PrisonPlanet Forum
May 25, 2013, 11:38:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why anyone who disagrees with Austrians on anything is a socialist or fascist!  (Read 52388 times)
freedom_commonsense
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,862


« Reply #280 on: June 23, 2011, 04:42:29 PM »

If people didn't vote for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 when he could have passed HR 2755 the original END the FED bill then the whiners have no one to blame but themselves.

Well I don't live in the US, but out of interest, what did he plan to replace it with?
Logged
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #281 on: June 23, 2011, 05:08:06 PM »

Of course not everybody can get a job.

Take the current situation with more people looking for work than jobs actually available.



All done by design...so you go underground and barter! This is a prime example at how everyone was lead to believe in the illusion of a free market.  

“The art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third.”  ~ Voltaire

“We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem.”
~Ronald Reagan

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." ~Daniel Boone
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
freedom_commonsense
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,862


« Reply #282 on: June 23, 2011, 05:37:26 PM »

All done by design...so you go underground and barter!

I do that myself when I can, but it only works if others want to barter for what you have in the first place. There's a limited amount of agriculture one can do on the balcony of a 20th floor apartment. Even that requires me to use cash to pay for the equipment. No getting around the use of currency in today's economy.
Logged
Rebelitarian
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,992


« Reply #283 on: June 23, 2011, 05:41:30 PM »

Well I don't live in the US, but out of interest, what did he plan to replace it with?

A Guernsey type banking system.  Debt free money and taxation only to reduce inflation.  Watch the Money-Masters for more info.

If Poland can do it so can we Americans.   Smiley

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

41 Facts About The History Of Central Banks In The United States That Our Children Are No Longer Taught In School
      


The American Dream
Nov 12, 2010
Today, most American students don’t even understand what a central bank is, much less that the battle over central banks is one of the most important themes in U.S. history.  The truth is that our nation was birthed in the midst of a conflict over taxation and the control of our money.  Central banking has played a key role in nearly all of the wars that America has fought.  Presidents that resisted the central bankers were shot, while others shamefully caved in to their demands.  Our current central bank is called the Federal Reserve and it is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.  The truth is that it is a privately-owned financial institution that is designed to ensnare the U.S. government in an endlessly expanding spiral of debt from which there is no escape.  The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve is at the core of our current economic crisis.  None of these things is taught to students in America’s schools today.
In 2010, young Americans are taught a sanitized version of American history that doesn’t even make any sense.  As with so many things, if you want to know what really happened just follow the money.
The following are 41 facts about the history of central banks in the United States that every American should know….
#1 As a result of the Seven Years War with France, King George III of England was deeply in debt to the central bankers of England.
#2 In an attempt to raise revenue, King George tried to heavily tax the colonies in America.
#3 In 1763, Benjamin Franklin was asked by the Bank of England why the colonies were so prosperous, and this was his response….

“That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

#4 The Currency Act of 1764 ordered the American Colonists to stop printing their own money.  Colonial script (the money the colonists were using at the time) was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio for “notes” from the Bank of England.
#5 Later, in his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin explained the impact that this currency change had on the colonies….

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

#6 In fact, Benjamin Franklin stated unequivocally in his autobiography that the power to issue currency was the primary reason for the Revolutionary War….

“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.”

#7 Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us….

“The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will… They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres.”

#8 Unfortunately, those warning us about the dangers of a central bank did not prevail.  After an aborted attempt to establish a central bank in the 1780s, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791.  Alexander Hamilton (who had close ties to the Rothschild banking family) cut a deal under which he would support the move of the nation’s capital to Washington D.C. in exchange for southern support for the establishment of a central bank.
#9 George Washington signed the bill creating the First Bank of the United States on April 25, 1791.  It was given a 20 year charter.
#10 In the first five years of the First Bank of the United States, the U.S. government borrowed 8.2 million dollars and prices rose by 72 percent.
#11 The opponents of central banking were not pleased.  In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following….

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.”

#12 In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed.
#13 One year later, the War of 1812 erupted.  The British and the Americans were at war once again.
#14 In 1814, the British captured and burned Washington D.C., but the Americans subsequently experienced key victories at New York and at New Orleans.
#15 The Treaty of Ghent, officially ending the war, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 16th, 1815 and was ratified by the British on February 18th, 1815.
#16 In 1816, another central bank was created.  The Second Bank of the United States was established and was given a 20 year charter.
#17 Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States.
#18 In fact, in 1832, Andrew Jackson’s re-election slogan was “JACKSON and NO BANK!”
#19 On July 10th, 1832 President Jackson said the following about the danger of a central bank….

“It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? … Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”

#20 In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt.  He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.
#21 President Jackson vetoed the attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
#22 Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived.  It is alleged that Lawrence said that “wealthy people in Europe” had put him up to it.
#23 The Civil War was another opportunity for the central bankers of Europe to get their hooks into America.  In fact, it is claimed that Abraham Lincoln actually contacted Rothschild banking interests in Europe in an attempt to finance the war effort.  Reportedly, the Rothschilds were demanding very high interest rates and Lincoln balked at paying them.
#24 Instead, Lincoln pushed through the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under that act, the U.S. government issued $449,338,902 of debt-free money.
#25 This debt-free money was known as “Greenbacks” because of the green ink that was used.
#26 The central bankers of Europe were not pleased.  The following quote appeared in the London Times in 1865….

