When I told a liberal (my Dad) that socialism is forcing your neighbor to pay for something in your life (am I correct?), he responds with "that's fair!, government has always been a factor in people's lives, that's how we have road's that allow the Fire Department to get to your house quickly!"
END THE STATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aISm7IJosMU
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
- Thomas Jefferson
he's a liberal, right? Contemporary socialism is just a total state take over. But liberalism hinders economic development
I thought Reagan said something like thatOriginally Posted by Jordan
.
Anyways, your dad is just wrong. The government was put into place for a common purpose: Justice and Defense. The fire department, police department, etc. are for the common good and benefit all. We put laws into place to bring justice to those who violate the lives and properties of others. But transferring wealth is not apart of those two purposes.
"You know not what you are given, but forever will you know what has been taken away from you..."
"As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means." - Ron Paul at a CNBC Debate in Michigan (10/09/07)
Lol, tell your dad "life's not fair".
When America was founded we determined that government exists to protect:
1. Your life
2. Your property
3. Your freedom
Police and fire departments serve to protect those basic rights.
Humans do not have the right to health care or education. Saying that those things are basic rights would be forcing doctors and teachers to provide service and labor on the government's terms rather than being free to set prices as they wished. The government universally sucks at everything it tries to do. Some things cannot be provided by the market, such as national defense, police, fire, etc. There should be no desire to increase government involvement in other areas. It always turns out for the worse, and usually suffers from corrupt officials, incompetent workers and the lack of progress due to competitiveness.
I understand the noble nature of wanting everyone to have access to education and health care. But wanting more government involvement hurts more than it helps. We need to have faith in the charitable nature of humanity and step up ourselves to make sure we are taking care of the less fortunate as a society. But we can never make other give to charity by force (taxes that go to provide health care, etc).
Tell him thats fine and dandy but why should Texans be forced to pay for stuff in New York?When I told a liberal (my Dad) that socialism is forcing your neighbor to pay for something in your life (am I correct?), he responds with "that's fair!, government has always been a factor in people's lives, that's how we have road's that allow the Fire Department to get to your house quickly!"
State taxes pay for roads, fire departments ect ect. Your federal taxes are either sent over seas or used in other states.
The true national debt:
The $53 trillion is what federal, state and local governments need immediately — stashed away, earning interest, beyond the $3 trillion in taxes collected last year — to repay debts and honor future benefits promised under Medicare, Social Security and government pensions. And like an unpaid credit card balance accumulating interest, the problem grows by more than $1 trillion every year that action to pay down the debt is delayed.
"As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill," Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the House Budget Committee last month
Reply With Quote
this might help and is THE evidence needed for his campaign
IF YOU KNOW ANYONE IN NORTHERN CA LET ME KNOW
A USA TODAY analysis found that the nation's hidden debt — Americans' obligation today as taxpayers — is more than five times the $9.5 trillion they owe on mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other personal debt.
This hidden debt equals $473,456 per household, dwarfing the $84,454 each household owes in personal debt.
The $53 trillion is what federal, state and local governments need immediately — stashed away, earning interest, beyond the $3 trillion in taxes collected last year — to repay debts and honor future benefits promised under Medicare, Social Security and government pensions. And like an unpaid credit card balance accumulating interest, the problem grows by more than $1 trillion every year that action to pay down the debt is delayed.
"As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill," Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the House Budget Committee last month
Just because something has been done a certain way in the past doesn't mean it should be done that way in the future.that's fair!, government has always been a factor in people's lives
also tell your dad that just because we don't want the government to preform a certain fuction doesn't mean we dont' think the function isn't worthwhile.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain" - Frédéric Bastiat
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else"
- Claude Frédéric Bastiat
I always like the argument.
your money is taken through taxation, then you elect people to go back to Washington to get your money back which keep Govt fat and corrupt.
Keep the money, state taxes can pay for roads if you need them. The Feds also dont have a very good record for roads or bridges.
I have found it helpful if you seperate State and Federal systems of Govt. So easily lumped together.
http://freeme.tv get the latest in videos for Ron Paul around the net.
