[Zargabaath]

Originally Posted by Richard M. Nixon

How am I a liberal? I don't support free markets.

I don't know how you wrote such a diatribe without taking an aside. "How do I sleep at night?" "Why am I fighting someone's battle?" I don't care about the makeup of Democrats and Republicans, and I doubt any one any substance does either. They are two factions of the Business Party, and perhaps the greatest achievement of the last one hundred years was their unification and ability to convince stupid people that they are different.

You are being used. Don't you feel dirty? At least whores make a good living. You aren't even getting paid for it.

Used? Well you are wrong. I am not a Democrat of Republican. I'm an Objectivist sorry to crush your insult.

I would assume since you don't support the free markets you're a socialist/communist/fascist. At least I know you don't care about the rights of humans and support oppression. Since you didn't comment on the videos would it be safe to think that you got a little scared of the truth. I guess you don't care about honest reporting because they're probably your favorite news channels. Let humanity be led by the nose for it is not important that they are lied to; honesty is over rated anyways.

You may not support democrats however the far-left is socialist, right up your alley right? And you used that great far-left/liberal technique in debating: Name Calling. Huzzah!! Let us rejoice with the great maturity far-left/liberals exhibit, without them humans would just be throwing poo like monkeys. Wooh.

[Walter Sobchak]

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Used? Well you are wrong. I am not a Democrat of Republican. I'm an Objectivist sorry to crush your insult.

You just upped it a notch for me. Amateur philosophy for the win.

You are all over the place, so in order for me to understand what you are talking about, kindly name:

a. a fascist country.
b. a socialist country.
c. a communist country.

I suspect that your answers will be the end of it, mostly because you associate "far left", "socialist", and "liberal" together. Yes, socialists are far left, but liberalism is a right wing ideology, whether you use the real definition, which is support for free markets, or the fictional definition, which is the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

I would assume since you don't support the free markets you're a socialist/communist/fascist.

Really? Really?

Which one is he? Is he the one that believes the rich should help the poor and move towards equality, is he the one who wants complete egalitarianism, or is he into Leviathan and 1984?

I am loading your videos as I type. I will return with comments. Keep in mind that I am Scottish, and a casual observer for the sole reason that American politics is a lot sexier than British politics. Smith husband watching porn. Ew.

[Walter Sobchak]

Originally Posted by Govinda

Really? Really?

That's like me telling you that you're a liberal because you support the free market, kind of. Damn Mussolini and his tariffs. I mean really.

Maybe we are expecting too much.

Simply put, liberalism means free markets and, for the most part, free social rights. The closest to that would be the American Libertarian Party. Conservatism means an authoritarian government that controls the people on social and economic issues under the guise of traditional values. An example would be the Taliban.

EDIT: This site has colors and is generally more entertaining.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Richard M. Nixon

I suspect that your answers will be the end of it, mostly because you associate "far left", "socialist", and "liberal" together.

Because modern liberalism is a less extreme form of socialism, which is the theory that equates to the practice of Communism.

Yes, socialists are far left, but liberalism is a right wing ideology, whether you use the real definition, which is support for free markets, or the fictional definition, which is the Democratic Party.

What the hell are you on, kid? Liberalism is not, and has never been, a "right wing ideology". You might be referring to libertarianism.

Social liberalism, Fiscal liberalism: Liberal
Social liberalism, Fiscal conservatism: Libertarian
Social conservatism, Fiscal liberalism: Republican
Social conservatism, Fiscal conservatism: Conservative (This used to fit Republican as well, but not in the past decade or so.)

But go on comparing people you don't like to the Taliban. I'm surprised you haven't pulled out the Nazi card yet.

[Zargabaath]

Liberalism is not a right winged ideology it is left winged.

Do you not understand what socialism, fascism, or communism are so need a country that practices that style of government to base your answer off of.

Objectivism is more than ameteur philosophy, it just goes against most philosophies making very unpopular on both sides.

Name calling is not a good tactic when will people learn. I am refering to you calling Objectivism ameteur, instead of stating what problem you have with it you simplify the process by trying to disregard by calling it ameteur.

What is ameteur is name calling in debate. Let's keep it in the big leagues and if you can't break the habit then maybe you are not cut out for this.

Still have not heard responses to those videos, I wonder why? lol
Watched O'Reilly this night and he discussed April's ratings and the total is... FOX news dominates once again. Those hoping that those who watch O'Reilly/FOX will die off soon for they are of the older generation, O'Reilly crushed the 25-42 demographic. It hurts that young and middle-aged are not tuning in to your "better" news (liberal bias) network.

