The biggest straw man

[Resume]

And quite depressing at that. I remember writing a huge check to the federal government for some property sold, what was so depressing was knowing it was going down a rat hole.

Wow! How did you ever survive?

Like no one else has ever paid capital gains taxes.

 

[logger]

Wow! How did you ever survive?

Like no one else has ever paid capital gains taxes.

Because it had nothing to do with survival.

 

[Resume]

Because it had nothing to do with survival.

Glad you got better.

 

[TofuFighter]

Because leftists live in fantasy land

But the biggest reason is the world is headed that way to set up for the Ant-Christ

Tofufighter chuckled.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't the time to look into it. Lets just say none and be done with it?

If you can't think of any freedoms you have that I don't, then why are you so sure that with a more progressive socialistic Government you'd be losing your freedoms?

The funny thing is that I can actually think of freedoms that people have here that most Americans don't have, so....

 

[logger]

If you can't think of any freedoms you have that I don't, then why are you so sure that with a more progressive socialistic Government you'd be losing your freedoms?

Its kinda obvious, google sovialism.

The funny thing is that I can actually think of freedoms that people have here that most Americans don't have, so....

List them, I'd like to know.

 

[lomiller]

Your link doesn't even go into detail. Here is your answer though.

http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-l...e-than-blue-states-heres-proof-thats-baloney/

So you couldn't even take the time to read it and explain their argument in your own terms. This type of laziness seems Right (pun intended )

The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures

So your answer is that the US government doesn’t spend very much on social programs and it “isn’t really mooching” for Republicans to route the really big government spending, defence, to Republican Sates.

The first part is basically “no **** Sherlock” Everyone except you already knew this.

The second part is just wrong. Republican Pork barrel politics of routing federal $ to Republican stats is just as much mooching as any other government handout.

There are of course some social programs in the US in the form of Social Security and Medicare, but apparently because these go more often to Republicans they shouldn’t be considered Redistribution or Mooching

Does he really consider Social Security and Medicare recipients, who paid payroll taxes into the system their whole lives only to get a payout during retirement, a moocher? I

FYI Social Security and Medicare DO redistribute wealth across generations that is the entire point. They can’t and don’t function otherwise.

 

[lomiller]

Not go bankrupt.

Only a loser 'considers' bankruptcy. Real Americans just do it, again and again. And when the banks refuse to loan them money, they go to the Russians.

Do it right and you will be a winner, perhaps even become president!

No real Americans declare bankruptcy and use their investors losses as a personal tax credit

 

[Willisp3]

Its kinda obvious, google sovialism.



List them, I'd like to know.

I googled sovialism and I still don't think your point is obvious.

 

[Shalamar]

To be fair, there are many rights that are being lost in the USA:

The right to deny two consenting adults the ability to marry each other based on gender.
The right to teach the one true religion in public schools.
The right to produce textbooks to deny facts, reason, and science.
The right to deny 'leftists' (whatever that is) the ability to vote or hold office.
The right to round up those same 'leftists' (whatever that is) into caps, maybe give them nice showers.
The right for a business to deny service to people or groups of people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

But don't worry! I'm sure these rights will be coming soon! If you hear otherwise, It's fake news!

 

[PhantomWolf]

List them, I'd like to know.

- Censorship is less in New Zealand than in the US meaning that shows that you can only get access to on cable or the likes of Netflicks, we get free to air on Broadcast TV and are free to watch them uncut.

- Not that it's one I have a lot of interest in, Prostitution is legal here both for the workers and the clients.

- 18 year olds can legally buy alcohol and drink

- Workers have the Freedom not to be fired for reasons other then cause.

- We have the freedom to choose and keep our doctor. We don't have to deal with Insurance companies who can force us to change doctors and we can go to any doctor or specialist that we want to.

- Workers have the freedom to change jobs without worrying about the loss of their Healthcare packages.

- Domestic Travelers have the freedom to travel by air without being treated to body scans, removing shoes, and being frisked by some TSA clone.

I'm sure there are more, but it's late and I can't be bothered with more.

 

[lomiller]

The US is not exactly the place you want to be in order to “pull yourself up”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u....html?sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

- Censorship is less in New Zealand than in the US meaning that shows that you can only get access to on cable or the likes of Netflicks, we get free to air on Broadcast TV and are free to watch them uncut.

