Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How Big Do Liberals Want Government to Be?

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Jul 2012, 4:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Beware of personal insults. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

ruveyn


This is so, no doubt.

But the person who comes forward in one breath and claims to support the existence of government in a very limited form, and then in another breath claims that the means of supporting even such a limited government is theft is presenting statements that cannot be reconciled except through hypocrisy or mendacity.

No person insult is intended--merely a respect that if he honestly believes in both of those statements, then he is engaging in an act of self-deception, or else perpetrating one on the rest of us.


_________________
--James


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Jul 2012, 4:38 pm

JWC wrote:
Just because it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it's not possible. Before the US was formed, there had never been a constitutionally limited republic. Did that stop the Founding Fathers?


Everything under the sun is at some point novel.

But unless you can do better than speculate, then you are proposing nothing more substantial than a pipe dream. Which is perfectly fine--today's pipe dream might well be tomorrow's realpolitik. But you must either acknowledge your fantasy to be such, or demonstrate how your fantasy might be put into practice.


_________________
--James


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 4:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.



Beware of personal insults. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

ruveyn
Beware of strawmen. Do not confuse your misrepresentations with what was actually stated. Stating opinion alone does not mean it is intended to be stated as a fact. Why am I not surprised that your unsolicited condescension backfired as usual?

JWC wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
:?

Never mind then, I just can't wrap my head around it.


Don't give up. You're perfectly capable of understanding. Perhaps focusing less on the labels and more on the concepts would help. Apathy certainly won't help you understand.
I understand perfectly fine thank you very much, and I hate semantics so I'm not the type to get caught up with labels. It's always a matter of substance over style for me. I just don't understand how your logic is supposed to work. You go in circles, and now you're straight up contradicting yourself.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 4:51 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
Just because it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it's not possible. Before the US was formed, there had never been a constitutionally limited republic. Did that stop the Founding Fathers?


Everything under the sun is at some point novel.

But unless you can do better than speculate, then you are proposing nothing more substantial than a pipe dream. Which is perfectly fine--today's pipe dream might well be tomorrow's realpolitik. But you must either acknowledge your fantasy to be such, or demonstrate how your fantasy might be put into practice.


It is purely speculative, but is based upon the real evidence that economic freedom breeds prosperity. Look at Hong Kong, or Houston, TX, for example both areas have relatively low levels of taxation and strict enforcement of property rights. When you compare their economic situation to others within the region, you will see that their economies are much stronger than the others.

I fail to see the hypocrisy or falsehood in this line of thinking. You're really just grasping at straws and flinging insults at this point.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 4:53 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.



Beware of personal insults. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

ruveyn
Beware of strawmen. Do not confuse your misrepresentations with what was actually stated. Stating opinion alone does not mean it is intended to be stated as a fact. Why am I not surprised that your unsolicited condescension backfired as usual?

JWC wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
:?

Never mind then, I just can't wrap my head around it.


Don't give up. You're perfectly capable of understanding. Perhaps focusing less on the labels and more on the concepts would help. Apathy certainly won't help you understand.
I understand perfectly fine thank you very much, and I hate semantics so I'm not the type to get caught up with labels. It's always a matter of substance over style for me. I just don't understand how your logic is supposed to work. You go in circles, and now you're straight up contradicting yourself.



Sorry, I interpreted "I just can't wrap my head around it" to mean that you didn't understand. How have I contradicted myself?



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 6:23 pm

A Govermeant big enough to give you everything. Is a Govermeant big enough to take it all away.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 6:54 pm

JWC wrote:
Sorry, I interpreted "I just can't wrap my head around it" to mean that you didn't understand. How have I contradicted myself?
With these two statements:

JWC wrote:
It must be limited to whatever funds it can acquire through voluntary means, just like the rest of us.

JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.
You say a government should be limited to defense and justice, and yet the Government is supposed to be limited to voluntary funding? It wouldn't be a Government if it was limited exclusively to voluntary funding.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 6:57 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
JWC wrote:
Sorry, I interpreted "I just can't wrap my head around it" to mean that you didn't understand. How have I contradicted myself?
With these two statements:

JWC wrote:
It must be limited to whatever funds it can acquire through voluntary means, just like the rest of us.

JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.
You say a government should be limited to defense and justice, and yet the Government is supposed to be limited to voluntary funding? It wouldn't be a Government if it was limited exclusively to voluntary funding.


JWC makes very good points though. The Goverament should not be the ones funding. We the people should as citizens of any nation.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 7:55 pm

Joker wrote:
JWC makes very good points though. The Goverament should not be the ones funding. We the people should as citizens of any nation.
You're right. Government officials should not be able to grow money in their backyards to finance their own system. Hey I've got a better idea. Why doesn't everyone else start doing this? Who needs the Government when money will become worthless with that abundance anyways? Nobody's going to steal anything if currency is worthless anyways, so there's no need for cops anymore. Problem solved.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 8:07 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Joker wrote:
JWC makes very good points though. The Goverament should not be the ones funding. We the people should as citizens of any nation.
You're right. Government officials should not be able to grow money in their backyards to finance their own system. Hey I've got a better idea. Why doesn't everyone else start doing this? Who needs the Government when money will become worthless with that abundance anyways? Nobody's going to steal anything if currency is worthless anyways, so there's no need for cops anymore. Problem solved.


Cops we will always need but. They do not work for the Govermeant.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 8:17 pm

Joker wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Joker wrote:
JWC makes very good points though. The Goverament should not be the ones funding. We the people should as citizens of any nation.
You're right. Government officials should not be able to grow money in their backyards to finance their own system. Hey I've got a better idea. Why doesn't everyone else start doing this? Who needs the Government when money will become worthless with that abundance anyways? Nobody's going to steal anything if currency is worthless anyways, so there's no need for cops anymore. Problem solved.


Cops we will always need but. They do not work for the Govermeant.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know how to grow money. Buddy my backyard can cause hyperinflation overnight, who needs cops when you have a threat like that?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Jul 2012, 1:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:

Keeping the peace requires a strong state of well-being for the overall populace; social welfare.


the U.S. existed and even prospered until the Great Depression without being a Welfare State.

The main victims were black folks who suffered under slavery until the end of the Civil War and continued to suffer from racial discrimination even after we became a Welfare State.

If anything, the liberal Welfare State has exacerbated the racism displayed toward black folk. Who is the evil presence in the famous Welfare Queen canard?

Due to our increased reliance on advanced technology and sophisticated infrastructure, poor people in modern societies do not have the skills to simply live off the land. Even if there was a way, there is no unowned land for the moneyless to live on. You'd have to either give them special squatting rights, violating the holy principle of private land ownership, or simply exterminate them. The age of agrarian self-sufficiency is over. Face it, we are all dependent on the broader economic system to provide a source of income. For nothing to be done during those times when the capitalist system fails to provide sufficient income to all, is deeply immoral. In this day and age it will certainly cause society to come apart at the seams. There will be both a rise in organized crime and extreme and disruptive forms of protest. Remember this is the internet age. You cannot turn the clock back to the 19th century. Not without a lot of violence and bloodshed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2012, 6:35 am

Joker wrote:

Cops we will always need but. They do not work for the Govermeant.


In the U.S. police are compensated from tax revenues and whatever bribes they can get a hold of.

ruveyn



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

06 Jul 2012, 10:48 am

Just to stay on the topic of cops for now, I would like for someone to explain what the cops enforce (laws, morality, both ?). At some point the government will make laws (which the cops enforce). Therefore, one of those laws could be a tax, fee, or related revenue generator.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2012, 11:33 am

Joker wrote:
http://www.askheritage.org/how-big-do-liberals-want-government-to-be/ well how big do they want it?


Too big.

But they accuse people of libertarian inclination of wanting government too small.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Jul 2012, 3:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Joker wrote:

Cops we will always need but. They do not work for the Govermeant.


In the U.S. police are compensated from tax revenues and whatever bribes they can get a hold of.

ruveyn


They are used to proctect the citizens but are not payed by Uncle Sam'. But by the Taxpayer the govermeants main source of money is the Taxpayer.