How To Spot A Liberal....

[Rob Roy]

Is it really freedom if I am free to rob you at gun point? That might be freedom to me, but it's oppression to you. Same applies to economics. Glass-steagal may have limited the freedom of banks, but it was really limiting their freedom to rob you. When we deregulated the banks, they robbed us. Economic regulations limit the freedom of the ultra wealth for the purpose of enhanced economic freedom of the majority.

Economic regulations may limit the freedom of a small group of people, but they give the rest of us freedom from economic oppression.

If you "regulate" something isn't that a restriction or a reduction of freedom?

I'm not for robbing anybody at gunpoint, hence I am against involuntary taxation and regulation and government intervention into peaceful people's lives.

Why are you for limiting the freedom of a small group of people? You say you want to "give freedom" by restricting somebody else...how is this done? If you want to be free from economic oppression, wouldn't you want to limit government which has been an enabler of "economic oppression" ?

 

[Luger187]

If you "regulate" something isn't that a restriction or a reduction of freedom?

I'm not for robbing anybody at gunpoint, hence I am against involuntary taxation and regulation and government intervention into peaceful people's lives.

Why are you for limiting the freedom of a small group of people? You say you want to "give freedom" by restricting somebody else...how is this done? If you want to be free from economic oppression, wouldn't you want to limit government which has been an enabler of "economic oppression" ?

by enacting those tax cuts for the rich, they are essentially taking from everyone else. since that money isnt being put into tax revenue, it is basically just being thrown onto our national debt. they are getting millions of dollars from it, while the taxpayers are the ones paying off the debt(if we ever do pay it off). how is that fair? do those rich people really deserve to pay almost no taxes, while still benefiting from our system? do u know how much money would be made if we taxed them even a small percentage?

the government has been oppressing the middle and lower classes for years by giving tax cuts and loopholes to corporations

 

[Rob Roy]

by enacting those tax cuts for the rich, they are essentially taking from everyone else. since that money isnt being put into tax revenue, it is basically just being thrown onto our national debt. they are getting millions of dollars from it, while the taxpayers are the ones paying off the debt(if we ever do pay it off). how is that fair? do those rich people really deserve to pay almost no taxes, while still benefiting from our system? do u know how much money would be made if we taxed them even a small percentage?

the government has been oppressing the middle and lower classes for years by giving tax cuts and loopholes to corporations

The government has been oppressing for years. No argument there.

You'll have to discuss tax cuts and who gets what with somebody else I'm afraid. I don't believe in any form of government extortion, regardless of economic status. Nor do I want a government strongman to redistribute wealth using force and rationalizing that its means are somehow justified.

If you have more than somebody and you didn't commit fraud to acquire it, it's nobodies business what you do with your justly earned money or property. You own your property, your labor and your body but none of us own the property, labor or body of another. Hide it all under your mattress, blow it on hookers, or donate it all to charity, (which I endorse) but ultimately it should only be the individuals choice.

I believe you are rationalizing when you ask government to redistribute / steal
on your behalf. Why not cut them out entirely and start stealing directly from people with larger bank accounts than you?

 

[Luger187]

The government has been oppressing for years. No argument there.

You'll have to discuss tax cuts and who gets what with somebody else I'm afraid. I don't believe in any form of government extortion, regardless of economic status. Nor do I want a government strongman to redistribute wealth using force and rationalizing that its means are somehow justified.

If you have more than somebody and you didn't commit fraud to acquire it, it's nobodies business what you do with your justly earned money or property. You own your property, your labor and your body but none of us own the property, labor or body of another. Hide it all under your mattress, blow it on hookers, or donate it all to charity, (which I endorse) but ultimately it should only be the individuals choice.