[Walter Sobchak]

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Do you not understand what socialism, fascism, or communism are so need a country that practices that style of government to base your answer off of.

Are you punting already? Give an example of each or it is impossible for me to reply for your assertion that I am likely one of the three. While preparing for graduate work in political science, I am in tune with the technical definitions. I need to know what alteration you are using.

I applaud you for thinking liberalism is left-wing, but in terms of the social and economic approach, it is right-wing. It is not something for debate; free markets belong entirely on the spectrum of the right.

Economic liberalism is supported by those on the right, so in at least one respect, liberalism is part of a right-wing ideology.

Sasquatch, 'Because modern liberalism is a less extreme form of socialism, which is the theory that equates to the practice of Communism.'

The theory of socialism equates to the practice of Communism? Did I read that right or is there an unintentional grammar slip? Socialism doesn't lead to Communism. They are closer to one another than either is to fascism, but are by a mile not the same thing. Europe has been socialist for a long time now, and we still think that Commies are as nuts as you think they are. We just have a penchant for social security, paid tuition fees and nationalised healthcare.

Zargabaath, I watched your videos. I admit, they made more sense than Glen Beck crying. I was aware that the Tea Parties weren't all right wingers, but they were out in a majority, and the most crazy drew the most attention to themselves with their mental and sometimes offensive placards (as a European, there were a lot of offensive ones. I don't like being called a Communist and a fascist by proxy. I mean why the **** would you want to be like Europe? It's not like we're equal and help one another out whilst giving our young people opportunity without taking their financial status into account. I mean jeez. What a Satan-ridden shithole I live in).

However, we have nothing like Fox News here. The closest we have is ITN, and they are barely alarmist in comparison. I thought the BBC had left-wing tendencies until recently, where they've done a fair amount of government-bashing and have, much to my shock and pleasure, managed to remain neutral on the Tamil Tigers. Not that I want them to be nice to them, not at all, but it was nice to see them living up to their name. Sky News is okay.

What I'm saying here is that we have nothing a incendiary as Fox. I explored the website a little from your link to check on their reporting, and on news stories it was basically the same as you'd read on any site since most of it is copypasted from AP et al anyway. But some of the videos were quite alarmist, as were most of the user comments. I know Fox can't control its comments, but in comparison to sites like Huffington Post, they were freaked out. I must admit though, they were much more normal than I had anticipated. I was disappointed by this.

I am bored of Fox News now. I'll have to find some other outlet for American Crazy to satisfy my entertainment needs.

EDIT: I just found one with Glen Beck at the Alamo. People cheered when he spoke of Texan secession and then started chanting 'USA, USA'. That was neat. Also, how can Fox claim that the TP's are a grassroots movement when they are renting out the Alamo to host their own?

[Zargabaath]

Unfortunately liberals/Democrats and conservatives/republicans do not support a free market. If they both support a few, some, or tons of government interference in the economy than that does not equate to supporting a free market. That is a mixed economy which is detrimental to a country.

For your countries since you can't comprehend their philosophy's without a reference. Since you did not put this clause in there I will use past and present nations. If you desire all current notify me and I will accommodate.

Communist- China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Yugoslavia.

Socialist- most of the E.U, Venezuela, Bolivian.

Fascist - Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Iron Guard Romania.

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Socialist- most of the E.U, Venezuela, Bolivian.

The EU is completely different to Venezuela and Bolivia. They have full blown, perhaps even overblown, socialism; we do not. Ours works, and theirs does not, because their leaders cannot be trusted.

Do you understand socialism as a model of degrees?

[Walter Sobchak]

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Unfortunately liberals/Democrats and conservatives/republicans do not support a free market. If they both support a few, some, or tons of government interference in the economy than that does not equate to supporting a free market. That is a mixed economy which is detrimental to a country.

For your countries since you can't comprehend their philosophy's without a reference. Since you did not put this clause in there I will use past and present nations. If you desire all current notify me and I will accommodate.

Communist- China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Yugoslavia.

Socialist- most of the E.U, Venezuela, Bolivian.

Fascist - Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Iron Guard Romania.

You succeeded on fascism, and I applaud you.

However, you are completely off the rails when it comes to socialism and communism. In many ways, China is more capitalist now than any nation on the planet. Employers are able to pay the lowest possible amounts, there are no real environmental regulations, and there is no social safety net or pension system. In other words, an Ayn Rand utopia.