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

#27 Abraham Lincoln was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth on April 14th, 1865.
#28 After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.
#29 James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers.  In 1881 he said the following….

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

#30 President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881.  He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.
#31 In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records.  However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed.  It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.
#32 In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt.  This caused a massive run on the banks.  In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans.  The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was “necessary” so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.
#33 It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.
#34 Congress voted on the Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 between the hours of 1:30 AM and 4:30 AM.
#35 A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.
#36 The president that signed the law that created the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson, later sounded like he very much regretted the decision when he wrote the following….

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men … [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

#37 Between 1921 and 1929 the Federal Reserve increased the U.S. money supply by 62 percent.  This was the time known as “The Roaring 20s”.
#38 In addition, highly leveraged “margin loans” became very common during this time period.
#39 In October 1929, the New York bankers started calling in these margin loans on a massive scale.  This created the initial crash that launched the Great Depression.
#40 Rather than expand the money supply in response to this crisis, the Federal Reserve really tightened it up.
#41 In fact, it was reported the the U.S. money supply contracted by eight billion dollars between 1929 and 1933.  That was an extraordinary amount of money in those days.  Over one-third of all U.S. banks went bankrupt.  The New York bankers were able to buy up other banks and all kinds of other assets for pennies on the dollar.
But are American students being taught any of this today?
Of course not.
In fact, it is a rare student that can even adequately explain what a central bank is.
We have lost so much of what is important about our history.
And you know what they say – those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
It is absolutely critical that we educate as many Americans as possible about what is really going on in our financial system and about why we need to make some truly fundamental changes.
Logged
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #284 on: June 23, 2011, 06:19:34 PM »

I do that myself when I can, but it only works if others want to barter for what you have in the first place. There's a limited amount of agriculture one can do on the balcony of a 20th floor apartment. Even that requires me to use cash to pay for the equipment. No getting around the use of currency in today's economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCuPrsPn_I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03kqzfIQvbo

Where there is a will, there is a way!
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
TahoeBlue
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 7,466


« Reply #285 on: June 23, 2011, 06:35:06 PM »

Quote from: donnay on Today at 10:09:29 AM
Freeski you will be labeled as a strawman now because you expose what welfare, from the state, is all about!  Force at the barrel of a gun to pay for others!

Oh well... I've been labeled much worse!

DMN !
Logged
freedom_commonsense
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,862


« Reply #286 on: June 23, 2011, 06:57:07 PM »


You didn't refute my point. You aren't going to grow a whole person's food supply in a window. That still doesn't address the issue of where the money comes from. Welfare...well that's obviously a no in your book. Charity? Pfft. If I couldn't get any when I was homeless, I can't see it happening now.

Just face it, the monetary system needs fixing.

A Guernsey type banking system.  Debt free money and taxation only to reduce inflation.

Then I'd have voted for Baldwin if I was a US citizen. Unfortunately zero equivalent politicians exist here.
Logged
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #287 on: June 23, 2011, 07:30:23 PM »

You didn't refute my point. You aren't going to grow a whole person's food supply in a window. That still doesn't address the issue of where the money comes from. Welfare...well that's obviously a no in your book. Charity? Pfft. If I couldn't get any when I was homeless, I can't see it happening now.

Just face it, the monetary system needs fixing.

Then I'd have voted for Baldwin if I was a US citizen. Unfortunately zero equivalent politicians exist here.

Who says you cannot grow a persons food supply in a window?  I have done it during the winter, with hydroponics.  It can be done.  You learn how to be resourceful when you have to.  Of course, most people on the dole just don't have it in them, I guess.

I am not refuting that the monetary system needs fixing.  We need to get back to the system that was intended.  Congress abdicated it's powers to the illegal Federal Reserve--it is the Bankers who have deliberately screwed the systems and all of us.

In a truly free market, you would be able to barter and sell your goods you produce or make without government interference.  

Btw, you wouldn't like Chuck Baldwin either, he endorses Ron Paul and he supports a gold standard and is against a welfare/warfare state.
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #288 on: June 23, 2011, 08:41:32 PM »

Isn't welfare just another word for communism, i.e. the redistribution of wealth? And isn't communism just another word for socialism? You can add totalitarianism, fascism, collectivism, liberalism and statism to the list. I mean really, they ALL share the same premise that we must have everything in society centrally-controlled. Only one of the above can build and manage society. We say that about roads, hospitals, the military, marijuana, booze, fruits and vegetables, medicine, lotteries, speed limits, drinking limits, smoking limits, speech, privacy (yes, they want to control our minds), they FORCE small and independent business to collect unfair and often unconstitutional rules and regulations, and yes, they'll even bill us for not wearing a helmet while riding a bike.

I could add a thousand more but I won't bore you.

The other way is bottom-up control where we the individuals get the final say.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
EvadingGrid
Toxophillite
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,639


Rat Catcher


WWW
« Reply #289 on: June 24, 2011, 02:27:11 AM »

Who says you cannot grow a persons food supply in a window?  I have done it during the winter, with hydroponics.  It can be done.  You learn how to be resourceful when you have to.  Of course, most people on the dole just don't have it in them, I guess.