- Not that it's one I have a lot of interest in, Prostitution is legal here both for the workers and the clients.

- 18 year olds can legally buy alcohol and drink

- Workers have the Freedom not to be fired for reasons other then cause.

- We have the freedom to choose and keep our doctor. We don't have to deal with Insurance companies who can force us to change doctors and we can go to any doctor or specialist that we want to.

- Workers have the freedom to change jobs without worrying about the loss of their Healthcare packages.

- Domestic Travelers have the freedom to travel by air without being treated to body scans, removing shoes, and being frisked by some TSA clone.

I'm sure there are more, but it's late and I can't be bothered with more.

1-3 and 7 are cool.

4-6 are not freedoms. They are actually based on taking power away from others. That is like saying the south was more free because they were free to trade their slaves.

 

[TraneWreck]

1-3 and 7 are cool.

4-6 are not freedoms. They are actually based on taking power away from others. That is like saying the south was more free because they were free to trade their slaves.

No. Social safety net policies do enhance freedom. Consider two people with great business ideas, one in NZ one in the USA. In NZ, you don't have to consider health insurance for yourself and family; in the USA, you do. This manifestly hampers the freedom to innovate.

Freedoms are always a balance between others. It's society. The Bill of Rights is a list of freedoms against the government. They limit the "freedom" of the government. The freedom to criticize your government limits the ability of the government to dictate to the people. There is no freedom that doesn't result in the loss of power for some other part of society.

Freedom from insurance company intervention is certainly freedom.

The slave example works against your position. The South sought freedom (power) to oppress others. This is more analogous to an employer seeking the "freedom" to control their employees or an insurance company seeking the "freedom" to manipulate their customers than it is to the employee/customer.

 

[jimbob]

1-3 and 7 are cool.

4-6 are not freedoms. They are actually based on taking power away from others. That is like saying the south was more free because they were free to trade their slaves.

No it constrains the freedom of the economically-powerful to abuse it.

Juat because your bizarre and unrealistic philosophy doesn't accept the existence of that, it still exists.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Bob is technically correct. It's just that the only freedoms being taken away is the freedom to deny others' freedom for one's own profit.

See also: GPL vs BSD.

[ETA] His simile's wrong though. It's more like the South being denied the freedom to own slaves.

 

[lomiller]

4-6 are not freedoms. They are actually based on taking power away from others.

It’s more important to be free from the influence of wealthy aristocrats as it is to be free from the influence of a democratically elected government.

Freedom to oppress others within your society is the polar opposite of freedom. When the notion that freedom and liberty came to prominence, the whole point was to be free from the aristocrats, but somehow they have been perverted to mean free from Democracy.

That is like saying the south was more free because they were free to trade their slaves.

You have it backwards. 4-6 are prohibitions against one person limiting the freedom of another. They are less extreme, but no different than restrictions against owing slaves.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1-3 and 7 are cool.

4-6 are not freedoms. They are actually based on taking power away from others. That is like saying the south was more free because they were free to trade their slaves.

While I am sure you can make an argument that 4 is taking away the Employers right to fire people for any reason they like, how are the freedoms to change your work without fear of losing healthcare, or have a real choice of any Doctor you want, taking away the power of others, other then removing their artificial power over other people lives that they should not have in the first place because it limits people's freedom of choice and self control?

 

[TraneWreck]

Within a society, there simply is no freedom that can be given that does not necessarily limit a countervailing power.

It's not groundbreaking to point this out. The entire process is a balancing of who should have what freedom and which powers.

One of the fundamental absurdities of libertarianism is its insistence that government is the only freedom-limiting entity within society.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Within a society, there simply is no freedom that can be given that does not necessarily limit a countervailing power.

It's not groundbreaking to point this out. The entire process is a balancing of who should have what freedom and which powers.

One of the fundamental absurdities of libertarianism is its insistence that government is the only freedom-limiting entity within society.

The difference you are omitting is two parties reaching a mutual contract, and adhering to that contract, is freedom. Government arrangements do not necessarily have that. Firing someone without cause is your mutual agreement and both parties freedom is honored.