What do you make of this?

[Obscene Eyedeas]

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

[LunacyFringe]

I really like this quote as it is signifies the importance of unity not only as a nation but also as a race. We need to stop thinking that if something is not effecting us then we shouldn't have to help out those whom it is effecting, and start thinking, 'what if that was me?'

This quote also brings to mind Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. America's health care system is a failure because of this 'it's not my problem, why should I have to deal with/pay for it?' mentality. Of course the documentary shows that countries that have a government operated health care system, whereby the nation's tax payers are responsible for their funding are much more effective, highlighting the fact that problems are best overcome when we stick together.

[boy.on.laptop]

Totally agree with above post, to me as having a great interest in politics it shows the flaws in individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. Also as a Christian it shows to me the need to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

[Giles]

I disagree with this, there's a proper religious quote similar to this somewhere... Take care of yourself before all others.
This is in someones signature as well.

[Sage]

I disagree with this, there's a proper religious quote similar to this somewhere... Take care of yourself before all others.
This is in someones signature as well.

You can agree with a point, but are you capable of defending it?

[quartermaster]

I like this statement quite a lot; I think it is very apropos for the past, but also today. We accept certain "truths" in school, because that is what we are taught, but a suspicious mind does not make you a cynic, it makes you one unwilling to accept facts without doing your own research. It makes you discriminating in your sources and where you acquire information, it makes you, above all, less prone to disinformation.

My axiom is that we accept many things without fully understanding the implications of them, we do not see them as stepping stones towards usurpation; we accept(ed) Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture and unconstitutional detainment of civilian prisoners at Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, the bailouts, the artificial booms etc. etc., because we thought that the next administration would not do the exact same thing (I hope that we all see now, that we were fooled). We accepted our illusion of choice on November 4, 2008, and I hope we see now, that it was just that, an illusion.

We accepted these usurpations and many continue to do so, as to bow to the will of our benevolent "overlords," allowing for the expansion of a federal government over the individual. We brush off people who call attention to these policies as alarmists or even go as far to call them "conspiracy theorists," but yet, we accept certain truths from our schools without so much as fact-checking, like it is a good thing that our government creates new agencies instead of reform old ones, that somehow an entity that creates nothing, but is more of a parasite upon the private enterprise, should be expanded.

I like this quote because I believe that just like it speaks of, if we stand together and fight for all, not just what yields the quickest result towards our own immediate views, we can ensure the freedoms and liberties that our founders intended, or at the very least, ensure a lasting protection of our own rights. However, if we stand back on the side of reaction, eating our sanctioned meals and accepting the political zero-sum games, the usurpations will continue. Above all, I believe that we must all understand that giving away someone else's money or "reallocating" something that is not yours (be it to the rich or poor) is not charity, it is theft.

As an American, I may be against abortion, universal medical care and the works, but I acknowledge that a federal ban is unconstitutional and thus, I could never support a federal ban on them; I understand that such issues are state ones, and that the federal government is given no powers to even be involved in such activities. I reject the notion that it is good to accept anything that expedites the enactment of your views, as the implications of precedent could be far worse when the tables are turned against you. I understand that if you give an institution more responsibility, their power naturally increases therein.

I like this quote because I believe the best way to prevent such things from happening is through the rule of law and the decentralization of power; as you continue to break the Constitution, the bounds of the federal government’s authority becomes obscured (then, you can justify the Patriot Act) and on a centralized level, fewer have a voice. How can we ultimately ensure the protection of rights from a federal government if we do not hold them to the document that limits their power? By eliminating the Constitution to irrelevancy, we give them the leeway to expand into whatever facet they see fit. By allowing the government to force people to buy insurance, we are accepting the precedent of the federal government forcing private citizens to buy a commodity that they may not want or feel they need. So, when the day comes when our children are being forced to buy a certain toothpaste or brand of car out of the interest of the “public good,” we will know that we gave the federal government the unsettling precedent to do so. That is why I could never support a federal expansion outside of its power as allocated by the Constitution, and ultimately, why I believe this quote is most apropos.

A healthy distrust for the holders of power is not a vice, it is what the founders would advocate (except, of course, when they themselves, lost sight of the vision, vis-à-vis, Alien and Sedition).

[BlackBetty]

You can agree with a point, but are you capable of defending it?

Even better point! :D

[boy.on.laptop]

Above all, I believe that we must all understand that giving away someone else's money or "reallocating" something that is not yours (be it to the rich or poor) is not charity, it is theft.