I believe you are rationalizing when you ask government to redistribute / steal
on your behalf. Why not cut them out entirely and start stealing directly from people with larger bank accounts than you?

its not like im expecting the tax revenue to go into my bank account. it takes a lot of money to run a government, especially ours. like they say... freedom isnt free lol

heres a hypothetical...
if u take a million dollars in taxes from one company that is worth a billion dollars, thats about 1/1,000th of their worth, and im sure they wont miss it much(hear me out).
on the other hand, if u take 1,000 dollars from 1,000 families(each worth 100,000 for the sake of argument), that is still 1/1,000th of their income. BUT i can guarantee the families will be more affected by the taxes.

so, the government gets the same amount of tax revenue, but doesnt hurt those 1,000 families in the process. and u cant tell me that the billion dollar company would spend all that million on hiring new employees and creating jobs because we all know thats bullshit. that million is just extra cash that the CEO had lying around, which would just be sitting there anyways

edit: of course, this can be pushed too far. im not saying we should tax the shit out of the rich, while nobody else pays any taxes. it would obviously be a bad idea to do that. its all about balancing the scales though.

i just personally feel that a few extra percentage increases in taxes wont affect the rich much at all. they like to have a ton of money sitting around

 

[Dan Kone]

If you "regulate" something isn't that a restriction or a reduction of freedom?

Not necessarily. Is making burglary illegal restricting my freedom to rob your house? No. It's stopping me from exploiting you. If it's illegal to rob your house, shouldn't it also be illegal to create elaborate financial scams that rob people's bank accounts? The purpose of financial regulation isn't to inhibit your freedom, it's to insure that you are not economically exploited. I see no difference between robbing someone's house and creating a scam like credit default swaps to rob someones bank account.

The purpose of financial deregulation is to make financial scams legal because some people believe their right to profit is more important than your right not to be economically oppressed. It's trying to ensure fair trade.

I'm not for robbing anybody at gunpoint, hence I am against involuntary taxation and regulation and government intervention into peaceful people's lives.

So you're an anarchist?

Why are you for limiting the freedom of a small group of people?

Because what you're describing as "freedom" is really oppression of the majority. Should gang bangers have the freedom to steal your wallet? It's the same result.

You say you want to "give freedom" by restricting somebody else...how is this done?

Through regulating activities that oppress people. You're not free to rob my house, why should I be free to rob your life savings through financial scams?

If you want to be free from economic oppression, wouldn't you want to limit government which has been an enabler of "economic oppression" ?

"limit government" is a broad term. I'd like to limit government from interfering in all activities that do not have a negitive impact on someone else. For example, it doesn't harm you if I smoke a joint, therefor it's none of the governments business if I smoke a joint. It doesn't harm me if two gay people get married, so they should have that freedom.

What I believe should not necessarily be a freedom is to engage in activities which harm others. It's not a right to be able to murder someone. It's not a right to steal their car. It should not be a right to scam someone out of their life savings. It should not be a right to trade energy futures since it takes money out of everyone's pockets. It shouldn't be the right of energy companies to increase your rates 10000% giving you the choice of buying their product or freezing to death. It should not be a right for wall st traders to create elaborate scams to get rich at the expense of people's futures. All these things should be regulated. It's just as bad for someone to mug you as it is to create a scam that results in you losing all your money. It has the same effect. All these things need to be regulated to protect us from corporate con artists.

 

[NoDrama]

Is it really freedom if I am free to rob you at gun point?

If you have a firearm your free to go stick it in someones face right this very minute dude. Laws don't stop people from doing things, they only punish people for already doing those things. Is it illegal to sell something to someone while on the back side making bets against it? Sure is, its called fraud, but you see the TBTF banks engage in it every frickin day, with impunity I might add. Yet here we sit with regulations that specifically prohibit those types of actions, but the regulations aren't stopping any of them from sticking an economic weapon of mass destruction on the tax payers now are they?

 

[Dan Kone]

If you have a firearm your free to go stick it in someones face right this very minute dude. Laws don't stop people from doing things, they only punish people for already doing those things.

That's a pointless distinction. The same can be said about many financial scams prohibited by regulation too.

Is it illegal to sell something to someone while on the back side making bets against it? Sure is, its called fraud, but you see the TBTF banks engage in it every frickin day, with impunity I might add. Yet here we sit with regulations that specifically prohibit those types of actions, but the regulations aren't stopping any of them from sticking an economic weapon of mass destruction on the tax payers now are they?

I agree, we should enforce the financial regulations we have now much better. But if you're trying to say that because people get away with financial crimes we should have no rules what so ever, I don't think that is a very well thought out opinion. Should we legalize murder because some people get away with murder now?