Since I used to do horticulture as living... may I ask you to expand a little ?

The hydroponics removes the requirement for soil, but I do not really see the advantage as it requires costly equipment such as pumps, tanks and has running costs. Honestly, if some amateur asked me I would recommend they used high quality compost ( not peat ) in a pot.

The other thing I am wondering is just how big is this window ?

I am also wondering what a person would grow, as most regular crops would take too long to grow and take up too much space.

Of course if you added 500W lighting every couple of feet you could change the time, but the electric bill would change from domestic to industrial in size and scale... Of course economic for growing marijuana, but not for tomatoes. The latest in indoor lighting is colour specific LED, but they are awfully expensive to buy, and while they are cheaper to run, they still produce an epic electric bill and the initial outlay costs are rather large.
Logged

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me, Shall be my brother;

Global Gulag
iks83
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,521


« Reply #290 on: June 24, 2011, 03:47:46 AM »

A certain level of socialism is neccessary for every larger society. What about the people who cant work anymore? And that werent earning enough to prepare? Like you have an accident with 30 and paralyzed from the neck down. What about retarded people? Wanna send them to the gas chambers? Cause they cant earn a living anymore? It is the duty for those people who can work to also provide for those who cant. Of course it different with those who dont want to work. There will always be parasitic infections but the only thing you can do is to come up with a system that is helping those who cant help themselfs anymore and is relatively secure against abuse.

But where is the money coming from... well social security insurance would work but not when its run by psychopathic moneyjunkies as it is today. The problem really is the debt based moneysupply run by the moneyjunkies. With a sound currency and a stable economy enough people would have work so that the burden to pay for those who have no income shouldnt be that much. End the wars and the subsidies and you free so many billions you could turn around the country in half a year.
Logged
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #291 on: June 24, 2011, 07:24:55 AM »

A certain level of socialism is neccessary for every larger society. What about the people who cant work anymore? And that werent earning enough to prepare? Like you have an accident with 30 and paralyzed from the neck down. What about retarded people? Wanna send them to the gas chambers? Cause they cant earn a living anymore? It is the duty for those people who can work to also provide for those who cant. Of course it different with those who dont want to work. There will always be parasitic infections but the only thing you can do is to come up with a system that is helping those who cant help themselfs anymore and is relatively secure against abuse.

This is a very important point: "It is the duty for those people who can work to also provide for those who can't".

Moral duty, yes, but that's it.

By compelling others to provide for those who can't, you have to back it up with a threat of violence for those who refuse to provide for them -- otherwise the demand is more like a request rather than something mandatory. Forced "kindness" at the barrel of a gun?
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #292 on: June 24, 2011, 08:46:59 AM »

Since I used to do horticulture as living... may I ask you to expand a little ?

The hydroponics removes the requirement for soil, but I do not really see the advantage as it requires costly equipment such as pumps, tanks and has running costs. Honestly, if some amateur asked me I would recommend they used high quality compost ( not peat ) in a pot.

The other thing I am wondering is just how big is this window ?

I am also wondering what a person would grow, as most regular crops would take too long to grow and take up too much space.

Of course if you added 500W lighting every couple of feet you could change the time, but the electric bill would change from domestic to industrial in size and scale... Of course economic for growing marijuana, but not for tomatoes. The latest in indoor lighting is colour specific LED, but they are awfully expensive to buy, and while they are cheaper to run, they still produce an epic electric bill and the initial outlay costs are rather large.


Not only will you utilize your window space to grow vegetation that is healthy for you, you will have plants that help clean the air you breath.  I am sure since you have worked in horticulture before, you have an advantage of knowledge that others may not have.

Here is an excellent site to look over, it has video and blueprints to give you some resourceful ideas.



Here is more info on urban farming:

http://www.urbanfarmonline.com/urban-farm-magazine-and-books/urban-farm-exclusives/self-watering-container-instructions.aspx

http://www.aerofarms.com/

http://www.urbangardensweb.com/2009/07/29/window-farms-getting-the-hang-of-urban-farming-in-your-own-apartment/

http://urbanfarmtoday.com/aquaponics/how-to-build-an-aquaponics-system.php

http://www.hydroponics-simplified.com/
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #293 on: June 24, 2011, 09:03:07 AM »

A certain level of socialism is neccessary for every larger society. What about the people who cant work anymore? And that werent earning enough to prepare? Like you have an accident with 30 and paralyzed from the neck down. What about retarded people? Wanna send them to the gas chambers? Cause they cant earn a living anymore? It is the duty for those people who can work to also provide for those who cant. Of course it different with those who dont want to work. There will always be parasitic infections but the only thing you can do is to come up with a system that is helping those who cant help themselfs anymore and is relatively secure against abuse.

But where is the money coming from... well social security insurance would work but not when its run by psychopathic moneyjunkies as it is today. The problem really is the debt based moneysupply run by the moneyjunkies. With a sound currency and a stable economy enough people would have work so that the burden to pay for those who have no income shouldnt be that much. End the wars and the subsidies and you free so many billions you could turn around the country in half a year.