As an American, I may be against abortion, universal medical care and the works, but I acknowledge that a federal ban is unconstitutional and thus, I could never support a federal ban on them;

So, it is not theft when sharebrokers and company directors that work a fraction of those bellow them but earn several times more than they do. But it is a theft if the federal goverment tries to reduce this inequality?

A ban on universal healthcare?

I agree that there must be a certain anxiety towards governmental authority especially when it comes to blind patrotism but why can that not apply to business as well? I personally have seen many atrocities commited in the name of individualism, in the western world in the 21st century crimes that I would believe have had a far more detrimental effect than that of power of many federal governments.

[quartermaster]

So, it is not theft when sharebrokers and company directors that work a fraction of those bellow them but earn several times more than they do. But it is a theft if the federal goverment tries to reduce this inequality?

Why would that be theft? Is it not a voluntary system?

The people working below the share brokers are not coerced into their employment, but they freely work to earn a living; in fact, many of them work so that one day they can enjoy the benefits that those shareholders and company directors have.

When the federal government takes one's money to redistribute it, it is theft; they are taking one's fruit in order to feed another. No matter how "just" you may believe it to be, it is still theft and I am a firm believer that theft cannot be “just.” I believe in charity, but I do not believe in theft, regardless of how “nice” one tries to make it sound. Since you always speak of Christianity and Christ, try this on for size; the Bible teaches us to be charitable, it does not teach income redistribution or the taking of a man’s wealth; in fact, Jesus urges the rich to give up their riches, but he NEVER advocates the theft of their fruits by the government or otherwise, even when he easily could have. The Bible is adamant and clear in this matter: “Thou shall not steal.” I suggest you get your house in order my friend!

You favor the use of coercion in order to ensure that inequality does not occur, you favor the taking of one’s money to enhance the power of the usurper, and above all else, you favor theft.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it say do a little evil so that good may come? That’s not a biblical principle, I suggest you figure out where you stand.


A ban on universal healthcare?


Just to be clear, I never said I favored a ban on universal health care.

I specifically said that to "ban" it, would be to defy the US Constitution, which is why I would be against any movement to do so, short of a Constitutional Amendment. To ban Universal Healthcare would be to give the Federal government the precedent to ban many different things on the state level; giving the Federal government such a precedent would open the door to further usurpation. I am not within the mind of forcing anything, illegally, upon a person or a group of people; I do not advocate “mob” or populist rule to oppress the minority, anymore than I advocate elite, or minority rule, to oppress the masses. As such, to give the Federal government such a precedent, would in turn be favoring one of the two, and ultimately, if or when the tables are turned on me, I cannot speak out, as I was, myself, a usurper upon someone else (in this case, the sovereignty of the states and the people that live within them).

On that same note, for the Federal government to provide Universal health care would be unconstitutional (it is not, however, unconstitutional to the states). Make no mistake, I am morally and economically opposed to Universal health care, but I respect that the States have the Constitutional right to provide it to the people. I would argue they should not, and it is against the philosophy of the founders and their classical liberalist beliefs, but again, they (states) have that right. No matter how unfortunate I may believe it to be, I respect that right, unlike many a neoconservative or progressive who would sacrifice the document that holds back the power of the federal government and protects them from encroachment, for the short-term reward of political expediency and getting their "way." Never mind the implications, we are in power now; but what about when you are out of power?


I agree that there must be a certain anxiety towards governmental authority especially when it comes to blind patriotism but why can that not apply to business as well?

Blind Patriotism? You surly are insulting and brainwashed. I fight against the application of blind patriotism, the tool used by governments such as ours to justify illegal wars, monopolies, imperialism and usurpation; above all else, fighting against blind patriotism defines the libertarian movement within the United States. We have seen throughout history, as the federal government grows, the usurpation increases, in turn; it is something of a natural phenomenon. As you give them, as any man or group, more responsibility, they will take on their newfound role and thus, seize power. We are already seeing that application across Europe with the banning of the “burqa”, as governments, under the pretense of protecting women, would ban one’s right to wear one.

Has Western civilization reentered an age of now dictating clothing to people on the street? Where governments, or so-called democracies, would tell people that the banning of something is in their best interest? Next, they will be banning the reading of the Bible in public because it teaches “hate.” Surly you can see how this unsettling precedent can easily degenerate into usurpation, and it is never nearly as fun or just when the table is turned on you. When you give the government more room to expand, just like any association, it will naturally seize the power and justify its actions through precedent and under the pretense of the “public good.”