Also check out the Ron Paul Newsroom
Grassroots supporter and blogger, check it out!! http://www.politicallore.com/
"Dont tax me. Bro!!"
His dad also shills for the Federal Reserve so he doesn't care when they print money out of thin air to pay for our interventionalist foreign policy and these entitlement programs. Your dad seems like a tough nut to crack and he's old so he's stuck in his socialist ways. Have you tried showing him some Ron Paul youtube videos?
"Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer." -Ron Paul
Help with this needed
I have been having this same argument with my best friend. Her main concern seems to be about large corporations and "who keeps them in line". She thinks that there should be a cap on how prosperous a corporation can be. Can someone help me with a simple and consise argument against socialism? I am having a really hard time not letting my emotions take over and rambling on and on and on.
Her "points"
-There are people that need to be taken care of (I told her that this is making them 2nd class citizens - unable to better themselves)
-People have the right to health care (I really need help with this one)
-Corporations are killing the common man.
-The whole over the individual is important (I REALLY NEED HELP WITH THIS ONE TOO)
She is good hearted and wants to help the needy but I can't get it through to her that this is possible in a free-market, limited government system.
Any Suggestion???
It doesn't matter if the "liberal" is informed. Even if you smash their policy arguments (the easy part), they will resort to pulling cards from the wedge deck when it is all said and done. Expect all of their arguments to eventually boil down to "women's rights" (i.e. Abortion), or personal attacks calling Paul racist and antisemitic.
He's not against corporate tax actually thats the only thing the constitution allows.
A person does not gain anything when they trade their labor for real money. It's an equal trade.
Her "points"
-There are people that need to be taken care of (I told her that this is making them 2nd class citizens - unable to better themselves)
Paul said he won't leave anyone out in the streets. He would actually fatten our social programs while phasing them out.
-People have the right to health care (I really need help with this one)
Where does it say this in our constitution or bill of rights? People want to believe they have a right, but they don't. Take govt out of health care that props up the HMOS and PPOs and big pharm company's, and then insurance providers will have to actually compete which would immediately lower insurance costs. We would still have medicaid and medicare for the poorest, youngest, and elderly.
-Corporations are killing the common man.
Wrong. Corporatism is killing the common man. The lethal and deadly combination of government and big business. Without Govt help, big business is at the will of the market and its success or failure solely depends on the people. Under Corporatism companies are positioned into positions where govt helps them and also "bails" them out when they become in trouble. This allows companies to artificially keep prices high. Check out unregulated companies like computers. Every year they get cheaper, smaller and faster. Once the govt steps in it is always slower, bigger, and more expensive.
-The whole over the individual is important (I REALLY NEED HELP WITH THIS ONE TOO)
For this question. Check this link.
http://www.debate-central.org/topics...ndividual.html
I don't think hardcore liberals will ever be swayed. It's not a matter of politics, it's one of philosophy. At a philosophical level they believe the government should take care of other people, you, and your family. Ron Paul supporters believe that everyone should take care of themselves. And when you try to argue with these people it is nearly impossible to win. They'll only make you sound like a mean person. They'll say you're racist, selfish, and that you don't care about the well-being of the less fortunate. It's nearly impossible to convince someone that being selfish can be good.
So I don't think it we should try to get these people on our side. I think the people we need to focus on are the 'sheep' as they've been called. The people who don't really feel strongly about anything.
"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." --Margaret Thatcher
"You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it."--Margaret Thatcher
Sounds like the Communist manifesto, or a communitarian. Both of which are antithesis the Consitution. Basically, her "points" are the opposite of the ideals that America was based on.
If you want an Economic argument against socialism, which is what she is advocating, read up Mises and Human Action. It comes down to the fact that the state cannot efficiently allocate resources. The State itself cannot accurately determine price or accurately allocate resources without a market. Hence the bread lines in Communist Russia. Communist Russia was "for the poor", and look what it gave them, bread lines and inefficiency.