If someone is disable, the communities can help in many ways.  But by the same token, at what cost will it take to sustain someone else and by whom will it be collected from, at the barrel of a gun?

The communities and churches were doing charitable causes long before government moved in and demanded others to pay up.  This is where the families of the ill and infirm need to step up to the plate as well.

Our system of welfare goes way beyond charity--it is outright extortion!  Americans, by and large, are the most generous country I know.  Again, let it go back to the people, rather than under the boot of government who extorts the money, then pisses it away with little or no oversight and accountability.

The government is no different than Al Capone or Whitey Bulger who sent out their goon squads to prey upon peoples business and rough them up for so call protection rackets.  Most moral people abhor those types or criminals, but when government does it, they give them a pass--go figure!!
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #294 on: June 24, 2011, 09:19:44 AM »

The government is no different than Al Capone or Whitey Bulger who sent out their goon squads to prey upon peoples business and rough them up for so call protection rackets.  Most moral people abhor those types or criminals, but when government does it, they give them a pass--go figure!!

Excellent analogy.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,869


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« Reply #295 on: June 24, 2011, 01:54:56 PM »

I did actually expect several reasonable and sane answers.

So far the replies read like plagiarism from French Aristocrats in 1783 on the eve of the Revolution.

I'm surprised nobody said "Let them eat cake".

That's Austrian Schoolers for you. They have so much ego and emotion invested in the ridiculously false Austrian School "capitalism"-vs.-Marxist "socialism" paradigm, that, instead of finding common ground with people, all they know how to do is attach red-baiting labels blindly, mindlessly and indiscriminately to anyone who doesn't worship their ruling-class, Rockefeller-funded propaganda as though it were authored by God himself.

Hence the point I made earlier that, as long as Austrian Schoolers are allowed to dominate the anti-NWO/pro-liberty movement, the countless millions of people out there who share their disdain for both imperialist wars of aggression and Nazi-style police state measures -- but who do not share their fondness for the anarcho-capitalist dogma of the privatize-everything Austrian School -- will continue to keep their distance, since they have better things to do with their time than listen to label-obsessed reactionaries call them freedom-hating "socialists" all day long.

Unfortunately, it appears most members of this movement are hell-bent on finding this out the hard way.

Oh well, I tried.
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
PeaceAndFreedom
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508



« Reply #296 on: June 24, 2011, 02:46:04 PM »

I did actually expect several reasonable and sane answers.

So far the replies read like plagiarism from French Aristocrats in 1783 on the eve of the Revolution.

I'm surprised nobody said "Let them eat cake".


But the rhetorical question you asked, so clearly laden with "you're so uncompassionate" opinionating, was not amenable to reason. Your mind is made up about the matter. What about the lament of hundreds of millions of workers and producers who object to the taking of their money at gunpoint, to support the redistribution schemes of central planners? What are all those people supposed to do with their property rights removed?

I know, I know: Let them eat cake. The new workhouses are the tax extortion systems that have converted most of the population into slaves or serfs to fund the welfare bureaucracy.
Logged

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!... I am not a number, I am a free man!"
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #297 on: June 24, 2011, 03:11:23 PM »

That's Austrian Schoolers for you. They have so much ego and emotion invested in the ridiculously false Austrian School "capitalism"-vs.-Marxist "socialism" paradigm, that, instead of finding common ground with people, all they know how to do is attach red-baiting labels blindly, mindlessly and indiscriminately to anyone who doesn't worship their ruling-class, Rockefeller-funded propaganda as though it were authored by God himself.

Hence the point I made earlier that, as long as Austrian Schoolers are allowed to dominate the anti-NWO/pro-liberty movement, the countless millions of people out there who share their disdain for both imperialist wars of aggression and Nazi-style police state measures -- but who do not share their fondness for the anarcho-capitalist dogma of the privatize-everything Austrian School -- will continue to keep their distance, since they have better things to do with their time than listen to label-obsessed reactionaries call them freedom-hating "socialists" all day long.

Unfortunately, it appears most members of this movement are hell-bent on finding this out the hard way.

Oh well, I tried.

Do you realize that the very people for whom you have so much disdain, so-called "Austrian Schoolers", would never, ever force you to do anything against your will? Perhaps your nasty words would be better targeted at some other group, rather than simple freedom-loving people who would never cause harm to you or anyone else.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
freedom_commonsense
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,862


« Reply #298 on: June 24, 2011, 04:36:55 PM »

Btw, you wouldn't like Chuck Baldwin either, he endorses Ron Paul and he supports a gold standard and is against a welfare/warfare state.

You never bother reading links or references, so it's a waste of time having any further discussion. Like Geolibertarian said, you constantly use the socialist\communist label and resort to ad-hominems against people you disagree with. Did you grow up with a silver spoon per chance? Don't answer, rhetorical question.
Logged
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #299 on: June 24, 2011, 04:44:49 PM »

Do you realize that the very people for whom you have so much disdain, so-called "Austrian Schoolers", would never, ever force you to do anything against your will? Perhaps your nasty words would be better targeted at some other group, rather than simple freedom-loving people who would never cause harm to you or anyone else.