As for your question on business, I am afraid I do not understand what you are exactly asking. A government is, and always will be, an involuntary system of coercion, a business (when within the bounds of the law, and not propped up by the government) is not. You have a choice who you work for or where you shop; the consumer makes policy and controls the market, not the business. In government, everyone does not agree, not everyone wants to pay, as such, there will always be an involuntary element; if one were to express a disagreement with such an involuntary system through refusing to participate, the only way for the rent-seeker, vis-à-vis, government, to ensure that they continue to exist, is by using coercion towards that person.

If the government were a “volunteerist,” non-compulsory system, it would not be an evil, but it is not non-compulsory, thus it can never be fully “just.”


I personally have seen many atrocities commited in the name of individualism, in the western world in the 21st century crimes that I would believe have had a far more detrimental effect than that of power of many federal governments.

Like what? Has your communalism not led to Maoist China or Stalinist Russia? Can I not think of communistic or less individualist societies that have committed more violence and "atrocities," than the "plague" of individualism? When there is no check on power, who is to ensure that rights will not be destroyed? If the government does not follow its own law, how can we expect it to respect our rights?

Does Christianity and Protestantism not teach individualism? Working hard, being charitable, having your own personal savior, following your own path, reading the bible for yourself? The idea that you do not need a hierarchy or group of people to find God; that you do not need a priest, bishop, pope, nun etc. for you to have a relationship, a personal, individual relationship, with your God.

Were Jesus and his disciples not individuals? Why, did they not challenge the precedence and government of the Judaic law, challenging the Pharisees? To be sure, the Bible teaches a commitment to your community, but it is always clear that it advocates a person making their own decisions, not making a choice because of coercion.

Do you somehow think that by writing a law or expanding a government, you can control man's "sin?" That the “sin” of man’s thought will somehow disappear? That if you hide behind a law or increased regulation that the “sin” of your societies’ thoughts will not persist? That you can regulate morality to makeup for the inadequacy of the church to do its job? (I am extrapolating your views, but given what I know of your views, I can assume these questions to be of merit)

Or that the government will not abuse its power when given more responsibility? That by reallocating wealth you are in the right? By stealing a man's wealth to give to some other man, you are just and have been charitable? That somehow God will reward your theft and coercion? No, I think not…

Many people have accused me of being the most horrible type of person, an “immoral” social Darwinist, or what have you; yet many people refuse to see the morality of their own side. They fail to see that what they advocate is the exertion of coercion to get their way (after all, if I don't pay your tax hikes, or, rather, pay you more of my money, for instance, you will have me put in jail, arrest me at the point of a gun) and the theft of money. What is the difference between a governmental cartel (monopoly) and the mob? Am I not forced to pay them "protection" money, for my "own good," and if I refuse, will I not have a gun put to my head and forced to pay anyway? What’s the difference? Because I can scribble in a few checkmarks on a piece of paper every couple of years, the government’s theft is then justified?

Again, my friend, you would do well to get your own house in order before you start attacking mine.

[Giles]

You can agree with a point, but are you capable of defending it?

No, mainly because I can never be bothered to argue/debate.

[Kaius]

It reminds me of a poem we did in gcse english last year. Not my business (http://www.cityofderbywritingcompetition.org.uk/Niyi%20Osundare%20-%20Not%20My%20Business.htm) by Niyi Osundare. Its about the dictatorship that ruled his country under General Sani Abacha from 1993 to 1998.

[boy.on.laptop]

Blind Patriotism? You surly are insulting and brainwashed. [/QUOTE]

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, I did not suggest that you followed blind patrotism, more than many neo-liberals who support the patrotic act etc. without considering the implications do. I would like to know how I am "brain washed", when quite frankly you know very little about me or made absoutely no attempt to clarify my position or understand where I am coming from.

Again as for your comment about Maoist China or Stalinst Russia, both followed blind patrotism atheist ideologies and is not what I support at all. Additonally if you actually READ my comment I stated the 21st century, last time I checked Stalin and Mao as well as their failed ideologies were well and truly dead and buried by 2000.

Government is in effect voluntary for the majority of the population as they are choosing through democratic process, the truth is the majority of the working masses do not have a true choice of where to shop but are constanly forced through unregulated advertising coheresing children into fast food giants like McDonalds which regularly participate in anti-competive behaviour, trying to prevent unionisation, participate in enviornmental destruction and underpay their workers.

