just another rant!?

Well, you totally sold me. That was awesome: entertaining, and made me outraged all over again.

*joins revolution*

 

Look at how much time we wasted argueing over the iraq war, when kerry wanted to stay.
Look at how much time we wasted argueing about what they did in vietnam.
Look how much time we wasted we wasted trying to degrade the other person instead of his ideas.

Now look how much time we spent argueing how we are going to get our favorite plant legalized.

They have all these little arguements, over trite issues to distract us from the BIG issues. The economy, our national defacit, a war on personal freedom. Two politicians to afraid to debate real canidates. In his own words michael badnarik said \"I would chew them up and spit them out\". I\'m not trying to force my political idea\'s on anyone, So many liberals say the media isn\'t biased, what a lie. How many of you have heard of michael badnarik this year? or david cobb? They take my money, to set up a staged debate, when my canidate wasn\'t even invited. They take my money, and give it to a group of people bent on slandering a mans past, not even his stance on issues, just his past.

damn that pisses me off

 

by the way, you can keep your che quotes, I\'ll stick with Ayn Rand quotes. I like to stay away from quotes that incourage the totalitarian rule of government bereaucracy. \"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others\". -orwell.

 

By Charles Stone, Jr.

We have lots of problems in this world. Poverty, lack of freedom, famine, crime and despair are all in ample supply.
They seem to be much more widespread than happiness and freedom. But why?

Simple, in almost every case it\'s government that is the culprit.

Examine The Sudan with its slavery and religious strife, Burma with its military oligarchy, sub-Saharan Africa with a raft of intercultural wars, South America\'s political and drug wars, even the struggling nations of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact. Look at poverty stricken Cuba, the late dictatorial Iraq, theocratic Iran and Pakistan, oil-rich yet poverty stricken Nigeria and deeply divided former Jugoslavia. If you look deep enough you will find government at the root of the problems in all these nations.

Billions of dollars are donated by the developed nations of the world in an attempt to improve the lot of the most abused people, all of which goes to government and stops right there. Little or nothing gets down to the average citizen or the small towns and villages. The power structure absorbs nearly all of it. You\'ll notice I said billions of dollars are \"donated\" to these nations. It has become a popular pastime for providing nations to \"forgive\" the loans they make so in effect the money is \"donated.\"

In Nigeria, years ago, the people lived in grinding poverty despite the foreign aid dollars flowing in. At the same time, the government was relocating the nations capitol and building a world class international airport. Today Nigeria is awash in oil yet the people are no better off because they live under a dictatorial regime. The Russian government continues to support a superpower style military while its citizens lack basic human needs. North Korea wastes its meager treasure chasing nuclear arms and intercontinental missiles despite having one of the worst economic situations in the world.

Poverty-stricken India has one of the most bureaucratized, centralized, socialist regimes on Earth. It\'s all but impossible to obtain something as simple as a business license there, yet government does little to address the fundamental needs of the people. The supreme irony is that India is a \"democracy” and the people have voted themselves into this mess

And let\'s not forget Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia), once the most productive nation in Africa, supplying abundant food to the rest of the continent. Today, under the auspices of its President, Mugabe, its population is starving and international organizations are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food in to avoid famine while the President chases white landowners from their farms in order to turn them over to his political cronies.

The conclusion may be fairly drawn that all of the aforementioned problems are the result of government action. The people involved would be better off with NO government than with the corrupt systems under which they exist.

Over the centuries, government evolved from a simple \"I\'m bigger and stronger than you are\" proposition through caste/class and hereditary systems to representative, constitutional and participatory forms and the ones that offer the most freedom and individual rights are also the strongest and longest lasting.

It is ironic therefore to witness the apparent (though transitory) success of socialism, arguably the most stultifying and regressive form of government in the world today. In effect it is a nation\'s population volunteering for a dictatorship. The seductive song of egalitarianism draws in the ignorant and disaffected and they have no idea that they are actually being ruled by an entrenched elite until it\'s too late.

Socialism tells its adherents that their skill, education, hard work and willingness to take risk mean nothing. The criteria for success are absolute obedience to the rules and the willingness to subordinate personal ambition to the advancement of the state. Of course those who go along with them are hardly the sort who can take an underdeveloped nation and turn it into a world leader. That\'s why the technology of the Soviet Union appeared so similar to the technology of the West. The commissars couldn\'t trust their people with the freedom of thought necessary to develop modern technology so they wound up stealing it from the free nations they so despised.

The European Union is a prime example. Most of the countries of Europe have been more or less socialist since the aftermath of World War II and now they seek to seal their fate by adding still another layer of statism and giving up even more freedom. England (and I was once an unabashed Anglophile), once the predominant nation in the world has, through the predations of corrupt politicians and by election of her own people become a socialist bastion and a welfare state. Nations as disparate as Norway and Spain, as different as Scotland and Greece with all of their languages, customs, cultures and traditions are placing their fate in the hands of Germany and especially France, both notoriously socialist. For the promise of open borders and a single currency and \"free\"-trade\" they abandon their sovereignty to a bunch of centralist bureaucrats. They will come to regret it.