A lot of the John Birch Society members have been advocates of Ludwig von Mises Institute.  For years the JBS was laughed at and scoffed at and considered kooks.  Watch this video below:

Larry McDonald on the New World Order. Pt 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0&feature=related

More on Larry McDonald

Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #300 on: June 24, 2011, 04:52:53 PM »

You never bother reading links or references, so it's a waste of time having any further discussion. Like Geolibertarian said, you constantly use the socialist\communist label and resort to ad-hominems against people you disagree with. Did you grow up with a silver spoon per chance? Don't answer, rhetorical question.

You might want to reconsider your screen name. You are no more for freedom nor do use any commonsense in any of your arguments.  Socialism is socialism is socialism any way you or Mr. GeoLib try to window dress it.  

so·cial·ism  (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #301 on: June 24, 2011, 05:00:53 PM »

A lot of the John Birch Society members have been advocates of Ludwig von Mises Institute.  For years the JBS was laughed at and scoffed at and considered kooks.  Watch this video below:

Larry McDonald on the New World Order. Pt 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0&feature=related

More on Larry McDonald



I wanted to add three more videos:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQ--ju7Vxk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb__-nmMnvQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXqRmsCwdE&NR=1
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #302 on: June 24, 2011, 05:11:07 PM »


Bless you for adding three more JBS videos! Grin
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #303 on: June 24, 2011, 05:29:13 PM »

I have one more...   Grin

G. Edward Griifin - Analogy of the System and Finding Solutions
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #304 on: June 24, 2011, 05:30:58 PM »


Quadruple bless you!
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #305 on: June 24, 2011, 05:44:57 PM »

Another excellent lecture by G. Edward Griffin. . .

G Edward Griffin - More Deadly Than War - Part 1 of 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdt46Uk61UY
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #306 on: June 24, 2011, 06:09:35 PM »

Griffin is solid.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #307 on: June 24, 2011, 06:54:31 PM »

A lot of the John Birch Society members have been advocates of Ludwig von Mises Institute.  For years the JBS was laughed at and scoffed at and considered kooks.  Watch this video below:

Larry McDonald on the New World Order. Pt 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0&feature=related

More on Larry McDonald



The old dude on the left is a shill. No bones about it! He constantly tried to redirect the topic but McDonald blew him out of the water with logic and facts. Smiley
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #308 on: June 24, 2011, 07:12:05 PM »

Or you can simply eliminate the privileges that gave rise to the horrid economic conditions that in turn created the need for "charity" in the first place.

You see, we 100% agree on this principle, so where exactly is the break? Such privileges should never have been instituted in the first place.

Let government run it, or let nature run it.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #309 on: June 24, 2011, 07:22:20 PM »

Since it is Friday, I thought I would post another good educational flick...

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2


G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3 of 4

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4


Extra Credit...   Grin

Liberty and Economics


Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
donnay
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,198


Live Free Or Die Trying!


« Reply #310 on: June 25, 2011, 12:11:42 PM »

I see we have been relegated to the "off topic/faux Controveries/Whining threads" because it appears that we might have touched a nerve...

You know Geo, you can try to bury the truth anyway you would like to, but as I said to your buddy, Freedom_Commonsense; socialism is socialism is socialism any way you try window dress it.
Logged

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,869


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« Reply #311 on: June 27, 2011, 09:30:54 AM »

I see we have been relegated to the "off topic/faux Controveries/Whining threads" because it appears that we might have touched a nerve...

No, it's because you and another poster went off topic by accusing anyone who doesn't worship at the feet of the Austrian School of being a freedom-hating "socialist," and that's what this thread is for.

Quote
You know Geo, you can try to bury the truth anyway you would like to,

I didn't "bury" anything, I merely moved your "anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-on-anything-is-a-socialist" flamebaiting to the appropriate thread. So get your facts straight.

Quote
but as I said to your buddy, Freedom_Commonsense; socialism is socialism is socialism any way you try window dress it.

And a broken record is a broken record is a broken record, no matter how many times you try to pretend you're saying something you haven't said a thousand times already.

Yes, you (and two other posters) are so unwilling to exercise even the most elementary of common sense discernment, that you actually believe anyone who disagrees with the Austrian School on anything is, by definition, a liberty-hating "socialist" or "communist" -- I get it.

And I'm sure everyone else who's had to endure this broken-record theme of yours gets it too.

That's why I'm proposing once again that we simply agree to disagree, because it's obvious that mindlessly invoking the same red-baiting labels over and over again is your only mode of discourse.
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #312 on: June 28, 2011, 06:02:19 AM »

Do humans in a civilized society have any obligation to help those among them who are unable to care for themselves?
I have yet to hear an answer from the libertarians on this; in this forum or in the Ron Paul forums.

Question: Who will take care of people who are 100% disabled and unable to care for themselves when the "social safety nets" are gone?

Answer: (jump in any time... waiting for an answer from the Ron Paul supporters...)

Your answer should cover the following (please):
1. How will people alive now and people who are yet to be born - people who are disabled - be cared for?
2. If you answer "charity" then you have to answer a followup question which I will pose in that event.