As for the 'have a choice to work there' is only a half-truth, western worldwide unemployment rates are hoving around 8% and people have little choice but to work where they can. Can you name an example to me since the global financial downturn where an employee has turned down a job because they believed the income distrubution between employee and employer was too great?

As for "Jesus and his disciples not individuals?", of course they were an individual I am an individual you are an individual Mao, Stalin and Hitler were individuals. The fact that they were a single person or leader does not suddenly mean they supported individualism ideology.

No I do not believe that the making of new laws would elimante man's sin but it helps. As I have said I recgonise the flaws in government regulation can sometimes hinder an economy or can have determental effects. However I fail to see how forcing a citizen to wear a seatbelt can have an adverse negative effect on their life.

Personally living in New Zealand, I have seen frequent abuses of power and money by business here and overseas lead paint in items, additives in food, safety in cars shortcutted to produce profit. I admit I too have seen abuses of government MPs housing and travelling allowances, but still not to the same scale or effect as that of multi-national corporations.

I do believe in many circumstances that the church is incapable of fundamentally reducing poverty. I do not believe that all churches or even most churches are but quite frankly I see far more spent on the upgrading and upkeeping of churches rather than in investment in people. The Catholic church alone has 3 trillion dollars in assets and investments, I understand that you like me as a protestant was a major reason for the forming of our faith but I have still unfortuanetly seen it far too many times happen in protestant congregations as well.

Again I do not view the re-distrubition of wealth as theft, as it I still again fail to see how earning a multi-million dollar salary, while billions go hungry and thirsty is anyway moral. Choose what you may to call it but I believe that clean water, food, education and healthcare is a right not a privillege if that infringes on the original constitution so be it. Times change, in the words of Ross Perot:

"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."

I do not believe you to be a "social Darwinist", or that you are immoral quite the reverse I agree you have a good set of strong-minded morals quite like myself, even if we have differences. I think( and hope!) that you like me just wants to see what is best for the world like most politically minded individuals however have quite different viewxs on which way to achieve that.

[quartermaster]

Blind Patriotism? You surly are insulting and brainwashed.

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, I did not suggest that you followed blind patrotism, more than many neo-liberals who support the patrotic act etc. without considering the implications do.

Then, you admit to using a non sequitur, as there is no connection between apprehension about the government and the neo-liberals. The neo-liberals are advocates of big government! Most individuals who follow "blind patriotism" accept neo-liberalist policies, thus are pro-expansion of the federal government; the catch is, of course that they have recently become anti-Obama, but not anti-big government. Above all, they favor such expansions under the pretense of "national security," but such views are no less irrelevant to the apprehensions over government expansion, thus a non sequitur.

I would like to know how I am "brain washed", when quite frankly you know very little about me or made absolutely no attempt to clarify my position or understand where I am coming from.

Given that we have had many a discussion and you have made your opinions on this matter quite clear, I have a fairly strong understanding of where you are coming from; clarifying would simply be arbitrary. Even then, I would argue that anyone who cannot see that taking a man’s fruits of labor without his consent is theft, is brainwashed by socialist teachers or blinded by socialist fallacies. Not trying to insult you, just trying to correct what I believe to be disinformation.

Again as for your comment about Maoist China or Stalinst Russia, both followed blind patrotism atheist ideologies and is not what I support at all. Additonally if you actually READ my comment I stated the 21st century, last time I checked Stalin and Mao as well as their failed ideologies were well and truly dead and buried by 2000.

Nice try, but I never suggested that you supported Maoist ideologies, I suggested that those were examples of communalist societies that have wielded adverse effects. Further, semantic elements of date are irrelevant, as you simply said, and I quote:

I personally have seen many atrocities commited in the name of individualism, in the western world in the 21st century crimes that I would believe have had a far more detrimental effect than that of power of many federal governments.

You never quantified a date scale for federal governments, you only stated that you have seen "crimes" in the name of individualism in the 21st century, no date was ever implied nor given for the “necessary” dominion of that federal government. You presume that an arbitrary period of time changes some of the results seen, thus far, from socialism and forced communalism; again, irrelevant, arbitrary-focused semantics.

Government is in effect voluntary for the majority of the population as they are choosing through democratic process…

So, if I do not wish to engage in that government, can I opt out? If I do not want any of the said "benefits," nor any of the said "taxes," can I legally opt out of that system?

