce, etc.) and property rights (such as a court system for prosecuting pollution/destruction of property, settlement of disputes of contract and trade, etc.). Put another way, the proper role of government in most "libertarians" view is to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and are free from coercion. The declaration of independence and constitution are good guiding documents for this line of philosophy, when understood as the producers of those documents intended(by their many writings and debates, not by modern popular interpretation). This wiki will give some further information (There is a chart on the right, Where would you place yourself on the chart?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart


They responded with a capitalism is the same as communism type thing, and mentioned wall st power..


I completely agree we are imbalanced on the side of exploitation. I find it very frustrating when populist quotes like this come around that to me, seem to ignore that and call for more exploitation(who props up and gives wall street et al. its vast power?). I really think it is a dis-service to say the government needs to "take more"(via implicit force and exploitation of the few by the many, or the many by the many) in order to provide for basic services like roads, schools, etc. (which is also a separate debate about who should control and provide those services, federal vs state vs county vs community vs voluntary charity).

The fact as I see it is, this quote is calling for taking more, in order to pay for endless foreign wars via the pentagon et. al(including so called "aid" which is provided for the intent of creating dependency) , and endless domestic wars via the "moral police", TSA, ATF, USDA/FDA, drug war, immigration war, et. al. When we are actually at a state of affairs where Elizabeth Warren's quote is actually talking about providing schools and roads, and not all of these other things, then there will be some validity to a "social contract" argument. The best social contract I have seen, in the theory of Locke, is enshrined in our countries founding documents. We need to return to principles, first.


I think this is somebody I can now call and ask them to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, as a personal favor to me. They will still vote for Obama in the general, i'm sure, but as a personal favor I think they would vote for RP in a primary.

AlexAmore
10-02-2011, 08:23 AM
There is no business in this country allowed to succeed without our permission. None. You create a nice business for yourself, Great! -- We’ll find you.

But I want to be clear. You don't have a choice. We tax you and your employees and subsidized your big corporate competitors (and bail out the failed ones). We have marauding hordes of agents to ensure you are following the onerous regulations the corporate giants wrote, and then exempted themselves from. We tell you the taxes we take are for schools, but neglect to mention it’s for bombing them.

In spite of all this, you manage to eke out a living. Terrific! We can take a bigger hunk of it. Now look, we won't use it for building roads or schools or to hire police (but that is a good ruse!), because part of the underlying government/corporate contract is to say we are going to do one thing, but really do another.

I love you. ROFL. Great stuff though overall, thanks.

BUSHLIED
10-02-2011, 08:44 AM
Warren epitomizes the quintessential democrat...portraying that she is for the underdog, for working people, for fairness, with a soft voice and affable demeanor she attacks the "rich" and big business championing the cause of consumer protection. She only represents more of the same big government policies and regulations. Oh did I mention she's another Harvard person, essentially an elitist BUT she'll highlight her working class roots...see it doesn't matter where you come from, once you hit the "jet set" and teach at Harvard and make six figures, you forget really quick...now she serves a new master. These types are the most dangerous, I hope she loses!

jtstellar
10-02-2011, 09:55 AM
well two sides of the equation that's true.. that's one thing she does get right--there are entrepreneurs who work their ass off and take the risks then there are people minimally assisting them by taking a compensation and stable job under them.. and i guess she would summarize it as people who get rich, and people who don't get to get rich in a zero sum game where one person richer means another person poorer. assuming her premise is true, which side would she be on?

answer: she never got rich, so she's arguing for the side of the poor. how predictable.

i don't think it's a gender issue. it has to do with how much you have (and how little you work). everyone thinks she's working her ass off, until she's seen an entrepreneur who works his ass off AND could still lose everything in the process. only 10% of newly established businesses survive. human by nature are thieves, which is why anarchy doesn't work.

thehighwaymanq
10-02-2011, 09:57 AM
Does anybody else feel like Warren is the Liberals version of Rand Paul?

teacherone
10-02-2011, 10:02 AM
here's my response


She's totally right - The whole concept of private property ought to be re-examined. It makes no sense to teach kids over and over not to take other people's things - and then expect them to gladly hand their money over when the government comes calling.

The problem, as always, is too much greed and love of profits - we have to teach our kids proper morals before the media gets to them. We should teach our children it's ok to take things ONLY from kids richer than them, and teach the rich kids to accept it. Public schools could play a big role - for example if on show and tell day the teacher took the rich kids' toys and gave them to the poor kids, or took the rich kids' lunch money and gave it to the poor kids...

The possibilities are endless but this could really go a long way in destroying the profit motive before it's too late.

I mean, it is patently unfair that some people get a head start over others. There should be a 100% tax on all inheritance - EVERYONE should have to start from the same position and whatever they manage to accumulate before dying should be turned over to the government.

A true progressive like Ms. Warren understands that a fair society is centrally planned and controlled - we will not get back our money by asking the rich nicely!

We need legislation and enforcement - strong government, strong police, strong laws, strong jails with strong cell bars on the windows.

Good thing the IRS bought all those shotguns. (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-irs-arms-60-of-its-investigators-with-12-gauge-pump-actions-guns-2010-2)

You know, the rich like to talk about "entitlement mentality" B.S. - they're the ones with an entitlement mentality - they actually believe they are entitled to their money!

It's not theirs - it's ours!

And if the majority decides to take it (and many of the polls show we will) then WE WILL.