Thanks in advance; this is the single biggest issue that I have with Ron Paul and the libertarian movement.
Hint: I got that answer "charity" from a Ron Paul campaign representative in Boston.
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
lazarus
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


Physician


WWW
« Reply #313 on: June 28, 2011, 07:10:40 AM »


Question: Who will take care of people who are 100% disabled and unable to care for themselves when the "social safety nets" are gone?



These social safety nets could be slowly cut back (not necessarily completely eliminated) as the following happens (in no particular order):

1. States pick up the slack
2. 40% of what we make will no longer go to paying the interest on the dilution of the currency
3. Religious institutions pick up the slack. These would be supported by individuals, and no longer transnational central banks
4. The family is emphasized again, the source of charity. The would happen naturally since the family is the ultimate grass roots organization.

Think of it as an equation of reciprocals.

Central government increases, the "perceived" need for charity decrease. A tyrannical beast forms. This works both ways. As charity decreases, the "need" for central control decreases.

Central government decreases, the need for charity increase. The tyrannical beast hesitates and starts to walk away.  As charity increases, central control decreases.


For every loss of virtue, more laws are written.
Logged

And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #314 on: June 28, 2011, 07:58:14 AM »

Do humans in a civilized society have any obligation to help those among them who are unable to care for themselves?
I have yet to hear an answer from the libertarians on this; in this forum or in the Ron Paul forums.

Question: Who will take care of people who are 100% disabled and unable to care for themselves when the "social safety nets" are gone?

Answer: (jump in any time... waiting for an answer from the Ron Paul supporters...)

Your answer should cover the following (please):
1. How will people alive now and people who are yet to be born - people who are disabled - be cared for?
2. If you answer "charity" then you have to answer a followup question which I will pose in that event.

Thanks in advance; this is the single biggest issue that I have with Ron Paul and the libertarian movement.
Hint: I got that answer "charity" from a Ron Paul campaign representative in Boston.


Your post/question is a good one -- an honest one -- and there are aspects of "libertarianism" that took me, personally, over a decade to truly understand. Gun control was the big one, but I finally saw the light on that one a few years ago, and the other concept that took me a long time to grasp was that "government is force". Point being, libertarianism isn't something one can read an article about and instantly say "Yup, I'm a believer": one would be foolish to believe in such a profound philosophy without putting it to rigorous testing every minute of their lives, and this is precisely how Ron Paul operates as a congressman: the first question, always, is "Is this Constitutional?".

Regarding charity and our obligations as humans in a civilized society, I'll do my best to share what I have learned on my journey:

Do humans in a civilized society have any obligation to help those among them who are unable to care for themselves?

That is a personal decision for each individual to make on his own, but the philosophy is that there are plenty of good/charitable people in the world to meet the needs of the truly needy. We see it all the time, even in today's tightly-controlled world: people volunteer for all sorts of things, hold fund-raisers, help little old ladies cross the street, make sandwiches for the homeless, befriend the lonely, inspire alcoholics and drug addicts, and so on. This list is immense.

My personal position is that I do indeed have a moral duty to do my part, and not just to help where I can, but to also resist attempts by the state to prevent others from doing their part: case in point, shutting down the kids who were feeding the homeless in Florida just recently.

Now there's a second critical aspect to this: the state has assumed/usurped this responsibility with the social safety net and people generally accept it because it seems like a good idea without thinking through the ripple effect of that lost responsibility, and these programs are sold to us via slick propaganda, fear and emotion. It's problem-reaction-solution to a tee. They tell us there's an epidemic of heroine addicts sharing needles, and that people may step on discarded needles and acquire hepatitis or AIDS, so the state says we'll implement a needle exchange program and all will be good -- and the people say "Yes, thanks for solving the problem!"

The third very important point is a tough one because the simple truth, sadly, is often just ignored because it sounds wrong to many -- at least on the surface. There's a fundamental belief called the non-aggression principle, which is basically the same as live and let live, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and for Americans, much of it is covered under inalienable rights. The non-aggression principle says that nobody has the right or authority to force someone to do something against their will, and it works both ways.

So if you and I agree that neither of us will ever force one another to do anything against our will, that does not change just because you or I become a cop, a tax collector, CPS worker, a senator or a president. All men are created equal. So the point here is that even if you still think it's a good idea to force others to fund a state-run program, for example, it's still an act of aggression and therefore morally and often Constitutionally wrong -- and at the very least it's hypocritical with respect to the non aggression principle.

How will people alive now and people who are yet to be born - people who are disabled - be cared for?

Some appropriate excerpts from the Libertarian Party of Canada:
http://libertarian.ca/english/libertarian-party-faq.html

But what about welfare and health care for the needy?

Government is force. Libertarians believe in a win-win voluntary society where people cooperate through trade and charity. The moral issue here is that Libertarians believe that it is not right to take forcefully from one person in order to provide for another's needs. Libertarians believe in minimizing taxation and funding government by other means if possible. Welfare for those in need should be provided through voluntary means. Forcing others to "give" is not just or generous. Government should not be deciding who needs welfare, because welfare is damaging to some people because it encourages dependency, lack of initiative, and poor planning. A free economy will produce more wealth for everyone. Taxation is robbing people of their wealth and the ability to invest that wealth in new business, which would benefit the poor.