Ah, I got you didn't I?

I cannot, therefore, how is it "in effect" voluntary? Simply because I can vote does not change the fact that I cannot “choose” what I want to pay for and what I do not wish to have stolen from me; society chooses for me; someone else, ultimately, decides and someone else spends money I did not give him or her. It is, therefore, theft. Even then, you said "most" of the population, which would imply that someone is being coerced and forced to pay non-voluntarily.

If Robin Hood took money from the rich to give to the poor, was it still not theft? Just because you can argue that it was somehow justified, can you say, assuming all things are equal and the rich rightfully earned their wealth through work or family, that it is not theft?

If I were able to choose not to reap the so-called “benefits” or pay the costs, for myself, through voting, then it would not be theft.

Even then, I noticed you refused to even address any of my comments regarding tax or the difference between the government and the mob.

The truth is the majority of the working masses do not have a true choice of where to shop but are constanly forced through unregulated advertising…

How are they forced? You use “harsh” words but cannot back it up with actual solid axioms; where is “force" applied that coerces people to buy? Where does the market use coercion against man, like in your government? Who is forcing a man to do something without his consent? There is no coercion; you can twist the meaning of the word as much as you want, but the trust still stands, the absence of charity does not denote coercion.

…coheresing children into fast food giants like McDonalds which regularly participate in anti-competive behaviour…

You do not have a case, all companies wish to eliminate competition, but it is only through the government that they realistically achieve that.. As you well know, I do not advocate the government involvement in the market, that includes favoring any one company to gain an advantage, so that's a non sequitur. If they are, per adventure, able to eliminate competition, naturally through a free-market, however, it is because they are providing a product at a price and/or quality that the consumer likes.

…participate in enviornmental destruction and underpay their workers.

Environmental destruction through tragedy of the commons, an issue of public lands, not private investment; no case. Underpay workers? Do they not meet minimum wage requirements for unskilled labor? History has shown that as workers increase their skills in different sets, their salaries naturally rise, as companies wish to keep their skilled workers. Unskilled labor, however, is a much “different” application, as workers with no actual skill set, should not be expected to be paid anything higher than market wages or minimum wage.

The pretense that unskilled labor should be paid a lot is absurd within itself, as minimum wage controls create unemployment. The high wages mean that companies have to “make do” with fewer workers. Some unskilled workers benefit from artificially high wages, at the expense of other workers, as legally, those other workers cannot work for lower than the minimum wage.

Even then, ethnic workers, especially African American workers, suffer the most from wage controls as many blacks or minorities are more likely to come from broken homes, if they are teens, or from conditions that make them less desirable than white job candidates. With minimum wage, the minority is at a disadvantage, since they have to be paid the same thing, and thus the employer goes with the one they see as “more reliable,” even though, at a lower wage, the black unskilled laborer could compete to prove themselves. Indeed, post-minimum wage enactment statistics prove this trend true for all minorities.

As for the 'have a choice to work there' is only a half-truth, western worldwide unemployment rates are hoving around 8% and people have little choice but to work where they can.

But, they do have a choice now don't they? Your "benevolent" government does not give me a choice, I either pay their taxes or go to jail; there is no choice, there is no freedom, only coercion.

Then, you would do well to look back who created this economic crisis, where so much malinvestment was pushed into the market. Why, it was your “benevolent” nation-state that created this crisis, wasn’t it? Apropos, in a proper free market, business cycles like the cartel-created ones would not happen. The only cases in history where such massive amounts of malinvestment is possible is through the artificial booms created by government interventionism. To be sure, there will be bank runs, businesses will go bankrupt, there will be busts, but these busts will not be entire sectors or will not encompass the entire economy, as there is nothing to quantify and backup stupid decisions or inflate the money supply or artificially lower interest rates to create massive malinvestment. Essentially, massive speculation would not happen, as investment would be done much more carefully and people would not be convinced of the merit of artificial markets created on massive scales, that encompass entire sectors of economies, due to artificially low interest rates and "cheap" credit.

Can you name an example to me since the global financial downturn where an employee has turned down a job because they believed the income distrubution between employee and employer was too great?

I was not aware people did that in times of plenty…

As for "Jesus and his disciples not individuals?", of course they were an individual I am an individual you are an individual Mao, Stalin and Hitler were individuals. The fact that they were a single person or leader does not suddenly mean they supported individualism ideology.