Strangely enough the biggest socialist state of all is moving steadily, if reluctantly toward a market-based, capitalist economy. Red China has finally realized that they cannot compete against free economics with Maoist political control. The politicos in charge are vainly attempting to merge communist centralized control with the reality of the free market. It won\'t work and in due course even the Chinese people, who haven\'t known freedom for millennia, will see the individual triumph over the state.

The totalitarian state is on its way out and with it will go the poverty and suffering that government begets. The only oligarchic states will be those whose people are too venal or ignorant to overthrow them.

All government depends on controlling, restricting or at least influencing the free flow of information. Lack of information is the great inhibitor of individual rights. The new wave of communications technology will defeat government control

The time is approaching when poor nations like most poor people will have only themselves to blame. It will be interesting to see if the poor and ignorant nations will overwhelm the wealthy and educated ones. My money is on the latter if they have the courage to take advantage of their superiority. If they wimp out and give away the store, the ignorant will swamp them.

 

I know there will be corruption, it\'s simple human nature. Socialism simply moves corruption from the board rooms of corporations, to the halls of the government. The difference between the two being, I have less control over the government, I can choose not to support corporate actions by simply not buying the product, encouraging others not to buy it, or encouraging others not to work for them. Government actions are quite different, they are, for the most part, immune to prosecution.

I don\'t like the ideas behind socialism. Socialist governments require more power, and I am distrustful of any man who wishes to govern me.

oh, and I have taken the worlds smallest political quiz, I actually made a post about it. I am a full blown libertarian.

 

I scored 90% libertarian on it.

Socialism regulates and controls every aspect of life.

Look at all the socialist countries from the last 100 years. Im not calling socialist nazis, but NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST party. They became popular through their social programs. The former Soviet Union, Red China, all killed millions of their own citizens as well. They have all failed and converted to some form of capitalism.

\"Socialism: An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production.\"

There is no reward for a good job, there is no motive to work. It is using governemt as a shield to take everything from everyone so they are dependent on it.

 

Let\'s say the National Sales Tax idea comes into being. What a bunch of hooey this will be!
And here are the problems:
1. Most rich people or people earning high incomes don\'y buy things as they already have them! Especially the really rich! Plus a person earning $15,000 should pay the same tax as someone makeing $150,000. WHY? Because let\'s say the tax is 10 percent. Well then ten percent of the person earning less is more of a chunk of his net worth then the 10 percent of a person making more!

2. You know, when you go into a store and they say, \"It\'s $225.00 but I\'ll give it to you without the tax if you pay cash.\" Well this will be happening all the time. The IRS will just have to shift it\'s focus away from the individual and start keeping a close, big-brotherish eye on the businesses, small or large. If you don\'t think so, then you are kidding yourself.

Other problems with Libertarians:

Guns. Guns generally are used for killing things. Sure you can go hunt out in the wild, that\'s great go have fun killing defenseless animals, more power to you. But in the city, well people may say guns don\'t kill people, people kill people. The reality is: People with guns kill people. I am not worried that I will die in NYC because someone stabbed me. But being shot from wherever by whoever, well that worries me.

But I do like the legalization of ceratin drugs and prostitution. That\'s a good, that\'s like the Netherlands! That is paradise!

 

\"but have you not considered that under such a system everyone would find a job they actually liked doing? ok sure, the majority would take longer out of work, but this would easily be made up for by the increase in productivity due to a very happy workforce. imagine it.... everyone with a job loves their job! even the most stringent ecconomist would see the silver lining in that idea. the reward for work sould be the work itself and what is achieved through that work, the motive to work sould be to feel passionately about your work, not because you simply need to do it to survive. being coerced through fear into doing something you dont want to do for the most of your time seems absurd to me, especially when that fear is manufactured. doing that to people on mass surely would have a very negative effect on society that would only grow and worsen with time.\"

Using this logic, who would become janitors? Who would work at Burger King and cook fries? I dont know too many people who like working there. The reason pure Socialsim cant/wont work is because the number of benificiaries will outnumber the contributers. When people see they dont have to do as much work without fear of being poor/hungry/homeless, more people will stop working.

The appeal of socialism make it popular. It does sound like a nice idea. But it simply will not work. This idea of everyone living in harmony and everyone loving their job and benifiting from their neighbor\'s work simply wont work. My guess would be there would be a rise in the number of career musicians/actors/writers, which would further take away from corporate jobs and low paying/high workload jobs. Who would lay bricks when they find an easier job? And do you want to talk about power curupting? The governemt will have ALL the power, which is why most socialist societies drift into facism. Socialism gives ALL the power to a few.