Socialism, in essence, was a trick question. The political science model breaks down socialism into two distinct schools - social democracy and communism. Of course, these break down further. While no country has ever been communist, we can use the label to describe totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.

Social democracy is what you describe as the European Union, although it is most practiced in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries. No one can reasonably say that Sweden has a similar market than Venezuala. They may both claim that central planning is for the good of the people, but a quick glance at a newspaper can see how democratic Sweden is and how oppressed Venezuala is.

This all brings us back to your initial assertion, that I must be either a socialist, fascist, or communist. I cannot be a fascist, because I value individual freedom, which puts me in contrast to both fascists and hardline religious fundamentalists. It also puts me in contrast to your definition of communism, because individual freedom is not encouraged there either. Since I am not a liberal, because I do not support free markets, and I am not a conservative, because I do not want people to be controlled by religious and traditional forces, if one has to put me in a box, social democracy is the best fit. Sweden is the most democratic country on Earth, and I can admire that.

[Zargabaath]

What socialism/communism/fascism have in common is that they oppress people. You say you value individual freedom and that you admire social democracy the most, that it is the best 'fit' for you. What you fail to recognize is that democracy does not or ever has equalled freedom. Democracy is the rule of majority. Democracy does not take into account individuals and thier freedom. Only capitalism allows for a truly free society, where people can pursue their own happniness and not the happiness of society.

You don't want to be controlled by religious or traditional forces - by god, yet all you do with social democracy is replace god with society. Instead of what does God want, it is what does society want. Instead of living your life for God you replace it with living your life for society. People are still slaves in a social democracy for they don't have the right to their own life, liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. Only in a limited-constitutional republic can individual rights be assured.

I agree that China has loosened up on controlling the population however they are still not an Ayn Rand utopia. The media is still state controlled and so is the economy still.

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

What socialism/communism/fascism have in common is that they oppress people.

Communism isn't meant to; bad interpretations of it result in oppression. Fascism is oppression, out and out.

Socialism does not oppress. If it does, than I am oppressed. I certainly don't feel oppressed. I can go and march around anywhere and tell my government how shit I think they are whenever I like. The newspapers make a regular show of ridiculing them.

My free healthcare and university education are oppressive, I agree. The discounted student travel fares too. Plus all the help my family and I received when my mother was ill. The flats they gave us, the carpets and cookers and food, I mean God damn. Where were my rights?

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Govinda

Communism isn't meant to; bad interpretations of it result in oppression. Fascism is oppression, out and out.

Ah, the old, "It's not bad, it's just that the wrong people are always in charge!" argument. Classic.

My free healthcare and university education are oppressive, I agree. The discounted student travel fares too. Plus all the help my family and I received when my mother was ill. The flats they gave us, the carpets and cookers and food, I mean God damn. Where were my rights?

And what about the people who paid for them? You're foolishly (and continuously) confusing -- intentionally or not -- "free" with "tax-funded". If you were charged another ten dollars in taxes every year and given an eight-dollar meal, it wouldn't be free -- but ignorant people will still rejoice over it, not realizing that they -- or somebody else -- still paid for it, and more than likely overpaid.

And what about those with good educations and work ethics that excel at their careers, but aren't rewarded for it, because the extra money they would be making for working harder, longer, or smarter is taken and redistributed to those less deserving? Are they not oppressed? Oh wait, nevermind, they just move to a Capitalist country. Which is why there's a "brain drain" in every country that moves to Socialism.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Ah, the old, "It's not bad, it's just that the wrong people are always in charge!" argument. Classic.

And what about the people who paid for them? You're foolishly (and continuously) confusing -- intentionally or not -- "free" with "tax-funded". If you were charged another ten dollars in taxes every year and given an eight-dollar meal, it wouldn't be free -- but ignorant people will still rejoice over it, not realizing that they -- or somebody else -- still paid for it, and more than likely overpaid.

And what about those with good educations and work ethics that excel at their careers, but aren't rewarded for it, because the extra money they would be making for working harder, longer, or smarter is taken and redistributed to those less deserving? Are they not oppressed? Oh wait, nevermind, they just move to a Capitalist country. Which is why there's a "brain drain" in every country that moves to Socialism.