 

[Rob Roy]

its not like im expecting the tax revenue to go into my bank account. it takes a lot of money to run a government, especially ours. like they say... freedom isnt free lol

heres a hypothetical...
if u take a million dollars in taxes from one company that is worth a billion dollars, thats about 1/1,000th of their worth, and im sure they wont miss it much(hear me out).
on the other hand, if u take 1,000 dollars from 1,000 families(each worth 100,000 for the sake of argument), that is still 1/1,000th of their income. BUT i can guarantee the families will be more affected by the taxes.

so, the government gets the same amount of tax revenue, but doesnt hurt those 1,000 families in the process. and u cant tell me that the billion dollar company would spend all that million on hiring new employees and creating jobs because we all know thats bullshit. that million is just extra cash that the CEO had lying around, which would just be sitting there anyways

edit: of course, this can be pushed too far. im not saying we should tax the shit out of the rich, while nobody else pays any taxes. it would obviously be a bad idea to do that. its all about balancing the scales though.

i just personally feel that a few extra percentage increases in taxes wont affect the rich much at all. they like to have a ton of money sitting around

So what you are saying is that it's justifiable to take from somebody that has more of something to give to somebody else ? When you take something from somebody without their permission, isn't that the definition of theft?

 

[Rob Roy]

Not necessarily. Is making burglary illegal restricting my freedom to rob your house? No. It's stopping me from exploiting you. If it's illegal to rob your house, shouldn't it also be illegal to create elaborate financial scams that rob people's bank accounts? The purpose of financial regulation isn't to inhibit your freedom, it's to insure that you are not economically exploited. I see no difference between robbing someone's house and creating a scam like credit default swaps to rob someones bank account.

The purpose of financial deregulation is to make financial scams legal because some people believe their right to profit is more important than your right not to be economically oppressed. It's trying to ensure fair trade.

Everybody has a right to profit. Nobody has a right to profit by using force or fraud.



So you're an anarchist?

Voluntarist, with a few vestigial Libertarian bones.

Because what you're describing as "freedom" is really oppression of the majority. Should gang bangers have the freedom to steal your wallet? It's the same result.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I'm not for oppressing anyone.


Through regulating activities that oppress people. You're not free to rob my house, why should I be free to rob your life savings through financial scams?

Agreed, regulating activities oppresses people. Trust me, you're not free to rob my house either. I'm not advocating you or any other should be free to rob anyone's life savings.

Why should I be restricted to putting my life savings in a bank or be restricted to using a currency that "robs me of my life savings" through a designed inflationary flaw? In a free and unrestricted market, those who rob would soon have no business. Those who provide customer value will flourish.


"limit government" is a broad term. I'd like to limit government from interfering in all activities that do not have a negitive impact on someone else. For example, it doesn't harm you if I smoke a joint, therefor it's none of the governments business if I smoke a joint. It doesn't harm me if two gay people get married, so they should have that freedom.

You're preaching to the choir here.

What I believe should not necessarily be a freedom is to engage in activities which harm others. It's not a right to be able to murder someone. It's not a right to steal their car. It should not be a right to scam someone out of their life savings. It should not be a right to trade energy futures since it takes money out of everyone's pockets. It shouldn't be the right of energy companies to increase your rates 10000% giving you the choice of buying their product or freezing to death. It should not be a right for wall st traders to create elaborate scams to get rich at the expense of people's futures. All these things should be regulated. It's just as bad for someone to mug you as it is to create a scam that results in you losing all your money. It has the same effect. All these things need to be regulated to protect us from corporate con artists.

Let me get this straight, you want the United States Corporation to protect you from their cronies in other corporations? My advice...Look deeper.


Competition drives innovation. Regulation inhibits and is a barrier of entry to affording new companies to begin. If you have more people or companies competing for your business, products will improve, prices will drop. Remember when computers first came out ? Pretty pricey weren't they? Not anymore? Ask yourself why this is.

For the record, I don't endorse scams, fraud or the intitiation of force, from government or anyone else.

 

[laughingduck]

how to spot a republican



[youtube]uORAyORWRAA[/youtube]

These guys would be the Labor thorn of the liberal Democrats, you know BIG LABOR! This is too funny.

 

[NoDrama]

That's a pointless distinction. The same can be said about many financial scams prohibited by regulation too.