People are selfish. We can't depend on others to give to the needy of their own accord. Aren't you being unrealistic about human nature?

No. Libertarians are also sceptical about human nature and believe that people in government should not have so much power over others. There are many generous Canadians who give to charities they are most concerned about, even now with high taxes. Think of the possibilities for giving in a society with extremely low taxation. People are concerned about providing for their own families and living responsibly and they need to be free to make their own decisions with their money. Most people in our daily lives are good most of the time - otherwise society wouldn't function - we trust people enough as equals. However, the more power we give to others, the more skewed things become. As Lord Acton said, Power corrupts.

Aren't you against the poor? What about corporate welfare?

No, a freer society will remove obstacles to those who are disadvantaged and help them to rise economically. Libertarians will change the nature of government. A large factor in out-of-control government is the influence of big business. Special interests of one kind or another should not be using government to control others or benefit their own industry. The Free Market should be allowed to operate without interference. Libertarians would abolish subsidies and licensing restrictions.

--------------

Here's one of my favorite essays because it's written in plain English and really gets to the point.

The Invisible Hand Is a Gentle Hand
By Sharon Harris, September 14, 1998
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/InvisibleHand.htm

The enemies of freedom have always maligned the free market. They have perpetuated myths like "dog-eat-dog capitalism," "survival of the fittest," "the law of the jungle." Robber barons. Heartless monopolies. A ruthless Wall Street fleecing a helpless Main Street.

Baloney.

We must speak out for the free market and individual liberty. The great economist Adam Smith wrote that a free society operates as if "an invisible hand" directs people's actions — in such a way as to serve the interest of the whole society.

That invisible hand is a gentle one. A free market is a gentle market. A free society is a gentle society. A cooperative, compassionate, and generous society. An abundant and tolerant society.


-------------------

Finally, for those who just cannot bring themselves to fully trust liberty (and free market forces), there's an important point that you absolutely must consider. If the reason for not trusting people to govern themselves is that there are just too many bad people in the world, remember that positions of power and authority attract a disproportionate number of bad people. Good people tend to want to live their own private lives, whereas psychopaths and control-freaks tend to crave power and authority, so the very nature of government is flawed at its root -- and this is precisely what the American Revolution set out to address.

"To be frank, most Americans wouldn’t know what it meant to live with liberty if it bit them on the bottom. That’s because there are few left alive today who can remember America before the vast and dramatic changes of the early 1900’s that propelled our nation away from the principles of liberty, and towards principles that are antithetical to liberty."
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/docs/What%20is%20the%20Patriot%20Movement.pdf
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #315 on: June 28, 2011, 08:21:26 AM »

These social safety nets could be slowly cut back (not necessarily completely eliminated) as the following happens (in no particular order):

To your points...
Quote
1. States pick up the slack

With what money? States are broke.
Quote
2. 40% of what we make will no longer go to paying the interest on the dilution of the currency

So you are saying that with that additional money, people will give to "charity"... that's your implication, although you didn't say that word: Charity. Nice try. But charity would mean that the disabled must beg for their food and shelter. Beg monthly? Will they be assured that the rice and beans they get this month will be available to them next month?
Charity makes beggars of the disabled.
Quote
3. Religious institutions pick up the slack. These would be supported by individuals, and no longer transnational central banks

Let the infinitely corrupt religious charitable organizations do it? Another case of charity - this one with a religious theme.
Makes beggars of the disabled; who must now beg and follow the rules of the religious group handing out the beans and rice.

Quote
4. The family is emphasized again, the source of charity. The would happen naturally since the family is the ultimate grass roots organization.

Think of it as an equation of reciprocals.

You can't have an "equation of reciprocals" when there are some who are simply not able to reciprocate.
I call it an 'equation of passing the buck': telling the disabled to go get charity because I've got mine and you're on your own.
And this is what libertarians/Ron Paul call liberty?

This is the right to ignore the disabled and wish them good luck with that charity. And you'll donate to charity,and you'll donate every month for the rest of your life, because you know that there are disabled people who will need the help every month for the rest of their lives. And you will do this maybe - and some others will - but one month you'll have expenses that will prevent you from donating. And if that happens than maybe someone goes without a meal? Or you'll be certain that others will pick up the slack?

That the charity of others will provide for those in need is a lovely concept; but unreliable and unrealistic for those who are hoping for a place to live and food on the table, and medical care - they'll be living on hope.  Not liberty by a long shot, is it?

That's not a solution for a civilized society - basically it means that only those who are able to fend for themselves are 'free'.
The rest can never enjoy the freedom to relax in the knowledge that they won't be homeless next month; they'll be busy begging.

Surely there is a better solution than that.
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #316 on: June 28, 2011, 08:42:15 AM »

One more thing: I bring this up knowing the current welfare system, medicaid system and other programs to help those in need are full of corruption. I don't support the continuation of these programs as they currently exist. However, I don't believe that eliminating these programs, and leaving those in need to the good graces of charities is a viable solution.