To start with, Communism HAS worked before - for a very brief period in China, before Mao lost it and decided that the people weren't paying him enough attention. During those few years, every person in China was fed, which is something that the government still can't achieve under capitalism. There has never been a Communist revolution that took place under the conditions stipulated by Marx, so can we say we've ever really seen it?

Are you saying that Sweden and Norway suffer a 'brain drain'? Something else you might note is that there are an awful lot of American academics in the UK (I myself am taught by three). London's City doesn't seem deprived of extremely wealthy people. Fact of the matter is that those countries who pin down socialism best - ie Scandinavia - keep their brainy people, and those brainy people in turn help to make the country, and often the world, better. Scandinavian countries have the highest rates of all the good things in world; highest living standards, literacy rates, wages, AND social care. Besides which, if nobody's stopping them from leaving, then they're not oppressed in any way, shape, or form, besides the fact that paying taxes to keep a country you love afloat and fair isn't really oppression anyway.

'Free' is how it feels to most people. I pay taxes, and so do most other people I know, but we don't mind it - you pay taxes too. Ours aren't that much bigger. We are taxed but have plenty left over to live on. It just makes our lives so much easier. We know that we can call on help for health, education, housing and food whenever we need to. The problem with the 'undeserving' being given these reliefs is being fixed - in Scotland, you're not allowed to just sit recieving security checks these days. You have to spend the time you are unemployed working for a local council as a gardener or binman until you find a better job. I'm not sure how they're dealing with it in England.

The thing you're missing here is that we would not be without these things. Rich people take it as written that if you want to stay in the UK (or almost anywhere in the EU for that matter) you have to give something back.

The pros outweight the cons. If people don't want to pay the taxes, they can leave - but the vast majority choose not to.

I like to think of it as a bank. Every time I pay my taxes (or buy a packet of tobacco), I'm putting money into a bank that covers my education, my health, and will help me to stand on my feet again if ever I fall over in life. I put money in, I withdraw money and services as and when I need them. It also ensures that my country keeps its defensive forces, that my little cousins go to school, that my father can keep getting help (after 40 years of nonstop work, he is an unemployed scaffolder), so that my mother can keep getting her free prescriptions and tests, oh! so that her boyfriend can continue to have his travel subsidised (blind guy who gets the subway, go figure), and...see what I mean? Put in, get back.

And also, America's pretty socialist anyway. Medicare, your roads, schools, police and fire serives, army...Christ, don't you guys even have a nationalised post service? Even the UK's is private. As a consequence of being private it is shit, but there you go.

Free me from these chains of tyranny. Europe needs you.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Govinda

To start with, Communism HAS worked before - for a very brief period in China, before Mao lost it and decided that the people weren't paying him enough attention. During those few years, every person in China was fed, which is something that the government still can't achieve under capitalism.

Communism, at its utopian form, can only be achieved by taking away more from those who are more successful. This leads to nobody trying to be more successful. It's not the government's job to feed everyone under Capitalism.

So sure, Mao was "successful" with Communism, until the people realized that it sucked -- then in came the oppression and subjugation, because nobody wants to work for nothing.

There has never been a Communist revolution that took place under the conditions stipulated by Marx, so can we say we've ever really seen it?

And there has never been a Capitalist society under true Capitalism. The fact remains that a hundred million people have died because of Communism, and it's simply moronic to believe that it would work, despite its history, if it was applied more accurately.

Are you saying that Sweden and Norway suffer a 'brain drain'?

Yes. "Brain Drain" is when the best workers in their specific field decide that they want to be rewarded for their work instead of having their money stolen and redistributed, so they move to Capitalist countries. Maybe this'll help.

Something else you might note is that there are an awful lot of American academics in the UK (I myself am taught by three).

Yeah, it works the other way, too. The less-qualified workers move to areas where they are guaranteed jobs that they would lose in Capitalist societies. Of course, your instructors could simply be a case of wanting to live in Europe, but there's always the possibility that they just couldn't make it in America.

Frankly, we see this a lot in the military, with doctors and such. Very few good doctors would stay in the military for their entire careers, making forty or fifty grand a year, then they could make much, much more as civilians. On the other side of the coin, doctors who don't make the cut as civilians can join the military (where you'd have to really screw up to be fired) and have a guaranteed career.

Scandinavian countries have the highest rates of all the good things in world; highest living standards, literacy rates, wages, AND social care.

Any credible evidence to back that up?

Or are you the type to argue about how socialized medine is better, and as evidence cite the WHO, which includes how socialized a system is in its ratings?

'Free' is how it feels to most people.