The monetary reform that Paul proposes would help the poor and those on fixed incomes (the ederly), much more than any legislation. History shows that currency debasement always leads to social destruction. When the dollar goes down, the investors and fat cats who worship the DOW make money, and everyone else suffers. Debasing the currency is the tool of tyrants in our ages old Class War. Mentioning the Byzantine Empire, and the root of the word Byzantine, for a pretty damning argument regarding currency debasement and its effects.
People don't have the "right" to healthcare, unless that is in their State Constitution I guess. If you want a constitutional argument: Free Health Care for all isn't in the US Constitution, and the other candidates seem to think it too quaint to bother amending it.
"The whole over the individual is important" - This has been the mantra of every tyrant that has ever lived. Communists use this slogan as well, and look how well that has worked out for them. Besides, the Declaration of Independence says nothing about the whole over the individual. In fact, Classical Liberalism, which strongly influenced the founders, is rooted in the individual.
Nothing in there about the whole, it is all about the individual. To them this was "self-evident". In a communitarian society, those truths don't exist. The state gives you your laws and controls your life.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. (Note: the original hand-written text ended on the phrase "the pursuit of property" rather than "the pursuit of Happiness" but the phrase was changed in subsequent copies in part because it was broader. The latter phrase is used today).
If you want the state to help "the poor", expect it to take the help from everyone else, with a little of the top for good measure. Eminent Domain is a direct result of Communitarian political philosophy, and is perceived as "anti-American", which it is, for this fundamental reason: Eminent Domain is Communitarian, which is based on the idea of the community being more important than the individual, which is the antithesis of the ideas put forth by the Declaration of Independence.
When you put the State above the Individual, the society becomes a victim of moral relativism. The laws are not set if protecting the individual is not the most important priority. If the whole is the most important, then the laws will reflect that, and will do it at the expense of individual liberty. If the state is the one that gives you your rights, then it can take them away at any time or change them to "help the whole", at your expense.
Last edited by LinearChaos; 11-10-2007 at 11:50 AM.
You guys are absolutely amazing. You gotta love the uncontrolled internet
Man, this would also make the perfect slogan for the Eugenics movement........."The whole over the individual is important"
Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk." -Harry Browne
But what could be more important than your happiness? It's said that an authoritarian moral code is necessary to protect society. But who is society? Isn't it just a large group of people, all of whom have differing ideas concerning how one should live? And if an individual is required to give up his own happiness, of what value is society to him? -Also Harry Browne (I like him)-The whole over the individual is important (I REALLY NEED HELP WITH THIS ONE TOO)
Well the easiest way is to let them put them into practice and watch everything fall apart... i.e. what is happening now.How to refute a liberal's most common arguments?
Central Economic planning... check
Redistribution of Wealth...check
Nation building...check
That's a very expensive way to prove them wrong, but it works
this is a pretty great quote:
"Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
Those are the scariest people of all. One thing is to say there should minimums, it's an entirely different thing to say there should be maximums.
Remember, corporations consist of people. Corporations don't bear the burden of any of their taxes, their workers and their product's consumers do. Corporations don't reap the benefits of corporate profits, executives and shareholders do (or they're reinvested into the company so it can do things more efficiently, which betters society).
Making sure corporations don't advertise falsely or pollute is a perfectly acceptable role for government, and in fact many would argue it's a must if true free enterprise is to exist, and maybe even having health/labor standards.
However, not all of that needs to or should be done at the national level, and corporations certainly don't deserve the subsidies and immunities (legal or from competition) they currently get, and which Ron Paul opposes.
1. One of the reasons there are people to be taken care of is because of big government. By taxing people, they have less of their own money, and people at the margin get pushed below it. By having regulations like the minimum wage, they're less likely to earn or make money. By spending on programs, there's an economic incentive to stay needy, either because they can be lazy (and have offspring, which makes the situation worse) or because they can't improve their own station in life without losing their benefits.
2. Do they have that right at the expense of someone else's hard-earned money? How far does that right extend? Should other people bear the costs of your careless lifestyle (smoking, drinking, overeating, dangerous activities)? Should "health care" only cover catastrophic occurrences (true insurance) or every damn thing under the sun (insulation, which gives you no incentive to make thoughtful decisions)?