Well, I suppose it would matter what you think individualism is? We are individuals, yes, however, Jesus and his disciples taught to break away from the crowd, be your own person and make your own decisions for your individual salvation. Christ’s apostles travelled across the land preaching the Gospel of a personal God, breaking from the crowd. Being your own person is one thing, but a milieu that emphasizes individual choice and being a beacon amongst the crowd, is one that emphasizes individualism.

How many biblical stories and parables told by Jesus rejected the community and the religious elite and favored the outsider? To be a right and just person, and reject the old law, and to sometimes even break away from the community?

Was Jesus himself not an outsider and one who preached stepping away from the flock and being your own person?

Do not mischaracterize me, the Bible does not advocate the “do what you want, so long as it feels good,” or the selfish attitude; it advocates each person making their own decisions and rejecting the ways and rituals of the “community” for Christ. Again, it emphasizes having your own relationship with God, not necessarily a communal relationship; I do not know anything more “individualist” than that.

No I do not believe that the making of new laws would elimante man's sin but it helps.

In what way? Helps in what?

In almost every instance where man has tried to “regulate” morality within the public sector, it has failed and in actuality, led to worse results (in such cases as temperance, drugs, prostitution, gambling etc.). It is the way the church tries (tried) to make up for its inadequacies in properly teaching man; by forcing morality on man they are not eliminating any sin (just because I can’t have sex with a prostitute, does that mean I can’t have sex? Just because I cannot have sex does that mean I cannot lust? Just because I cannot have a prostitute, have sex, lust, etc. does that mean I still can’t break the law?). It is an absurd pretense, that one can regulate morality and God will somehow “reward” a person, for not preaching, but legislating the law upon man.

Is the premise of having a law so than man can be “righteous” not the same premise of the old law that Jesus rejected?

As I have said I recgonise the flaws in government regulation can sometimes hinder an economy or can have determental effects. However I fail to see how forcing a citizen to wear a seatbelt can have an adverse negative effect on their life.

It is the precedence, truly, of being forced to wear that seatbelt that negatively affects man’s life. We have seen that good intentions are often manipulated by man, which over time, leads to further movements to regulate behavior or tell people what they “should” have to do. Forcing a man to wear a seatbelt is a government agency telling that man what is best for him, telling him that we will base your life and well-being off statistics. We will punish you, not for doing harm, but for the potential of harm; punishing a man because statistics show he is more likely to harm himself, even though, he has not done so. Where is the end? You tell man to do something for his “own good,” then you open up the door for all forms of behavioral regulation; to be sure, we are already seeing more of that today.

Even there, though, I am much more flexible as though I see such things as gateways to future, larger, usurpation, I am pragmatic in many regards and would pick my fight with something a bit more egregious, like the Federal Reserve or Government controlled marriage.

Personally living in New Zealand, I have seen frequent abuses of power and money by business here and overseas lead paint in items, additives in food, safety in cars shortcutted to produce profit.

As a minarchist, classical liberal, I believe that the government’s job is to ensure that companies do not harm the consumer, or rather, that people are protected from coercion or exerted harm from others. That is what I believe the role of government should be, to protect its citizens from the coercion or harm of others, and to that end, they must apply negative rights to protect from mob, market and even inter-governmental oppressions (after all, the government does not give people rights, they simply protect them), but not give the people anything, most certainly not at the expense of anyone else, without their consent.

I would like to reiterate, I am not an anarchist, I believe government is a necessary evil, ergo, all associations of government are a necessary evil and thus the government should be limited to protecting its citizens from coercion and exerted harm, but not providing positive rights. It should be emphasized, moreover, that inaction, in any case, cannot be coercion or exerted harm, but an action can.

I admit I too have seen abuses of government MPs housing and travelling allowances, but still not to the same scale or effect as that of multi-national corporations.

I cannot imagine a greater harm to, at least in the United States, the people than the federal government. The creation of a central bank that has devalued the currency by 95 percent and thus stolen the palpable wealth of the citizens since its enactment, inflationary policies that make citizens poorer everyday, the propagation of disinformation in schools, the subversion of rights under the pretense of safety, the neo-imperialist policies that have led to thousands of deaths worldwide, the creation of the so-called “sub-prime” mortgage crisis, the destruction of the American Middle class, the funding of abortions with tax money, the pork, the “elite” entitlement spending the list goes on for miles. I cannot name one multinational corporation on earth capable of such destruction!