Then those people either don't realize what "free" means, or don't realize that they're having money taken from every paycheck to pay for all of their "free" services.

I pay taxes, and so do most other people I know, but we don't mind it - you pay taxes too. Ours aren't that much bigger.

Because you aren't, nor are the people you know, paying the most taxes.

We are taxed but have plenty left over to live on. It just makes our lives so much easier. We know that we can call on help for health, education, housing and food whenever we need to.

America has charity for that.

I have no problem with requesting help. Hell, I give to charity, and I'd be glad to help. You come over to Wisconsin and need somewhere to stay for a night, I'll give you a hot dinner and breakfast, then sleep on the couch while you take my bed. Demanding help -- or others demanding that I help you -- is what gets my panties in a twist. You come over to Wisconsin and demand that I let you stay at my place, and I'll tell you to bugger off.

To liberals in America, if I demand some of your money, I'm needy, underpriveleged, unfortunate, etc. -- but if I want to keep my own money, I'm a greedy bastard.

The thing you're missing here is that we would not be without these things. Rich people take it as written that if you want to stay in the UK (or almost anywhere in the EU for that matter) you have to give something back.

... which is why some of them move out of the EU.

I like to think of it as a bank. Every time I pay my taxes (or buy a packet of tobacco), I'm putting money into a bank that covers my education, my health, and will help me to stand on my feet again if ever I fall over in life. I put money in, I withdraw money and services as and when I need them.

It's too bad that some people pay much, much more than others into that "bank", and that others take out much, much more than they would ever put in.

And also, America's pretty socialist anyway. Medicare, your roads, schools, police and fire serives, army...Christ, don't you guys even have a nationalised post service?

There's a difference in Socialism and General Welfare. Military, infrastructure, protection, etc. will usually be part of the national budget. Our postal service is a government corporation, which is why private postal services -- UPS, FedEx, etc. -- are so successful. Medicare provides horrible care, and is only for those who meet certain qualifications.

If it's not the government's job to feed people under capitalism, are you ok then with the jobless starving in America? Not saying that it happens, but if it were to, you wouldn't want the government to give them food stamps?

With Chinese Communism, people did not 'realise that it sucked'. Mao Zedong, after leading the revolution and becoming a figurehead, felt that he was losing the adulation of the people. He was content for the system just to run for a few years, but then he went mental - the Cultural Revolution was his.

I know what brain drain is.

My tutors are not 'less-qualified'. They wanted to live here, because they recognise that individualism on the scale that America has is unsustainble. One of them likes to go on about this at length.

I'm not out to argue that socialised medicine is better, but just type 'Scandinavian standard of living' into Google and you'll see what I mean. The UN, the EU, the WHO, IMF, all fall over themselves to praise the model that Scandinavia uses and how good it is.

Charity is good, but it can never be as effective as social care. Aren't there tent cities in America now? Wanting to keep your own money doesn't make you a greedy bastard (first of all, it would depend on how much you earn, and I'm not going to ask that). The people here who pay the highest tax - and I do know them, my mother's partner is one of them - do complain. They don't like it much, but are willing to do it so that the country they love is a fairer place. If they don't like it, they can leave, move to America, and be taxed not that much less.

I agree, it is a skewed bank. Be that as it may, if they don't like paying the bit extra, they can leave. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that.

What's the difference then between Socialism and General Welfare? I thought the latter was a part of the former. The EU is socialist, but America is not...so does that mean that free healthcare and education is all that it takes it tip from welfare into socialism? That doesn't quite add up. Any scheme where the government take your money redistribute it as they see fit is socialism, so America's policy is, at the moment at least, quite socialist. Not as socialist as us, but still.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Govinda

If it's not the government's job to feed people under capitalism, are you ok then with the jobless starving in America?

I'm not just okay with it, I would encourage it. If you can't make it in America, you're not going to make it anywhere else -- and if you make bad enough choices so that you are no longer able to care for yourself or your family, the rest of society should not be punished so that your worthless ass can stay around.

Not saying that it happens, but if it were to, you wouldn't want the government to give them food stamps?

For a very short time, sure. There's a difference in our Welfare program being a safety net -- which it was originally designed as -- and what it has become, which is a hammock. If you can't support yourself, that's your problem. I may or may not be gracious enough to give you some of my own money, if I so choose. I may or may not be gracious enough to give you some of my own money, if you request it.