3. Corporations are also providing the common man everything he has. And common man can be a part of or start his own corporation in this free society of ours. Even stock ownership gets you a slice of the action. The profit incentive is exactly what drives people to do and make things people want, and improve efficiency (technological development). Do you think your local farmer sells you milk because he gives a damn about you? No, he wants money. And by trading, both he and the person who bought the milk are better off, since neither would give something up freely unless they would be better off. Like I said above, what's wrong with corporations is that they get subsidized and immunized from the law or competition.
4. At what level should that "whole" be? Community, city, region, country, or world? Because guess what, it's individuals who actually decide how the "whole" operates. And these individuals have institutions to limit how much accountability they have to the rest of the "whole". That's why many people seek to limit the power of those individuals to manage the "whole" and divide that power in different ways and among different levels of the "whole". And if you focus too much on the "whole", the individuals who constitute it will suffer and eventually wither away, harming the "whole". However, by focusing on individuals and giving them most of the power, they better themselves through free association, and the "whole" is better off.
Last edited by Goldwater Conservative; 11-10-2007 at 12:17 PM.
There is something I'm having trouble figuring out myself. How can it be that the Federal Gov. should be banned to do blank, blank and blank. While at the same time, State Gov's are allowed to do blank, blank and blank. Isn't all Government just that Government?
Isn't Socialism, Socialism? Opression, Opression? I think that we get our rights from our Creator and NO level of government should infringe on those rights. As long as we permit state and local governments to oppress, how can we make such a strong case against the Federal "kind"?
I don't think it's a strong argument when I hear people say, "let the States decide", because levels of government is purely relative. Is there something I'm missing other than "follow the Constitution" which IS out best chance at freedom, but even Ron Paul says it's not perfect. Did I get my point across?
END THE STATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aISm7IJosMU
I have no problem whatsoever with people that want to live in a socialist society or an orthodox theocracy... as long as they let me opt out. You're never going to convince everyone of your point(s) or change anyone's identity. Freedom means the ability to live however you wish and this is inherently subjective; everyone's idea of freedom is different. However, by allowing them to live as they want, that allows you to live as you want.
If you can get anyone with these views to read Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression by Dr. Mary Ruwart, they'll be swayed - http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-Wo.../dp/0963233661
This is a direct contradiction. As if "the whole" is this unified being. Individuals have to get together and decide exactly *what* is important for the whole. But since we are all individuals, we all have different ideas of what is best. Socialism just allows government to force 49% of the population to do what is in the interest of the other 51% of the population (obviously these figures change depending on the issue). Guess what? Sometimes the majority is wrong. Majority at one time thought slavery was best for the whole. If people want to group together and voluntarily pool their money to provide for "the whole" then they can do so in the type of society that you and I seem to want. However, other are not free to live their lives in the way they feel is best (and often times it is factually best) in the society that he is advocating.The whole over the individual is important (I REALLY NEED HELP WITH THIS ONE TOO)
F.A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, really bears out a lot of what Ron Paul is saying about government, individual freedom, and economics. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics because of his findings. I don't think a better reputable source for Ron Paul exists than what you will find in this book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roa..._and_argumentsHayek’s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which, in his view, had gone down “the road to serfdom” and reached tyranny. Hayek argued that within a centrally planned economic system the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners’ disposal. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan combined with the inadequacy of the central planners’ resource management would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved. Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a “strong man” perceived to be capable of “getting the job done”. After these developments Hayek argued that a country would be ineluctably driven into outright totalitarianism. For Hayek “the road to serfdom” inadvertently set upon by central planning, with its dismantling of the free market system, ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom.
Hayek argued that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road. In The Road to Serfdom he wrote: "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."
Last edited by apropos; 11-10-2007 at 02:01 PM.
As a fellow Floridian, I think you'd agree that at least our state constitution is fairly good at emulating the U.S. one in spirit if not letter (overlooking pregnant pig amendments). I think the same is true for most other states. Federalism is important because government has proper roles to play in society, but not all of them should be carried out at the same level. The national government should defend our borders and ensure a free market economy between the various states, for example, while states and localities should deal with education, transportation, police and fire protection, etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us