I agree, we should enforce the financial regulations we have now much better. But if you're trying to say that because people get away with financial crimes we should have no rules what so ever, I don't think that is a very well thought out opinion. Should we legalize murder because some people get away with murder now?

It just all goes to show that just because you have a regulation prohibiting something doesn't make that action impossible. You are stating that a regulation will stop people from participating in said regulated activity, when that simply isn't true AT ALL. I am just pointing out the huge hole in your theory.

 

[Dan Kone]

It just all goes to show that just because you have a regulation prohibiting something doesn't make that action impossible. You are stating that a regulation will stop people from participating in said regulated activity, when that simply isn't true AT ALL. I am just pointing out the huge hole in your theory.

It does stop people. It just doesn't stop everyone. The fact that everyone isn't caught for these crimes isn't a good reason to make the crimes legal.

 

[UncleBuck]

For the record, I don't endorse scams, fraud or the intitiation of force, from government or anyone else.

ha, voluntarism.

so you DO believe the government should mail a form to everyone politely asking them if they wish to pay taxes for the year.

you are grand, my friend.

 

[Rob Roy]

ha, voluntarism.

so you DO believe the government should mail a form to everyone politely asking them if they wish to pay taxes for the year.

you are grand, my friend.

No that's what you apparently believe that I believe. I don't believe there's much "polite" in anything government either.

What I do believe = individuals are responsible for the commitments that they make and none of us should make a commitment for another absent their consent or it's wrong. I believe it's "good" to help others, but that I nor you have the right to make another peaceful person bend to my will if they are leaving others alone. I'm pretty comfortable with that as a morally correct position and try to live it.

I am grand aren't I?

 

[NoDrama]

I am grand aren't I?

I would agree with that assertion.

 

[UncleBuck]

No that's what you apparently believe that I believe. I don't believe there's much "polite" in anything government either.

What I do believe = individuals are responsible for the commitments that they make and none of us should make a commitment for another absent their consent or it's wrong. I believe it's "good" to help others, but that I nor you have the right to make another peaceful person bend to my will if they are leaving others alone. I'm pretty comfortable with that as a morally correct position and try to live it.

I am grand aren't I?

do you boil your own water?

ever drive on an interstate highway?

ever use the internet?

your position may be 'morally correct', but it does not fit within the confines of the reality you live in.

yeah, you're pretty grand. i am almost getting to enjoy our debates and like you. almost.

 

[Rob Roy]

do you boil your own water?

ever drive on an interstate highway?

ever use the internet?

your position may be 'morally correct', but it does not fit within the confines of the reality you live in.

yeah, you're pretty grand. i am almost getting to enjoy our debates and like you. almost.

I live off the beaten path, my water isn't municipal. Fuel taxes pay for roads. If my position is "morally correct" that must mean the opposing position is immoral.
Why do you support an immoral postion?

 

[Rob Roy]

It does stop people. It just doesn't stop everyone. The fact that everyone isn't caught for these crimes isn't a good reason to make the crimes legal.

Spoken like Harry Anslinger another great robber of liberty.

 

[UncleBuck]

I live off the beaten path, my water isn't municipal. Fuel taxes pay for roads.

where do you get your water from?

did no tax dollars go into construction of the interstate highway system? you approve having your money extorted by the government for fuel taxes but not in other ways?

were no tax dollars ever involved in the infrastructure used to provide internet service? were no tax dollars used in any way to usher about the creation of the internet, perhaps through public education, federal scholarships for higher learning, subsidization or loans of companies whose materials were used somehow in the creation of the internet itself or the infrastructure needed for its mass implementation?

If my position is "morally correct" that must mean the opposing position is immoral.Why do you support an immoral postion?

simpleton logic for simpletons, i suppose. if you said 'that may imply', you might be closer to reality, which you are far out of touch with, it seems.

this is not a deductive logic argument, it depends on definitions. and, once again, at least SOME grasp on reality.

 

[UncleBuck]

Spoken like Harry Anslinger another great robber of liberty.

appeal to emotion.

you accuse me of insults and obfuscation yet try to compare me (on a weed growing website) to the man who is most directly responsible for making it illegal.

you can do better than that.