As I said. You come to Wisconsin and ask if you can stay at my place, and I'll happily provide hot food and a warm bed for you, as well as privacy, entertainment, and whatever else I may or may not feel gracious enough to offer. You beat on my door and demand that I let you stay in my residence, and you'll meet the muzzle of a 12-gauge.

With Chinese Communism, people did not 'realise that it sucked'. Mao Zedong, after leading the revolution and becoming a figurehead, felt that he was losing the adulation of the people.

Because the people realized that Communism sucks. When people don't get rewarded for working harder, longer, or smarter, they cease to do those things. Which is why Communism has, historically, always done one of two things: Failed miserably; or survived only through oppression and slaughter.

He was content for the system just to run for a few years, but then he went mental - the Cultural Revolution was his.

So he was fine for a few years, then up and snapped?

I know what brain drain is.

Then you know that it happens to countries that move closer to Socialism. The inverse, "Brain Gain", happens to Capitalist countries.

My tutors are not 'less-qualified'. They wanted to live here, because they recognise that individualism on the scale that America has is unsustainble. One of them likes to go on about this at length.

Except for the fact that individualism is entirely self-sustainable.

I'm not out to argue that socialised medicine is better, but just type 'Scandinavian standard of living' into Google and you'll see what I mean. The UN, the EU, the WHO, IMF, all fall over themselves to praise the model that Scandinavia uses and how good it is.

It's your argument. You back it up.

Charity is good, but it can never be as effective as social care.

First, of course it can. Second, why should it be? It's voluntary.

Aren't there tent cities in America now?

Where?

Wanting to keep your own money doesn't make you a greedy bastard (first of all, it would depend on how much you earn, and I'm not going to ask that).

So wanting to keep my own money doesn't make me a greedy bastard ... unless I make more money than you?

The people here who pay the highest tax - and I do know them, my mother's partner is one of them - do complain. They don't like it much, but are willing to do it so that the country they love is a fairer place. If they don't like it, they can leave, move to America, and be taxed not that much less.

The "if they don't like it, they can leave" argument never goes too far.

What's the difference then between Socialism and General Welfare?

General Welfare includes public funding for necessities -- infrastructure, defense, etc. Socialism includes public funding for everything. While most of the EU isn't Socialist (but Social Democratic), they are much closer to it than the U.S., despite the best efforts of Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, and their ilk.

The EU is socialist, but America is not...so does that mean that free healthcare and education is all that it takes it tip from welfare into socialism?

First of all -- I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you -- it's not "free". If you still believe it's "free", I have a few things to sell you -- and if you buy them, I'll toss in some "free" stuff, too. (Though that's a little different, as you're not forced to buy from me.) Second, as I said, they're not Socialist, just closer.

[Zargabaath]

My free healthcare and university education are oppressive, I agree. The discounted student travel fares too. Plus all the help my family and I received when my mother was ill. The flats they gave us, the carpets and cookers and food, I mean God damn. Where were my rights?

In those instances your 'rights' were not violated but your 'collective rights' were used. Healthcare, education, food are man made goods or services - produced by men; they are not grown in nature. So by saying they are free you say that the people who produce them should not be rewarded for their services/goods; people who provide these services should not be rewarded for their time and effort but to be used by those who need but cannot offer value in return. You believe that some people are entitled by right to the product of the work of others. No person can have the right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another person. There can be no such thing as the 'right to enslave'. Yet you believe that people have the right to these services/goods from the expense of others. Working for the whims of others without receiving value in return is slavery, plain and simple.

Communism does work, in oppressing people. I am in just as much wonder as Ayn Rand was about how people view communism. The goals were noble but the methods were horrible; the goals are tied in the methods both are horrible. Rand lived through the Bolshevik Revolution and the early era of the Soviet Union and she knew, at the age of twelve, that communism was evil in principle, methods, details, decrees, policies, and promises. If something violates the rights of man than it is oppressive. Communism believes people should work for the state, that individual people are insignificant - their rights are nothing compared to the rights of the state. Communism is the enslavement of others to society. Communism does not believe in people living for their own self but living for the state; to be at the disposal of the whims and desires of those who 'need'.

"Free" is not left up to interpretation by each individual, there is only one type of "free": when a person's rights are not violated by any state, soceity, group, or person. Those rights are set, they are not left up to the individual as to what they are, only left to recoginze whether to respect them or not.