\"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.\"


Funny thing about guns, more people get killed in car wrecks, fires, overdose from drugs and/or alcohol, but guns get all the attention. More people die from falls each year. I also do not think i should be punished because you live in an area where you fear for your life because someone could have a gun. Banning guns does not take them away from the criminals, who do not buy their guns legally. Banning would only increase the black market, which would create more violence just as the drug black market has, and criminals will still have thier guns.

All the people who are in favor of gun control, think about this next time you sit down to eat your hamburger. That used to be a living cow. He lived in a tiny field his entire life, he was shot up with steriods, and was slaughtered by someone so you could eat it. Someone who hunts has to find where the animals are, and it doesnt take just walking in the woods. They hunt, track, and kill the animal. It lived a free life. That person also drags it to his truck, cleans it, and eats it. Which is more fair????????? Hunting and killing a free animal or paying someone to pick one out of a pasture and kill it for you?

\"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.\"

Edit: Maybe the guy living off 15,000$ should get an education. He should look back at his life and ask himself what he has done that he hasnt. Anyone willing to work, even with just a highschool education, can get a job making more than that. He might want to think about going to a tech school or apply at a place with job training, or transfer to a different department in his own workplace where he could learn a skill and make more money. He might even start a part time job!

Who spends the money in this country? Who goes on vacations, buys cars, boats, golf clubs, goes out to clubs, buys land? The rich. They would be paying more than the poor. The flattax would tax people based on how they live their life.

http://www.fairtax.org/ This is the current form, but i think this idea with some reformations could work very well.

 

Sums up my beliefs to a T.^^
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

This is actually a good point, and one that I\'m very afraid of. I am extremly scared a liberal will get in office, and ban firearms. We would then be defenseless when the right came back and wanted more patriot act bullshit.

Oh and on guns...would it make you feel better if they threw people out windows instead? Or hacked them up with a sword? I have a post around here somwhere that said for every 1 time somone uses a gun for a crime it is used 4 times for self defense. I\'ll try to find it later

 

The FairTax idea sounds OK, although I will bring this up to debate with my peers. It definitely sounds better then the flat tax and the National Sales tax which are both flawed.

I definitely think guns need to be banned in urban areas. Criminals aren\'t the only ones with guns, the police has guns as well. The problem with having guns in an urban area is people have too many things to get annoyed at and pull out their revolver and kill someone. Yeah, it could happen now, but in the last years crime has gone down in NYC! And guns are banned here unless you have a permit. DO yopu really think a criminal will think, \"I shouldn\'t rob this guy, he may have a gun?\" If so, no liquor store would ever get robbed!

What is so wrong with the rich paying more of a share of taxes then the poor? There is a reason the poor can\'t pay their fair share - they are poor!

 

hmm...ever have deja vu?

 

I\'m having deja vu right now. Like I was reincarnated into some other grasscity member who keeps having the same posts.

Very strange.

He\'s the deal with taxes, maybe my final word. Fuck man, they are inevitable! Death and taxes!

The problem is how they\'re spent, not how much they take. Perhaps a person should be able to allocate his taxes to an area he deems worthy? One person may chose the arts, the other can chose the military, one can choose the poor, the other can choose the military.

 

I have a quick question for ya though digit. I\'ve seen several posts about U.S. government actions you were not happy about. You seem to think our government is intrusive towords the rights of other countries and the people that inhabit them. Considering that a socialist government, like the one you are advocating would require even more government, and considering that the size of our government is to blame for the problems you lament. Why are you advocating it? We both want the same thing, except for welfare.(from what I can tell) We would like the government to be less intrusive, respect the rights of other countries, the citizens of those countries, and it\'s own citizens. I simply don\'t believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?

 

You are right, i think both sides want the same things, just different vehicles to get there. It does seem odd though that people hate government, but want to make it even bigger. Can someone explain that to me as well?

 

I know you all think I\'m the biggest liberal out there, but I\'m not. Anyway, I love the government and I hate it. Yep. I want the government to provide police, firemen, ambulances, etc. Pave roads, plow roads, pick up the trash, provide me with water, sewers, and help the helpless. But then again I don\'t like to pay for this because I think the police do a shitty job. The selective enforcement is a bunch of shit!

I ran a red light right in front of a cop the other day and he pulled me over. I said to him, \"WTF! What about all those double-parked cars? Look at that car, it\'s parked in a cross walk.\" But he gave me a ticket and ignored the others. Fuck that! If I knew the cop was giving tickets to everyone I would be happier!

Like over here at the grocery store. The government decided that making a left turn was dangerous. The put up three signs - two no left turn signs and one all traffic this way sign. Everyday, I see car after car breaking the law there! The cops know they are breaking the law, but they don\'t care!

And that is why I hate the government and don\'t want to pay my taxes.