I do believe in many circumstances that the church is incapable of fundamentally reducing poverty. I do not believe that all churches or even most churches are but quite frankly I see far more spent on the upgrading and upkeeping of churches rather than in investment in people. The Catholic church alone has 3 trillion dollars in assets and investments, I understand that you like me as a protestant was a major reason for the forming of our faith but I have still unfortuanetly seen it far too many times happen in protestant congregations as well.

We can agree there, the church needs another reformation; it has become self-righteous, religious, hypocritical, compromised, lecherous on the state and greedy. It has corrupted itself and many of its followers along with it. The best argument atheists have against Christianity are those against its followers and in many cases they are absolutely correct; as long as the church continues to pick and choose and manipulate the word to gain money or obtain subversion (which, technically, according to the Bible, is called “witch craft”), atheists and agnostics will be well within reason to reject any teachings of Christ.

Again I do not view the re-distrubition of wealth as theft, as it I still again fail to see how earning a multi-million dollar salary, while billions go hungry and thirsty is anyway moral.

I am not saying it is moral, I would argue that those individuals should be the most charitable. Jesus would call these people to be charitable, some he would call to give up their riches, but not once did he advocate that anyone, state or otherwise, take the riches’ money. “Moral” intentions or not, when you take the wealth of one person, it cannot be anything else but theft; taking what is not yours is the basic definition of stealing and theft.
Choose what you may to call it but I believe that clean water, food, education and healthcare is a right not a privillege if that infringes on the original constitution so be it. Times change, in the words of Ross Perot:

"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."


Times do change, but the abuse of power does not. To expand the Constitution would be to allow the federal government to grow, set precedent and open the door for usurpation, like has happened and continues to happen. The Patriot act is case and point; despite it being wholly unconstitutional, it exists because of the slow subversion of the document over time. You advocate the destruction of our constitution, but I know the implications of such a movement; there will be nothing to stop the growth of the federal government, nothing to hold it back from usurpation, and again, they will do it all under the pretense of the “common good.” If some people want that, I am just fine with it, so long as it does not involve me and does not force me to be involved in that system.

Make no mistake, I have no problem with the socialist axiom; I have a problem with government-imposed socialism. I am what you could call a “voluntarist,” I believe that you can have your socialist system or socialist associations as long as I can opt out and not reap the benefits nor pay the dues. My contention is that under a free market you can live in a socialist commune or have a socialist community as you see fit, but in your system, I cannot keep the wealth that I earned or engage in free-market affairs. Your system requires coercion and it requires threats to keep people in place to pay the rent-seeking monopoly (no matter how moral your intentions are), my system does not, it exerts no force on any man.

In a free-market with protected negative rights, no gang or mob that legitimizes itself with uniforms and badges will come to your house with guns drawn if you refuse to pay for another man’s lunch, but in your system, they will. Again, I have no problem with people living with socialism, voluntarily forming together and combining capital for their communal good (similar to the way many communities were run in 16th century Germany), but don’t steal from me, don’t coerce me, don’t force me to pay into your little system if I don’t want to.

I implore you, support freedom, support justice, do not support coercion. Even God does not so much as force himself onto man, so why then, does man feel he needs to force himself onto man, in-order to please God? Surly, stealing from one man to give to another is not what Jesus would advocate; you focus on the ends, but you can never forget the means, as God does not either.

Again, where in the Bible does it say: Do a little evil, so that good may come?

If taking a man’s property is theft, if theft is a sin, if sin is evil, then surly you can see that taking a man’s property and giving it to someone else is, inherently and Biblically, evil, no matter the motive.

[Strength]

are you people seriously trying to stick up for communist? my parents and grandparents and older family lived under the communist regime for a large portion of their lives and its a horrible way to live. the horrible effects of it still linger to this day. i have no oppion on unionist either. and the jews had a big role in communism to begin with. im not anti Semite but i really have no sympathy for those who helped bring communism here in the first place.

[Strength]

Totally agree with above post, to me as having a great interest in politics it shows the flaws in individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. Also as a Christian it shows to me the need to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

so everytime a group or race that isn't ours is in danger we should always come to the rescue and get OURSELVES in trouble...that sort of thinking has been used with america for a century and looks where its gotten you lot!

Iraqis are suffering because of a dictator. you get involved, the whole world hates you and a pointless war cost thousands and thousands of lives.