People have the right to their own life - life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right of life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the futherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of their own life. The concept of of a "right" pertains only to action - specifically, to freedom of action: the freedom from physicla compulsion, coercion or interference by other people. The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their own implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since people have to sustain their life by their own effort, the person who has no right to the product of their own effort has no means to sustain their life. The person who produces while others dispose of their product , is a slave.

Yes people can leave, something that Soviet Union would shoot people down, however, just because people have the right to leave does not give the state the right to violate the rights of humans. The rights of humans are inalienable they can never be violated by anything for any reason at any time- otherwise they are not inalienable. And if they are not inalienable then it must be discussed who or what can violate the rights of people, who or what is more important that they or it can violate the rights of others. By believing that human's rights can be violated a person believes that not all humans are equal, deserving, and their rights respected. This thinking dimishes the value of an individual yet it will be individuals who would decide this yet this leads to a contradiction. How can those who believe the individual is insignificant decide when the rights of people, of individuals, be violated; they are not qualified for the believe the individual means nothing. Remember a group is just a number of individuals, they do not get a special bonus to intelligence, special rights (as you believe), they do not become omniscient.

I do not have a problem with paying taxes, my problem is what I should be taxed for. Police, Fire department, roads, military- yes. Healthcare, education, social security, food - no.

The U.S postal system is 3 billion in debt. As Sasquatch said UPS, Fedex etc. are doing fine. Just because the U.K postal system sucks does not mean a) nationalized would be better. b)give the right to establish a nationalized postaly systyem. If you want a better postal system give business to those who are the best, utilize your free speech to say you require better service. If they don't then do not use them it may be a bother but that is how it works in a truly free society.

It is not the government's job to feed people. That is not the function of government in a free society. The functions government has are: protect the rights of its citizens from domestic threats, foreign threats, and roads. Groups do not have special priviliges/rights if they are x,y,or z. There is no right to food only the right to take action to acquire food and if a person is able to earn a product through their own effort that can be traded in value to a person who provides food as a good then they would have the right to use the food they purchased in any way they want for it is rightfully theirs.

Scandinavian may have a better standard of living yet Sweden has the highest suicide rate. And again there is no right to a certain standard of living only the right to take action to earn a certain standard of living. When a child is born they do not have the right to a house, car, job and such things only the right to take action to acquire them through voluntary trade with others. Now it would be nice if everyone had a certain standard of living but wishing people have something does not make it a right.

Wanting to keep you own money doesn't make you a greedy bastard (first of all, it would depend on how much you earn) You just contradict your statement with that clause. But you fail to consider by what standard is too much and who decides how much is too much. And by trying to answer that you say that those who decide are more important than others, their view is worth more and that people can dictate how much someone makes; you are forcing your views on others (ie. you are violating the rights of people by imposing a salary cap). It also show that you are envious that people can make so much and in a free society they would not be forced to share, so you complain and protest to make it seem that keeping what a person has rightfully earned as evil.

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

My free healthcare and university education are oppressive, I agree. The discounted student travel fares too. Plus all the help my family and I received when my mother was ill. The flats they gave us, the carpets and cookers and food, I mean God damn. Where were my rights?

In those instances your 'rights' were not violated but your 'collective rights' were used. Healthcare, education, food are man made goods or services - produced by men; they are not grown in nature. So by saying they are free you say that the people who produce them should not be rewarded for their services/goods; people who provide these services should not be rewarded for their time and effort but to be used by those who need but cannot offer value in return. You believe that some people are entitled by right to the product of the work of others. No person can have the right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another person. There can be no such thing as the 'right to enslave'. Yet you believe that people have the right to these services/goods from the expense of others. Working for the whims of others without receiving value in return is slavery, plain and simple.

This entire paragraph is just you twisting my words. We pay our doctors, firemen and teachers well. I don't get what you're talking about.

Communism does work, in oppressing people. I am in just as much wonder as Ayn Rand was about how people view communism. The goals were noble but the methods were horrible; the goals are tied in the methods both are horrible. Rand lived through the Bolshevik Revolution and the early era of the Soviet Union and she knew, at the age of twelve, that communism was evil in principle, methods, details, decrees, policies, and promises. If something violates the rights of man than it is oppressive. Communism believes people should work for the state, that individual people are insignificant - their rights are nothing compared to the rights of the state. Communism is the enslavement of others to society. Communism does not believe in people living for their own self but living for the state; to be at the disposal of the whims and desires of those who 'need'.

I agree. I don't like the idea of Communism either. But capitalism has to end somewhere, in something. What's the next step?