I'm looking for a solution that is not 'charity'. Does this exist in Ron Paul's proposals? If so, I haven't found it. If Ron Paul and the libertarian movement has a plan to help those in need that does not involve forcing them to beg for charity, please let me know.
Is it possible to have a free market and take care of the disabled at the same time?
It seems as though the libertarians believe it is not possible, because any program that requires they contribute as members of a society is infringing on their rights. So what about the rights of the disabled?
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #317 on: June 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM »


Regarding charity and our obligations as humans in a civilized society, I'll do my best to share what I have learned on my journey:

Do humans in a civilized society have any obligation to help those among them who are unable to care for themselves?

That is a personal decision for each individual to make on his own, but the philosophy is that there are plenty of good/charitable people in the world to meet the needs of the truly needy. We see it all the time, even in today's tightly-controlled world: people volunteer for all sorts of things, hold fund-raisers, help little old ladies cross the street, make sandwiches for the homeless, befriend the lonely, inspire alcoholics and drug addicts, and so on. This list is immense.

My personal position is that I do indeed have a moral duty to do my part, and not just to help where I can, but to also resist attempts by the state to prevent others from doing their part: case in point, shutting down the kids who were feeding the homeless in Florida just recently.

Freeski - I have no doubt that you are among those who actively donate your time and money to help others. I would expect most of the people in the libertarian movement practice what they preach - and give of themselves. However, if you can put yourself into the position of someone who is disabled: someone who would love to work and make money to live a good life; someone who has been (since birth, or by some injury or illness) deprived of the ability to do that, you might consider what a dependence on the charity of others means:

* Charity means that you have to go and ask for money, food, medical care, etc.
* Charity means that unless you go and ask every day, or week, or month, you have no guarantee that you'll have food to eat or a roof over your head.
* Charity is not a 'monthly' check that you can count on - it's a hope that you might be covered this month, and a worry that you might not be covered next month.
* Charity means that whatever you are provided with this month may be more or less next month.
* Charity means you can't be sure of anything, ever.

Put yourself into the mindset of someone who is disabled:
I'm born with a disability that makes me a dependent on the state. The state provides me with food, housing and medical care - and I have guaranteed protections from starvation and homelessness.

Charity makes no such guarantees.

In a society where I have to depend on the charitable contributions of others, I live in constant fear of not getting the help I need.
Am I free?

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Freeski
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20,744


« Reply #318 on: June 28, 2011, 09:19:46 AM »

Freeski - I have no doubt that you are among those who actively donate your time and money to help others. I would expect most of the people in the libertarian movement practice what they preach - and give of themselves. However, if you can put yourself into the position of someone who is disabled: someone who would love to work and make money to live a good life; someone who has been (since birth, or by some injury or illness) deprived of the ability to do that, you might consider what a dependence on the charity of others means:

* Charity means that you have to go and ask for money, food, medical care, etc.
* Charity means that unless you go and ask every day, or week, or month, you have no guarantee that you'll have food to eat or a roof over your head.
* Charity is not a 'monthly' check that you can count on - it's a hope that you might be covered this month, and a worry that you might not be covered next month.
* Charity means that whatever you are provided with this month may be more or less next month.
* Charity means you can't be sure of anything, ever.

Put yourself into the mindset of someone who is disabled:
I'm born with a disability that makes me a dependent on the state. The state provides me with food, housing and medical care - and I have guaranteed protections from starvation and homelessness.

Charity makes no such guarantees.

In a society where I have to depend on the charitable contributions of others, I live in constant fear of not getting the help I need.
Am I free?



Okay, that's an excellent test of my own beliefs. I'll get back to you after thinking it through.
Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Satyagraha
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,141



« Reply #319 on: June 28, 2011, 10:01:22 AM »

Okay, that's an excellent test of my own beliefs. I'll get back to you after thinking it through.

The disabled person I describe above is a real person whom I was involved with for several years in a program delivering meals to shut-in's. These are the people I think about when I consider the elimination of welfare programs.

We are fed stories of abuse of these programs; abuse of food stamps, scammers who collect welfare payments, etc., we're all familiar with the abuses. And the system needs to be overhauled and cleaned up --- but while the 'solution' of just ditching the programs sounds like a relief, it's too easy a 'fix' and will create an entire group of people who are essentially enslaved to the charities. Enslavement is unavoidable when they will be utterly dependent on groups who will probably have strings attached to their charitable assistance. We have only to look at Ireland and the Catholic Charities 'good graces' to see that evil grows where anyone can hold the power of life and death over someone in need. I have a mistrust of religious groups providing to the needy when all they require is... (fill in the blanks, "attendance at church/synagogue/mosque", signing petitions, standing in this line and holding a sign... etc.) Best place to exercise the tyranny of 'good intentions' - when people are basically bribed with the essentials of survival in exchange for whatever those groups need at the time.

Is it possible to live in a society that can provide for those in need, and do a good job of managing those programs? Do we have any responsiblity as a society to take care of these people? I contend that we do, and we need to have programs specifically to do so, in a fair and organized way; and in a manner that does not humiliate or subjugate people.

So when Ron Paul talks about eliminating programs, he needs to talk about what he'll do instead - because there are millions of people who will be out begging for charity when their monthly checks stop coming. Cutting these programs and replacing them with 'charity' is nothing more than social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest, and liberty for those who can fend for themselves.
Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!