"Free" is not left up to interpretation by each individual, there is only one type of "free": when a person's rights are not violated by any state, soceity, group, or person. Those rights are set, they are not left up to the individual as to what they are, only left to recoginze whether to respect them or not.

Bingo. The UN Charter of Human Rights says all that. Last time I checked they didn't have a huge problem with the EU.

People have the right to their own life - life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right of life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the futherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of their own life. The concept of of a "right" pertains only to action - specifically, to freedom of action: the freedom from physicla compulsion, coercion or interference by other people. The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their own implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since people have to sustain their life by their own effort, the person who has no right to the product of their own effort has no means to sustain their life. The person who produces while others dispose of their product , is a slave.

I work in a currency exchange which is driven by targets. On our till screens, we are told how much revenue we have made the company throughout the day. On average, in a shift, I make about £600ish revenue. I am never given more than £65. Am I a slave? Also, you're babbling here.

Yes people can leave, something that Soviet Union would shoot people down, however, just because people have the right to leave does not give the state the right to violate the rights of humans. The rights of humans are inalienable they can never be violated by anything for any reason at any time- otherwise they are not inalienable. And if they are not inalienable then it must be discussed who or what can violate the rights of people, who or what is more important that they or it can violate the rights of others. By believing that human's rights can be violated a person believes that not all humans are equal, deserving, and their rights respected. This thinking dimishes the value of an individual yet it will be individuals who would decide this yet this leads to a contradiction. How can those who believe the individual is insignificant decide when the rights of people, of individuals, be violated; they are not qualified for the believe the individual means nothing. Remember a group is just a number of individuals, they do not get a special bonus to intelligence, special rights (as you believe), they do not become omniscient.

Sure?

I do not have a problem with paying taxes, my problem is what I should be taxed for. Police, Fire department, roads, military- yes. Healthcare, education, social security, food - no.

The U.S postal system is 3 billion in debt. As Sasquatch said UPS, Fedex etc. are doing fine. Just because the U.K postal system sucks does not mean a) nationalized would be better. b)give the right to establish a nationalized postaly systyem. If you want a better postal system give business to those who are the best, utilize your free speech to say you require better service. If they don't then do not use them it may be a bother but that is how it works in a truly free society.

We are doing that just now. There is a tour on the road to save the postal service.

It is not the government's job to feed people. That is not the function of government in a free society. The functions government has are: protect the rights of its citizens from domestic threats, foreign threats, and roads. Roads harm people? Groups do not have special priviliges/rights if they are x,y,or z. There is no right to food only the right to take action to acquire food and if a person is able to earn a product through their own effort that can be traded in value to a person who provides food as a good then they would have the right to use the food they purchased in any way they want for it is rightfully theirs.

What about if a normally productive person loses their job and can't feed themselves? What you're missing here is that UK social law was VOTED into existence. The government didn't just decide it. We the people decided that it should be everyone's responsiblity to care for, and to feed, those in need. Without those social care facilities, I would not be where I am now - in university, working for a degree, and heading for a productive life. I am an investment.

Scandinavian may have a better standard of living yet Sweden has the highest suicide rate. And again there is no right to a certain standard of living only the right to take action to earn a certain standard of living. When a child is born they do not have the right to a house, car, job and such things only the right to take action to acquire them through voluntary trade with others. Now it would be nice if everyone had a certain standard of living but wishing people have something does not make it a right.

So babies have to work to get cars? What are you talking about?

Wanting to keep you own money doesn't make you a greedy bastard (first of all, it would depend on how much you earn) You just contradict your statement with that clause. But you fail to consider by what standard is too much and who decides how much is too much. And by trying to answer that you say that those who decide are more important than others, their view is worth more and that people can dictate how much someone makes; you are forcing your views on others (ie. you are violating the rights of people by imposing a salary cap). It also show that you are envious that people can make so much and in a free society they would not be forced to share, so you complain and protest to make it seem that keeping what a person has rightfully earned as evil.

Why did both you and Sasquatch assume that the pay cap went UPWARDS? When I said it depended on how much you earn, I meant if he earned BELOW a certain amount. How am I envious of richer people? I'm perfectly happy with what I have, and am perfectly happy to share bits of it (don't tell me I don't work for my money). People who are richer than me have obviously worked harder, or if they're older, have advanced through careers and landed in a comfy spot. I don't think they're evil, and I don't seek to demonise them. In every social democracy there are those who earn more...why would they annoy me?

Bye