ASD folks secular,liberal or just WP

Post Reply New Topic

well its half cause whenever something goes wrong in another nation they cry out "save us USA" or omg look at the death in that nation "why doesn't the usa do something" when we became a super power both people in our nation and people in other nations decided the US had to be the world police. even if it bankrupts us and destroys us.

I can give a couple of examples of what a freer society might have to offer:

One of the biggest expenses for poor people is housing. Zoning rules tend to keep property prices high, and many were put there for that very purpose at the behest of middle- or upper-class land owners. Allowing more rentals and multi-unit buildings would probably lower housing costs.

Marco Rubio has suggested being more flexible about the qualifications needed to apply for federal jobs. I've always found it silly to require a college degree to work as an Americorps community organizer:

And if we took an isolationist stance the liberals would be screaming for US intervention the next time some banana republic or sandbox dictatorship decides to have a genocide. Personally, I could care less one way or the other about some other country's human rights issues and would just as soon we stayed at home and protected our own interests. Since I can't see that happening and we're going to have to continue to be what passes for a stabilizing force in the world then we should have a terrifyingly formidable force to do our bidding with.[/quote]


Peace through superior firepower or peace through strength, or whatever. It's a rule of thumb and one I continue to believe in and support.

Not sure that is entirely accurate...also the U.S only gets involved in conflicts it will get something out of as a rule. But I think there are a lot of conflicts the U.S has gotten involved in where that country was not specifically saying 'come save us good old U.S.A'. Also indirectly the U.S contributes to a lot of problems in the world even if it has helped in some conflicts. For instance the U.S.A could not have won WWII on its own yet people act like we single handly went in and 'saved' everybody. Well actually the contributions of all the other allies including the french resistance played an important role in defeating the nazis in that conflict...but a lot of americans like to act superior like the fact our contribution in that conflict helped a lot somehow means we're superior people as a nation which is crap.

but I can see your point, just seems a lot more complex than that.

I liked Ruveyn before, but now that you put it that way, he is even more awesome now.

I think the government should focus on problems here first, also though I don't really see the U.S jumping in to stop a genocide unless there is some resource we can use in the area.....hasn't there been genocide issues going on in Africa for quite sometime without really any U.S intervention. I mean if the U.S is going to involve itself in the rest of the world it might as well actually help people rather then go for resources and disguise it as going in to stop genocide or some other madness.

Also I just don't see peace through strength, superior firepower or whatever as actual peace since such a thing would not be necessary if the world actually had peace.

/\ The only way to have peace is to be too formidable of a force to screw with. That's just how it is......

i didn't say all of events were. but if we were to go back to how we were, close all outside bases, embassies and try to be isolationist. the world would get mad and say why isn't the us doing anything to stop ______ or _____. or help the Russians are killing us.

well the English would have lost without our supplies, weapons and eventually troops. in the end after millions if not half their pop, the Russians would have won the war. they did most the heavy lifting anyways. seemed it was our goal to let the Russians and Germans bleed each other dry.

I know, right? He's like PPR's national treasure.

Well it's pretty silly that they don't have an answer normally, that would mean that they don't even know the basic position of their party on it.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare



First we have to ask ourselves a few questions here:

1. What kind of living standards does the poverty line entail right now?
2. How did people below the poverty line work things out before the welfare state? Was it such a heartless and ineffective system back then, were people just starving everywhere?

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 22 Aug 2014, 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Right guys, I realize what libertarian originally meant. Oh well though, I didn't think you were referring to anarchists because terms are habitually borrowed across the board in politics. I appreciate the link, it was fun to read. And thanks for the video reference Stannis but I'm more interested in engaging with your own arguments, this linkwarz stuff is droll because you have to dredge up every little point from memory instead of having it all right there to engage with.

And now, onto the whole demonizing reference. What I was referring to was the type of logic used, not the severity. Painting your interlocutor as if he has this character quality or that, saying that "libertarians and other conservatives are this" is just poor form and honestly pretty boring to read. If I wanted to bandy about half the time with ad hominem arguments trying to prove that conservatives can be compassionate and that they aren't necessarily pawns for the rich, then I would start a heated argument with the first opinionated person I could find. But that isn't entertaining or educational at all, it's just dumb.

You've heard similarly ridiculous crap hurled at yourself enough times, we've heard enough times how that we must be sociopaths if we don't want welfare, and so on and so forth, it's a heap of garbage that doesn't do anyone any service. Simply because you and I have different ideas about how things could work out has no bearing on whether or not we care about this or that issue, whether or not we are compassionate, let's not be silly folks we can put the coloring books away and assume that everyone is an adult here and act accordingly, imo. Once again: if I wanted a diatribe about talking points I'd turn on the news and listen to people argue past each other. This is the same inane crap in politics that has been intellectually disarming folks for as long as I can remember, people are no longer interested in discussing particulars, they are apparently incapable of recanting something if they are mistaken, there is hardly any self discipline just indoctrination the same as ever. Self discipline and rigor are being thrown out the window because people want to respond to something with their emotions first, folks aren't interested to learn if a cop really was in any danger for example because when they heard about it it fit an archetype that riles them up. Utterly boring.

Dunno why you deleted your post Stannis. All I can say is that I was engaging with your first points. I had every intention of moving on to your video, I'd love to discuss it with you. Just addressing first things first, getting this silly thing of "conservatives aren't compassionate" out of the way first so we can begin having a dialogue about particulars, like what you think about the proposed welfare solutions I provided and what I think about "the toxicity", hahahaha.

It read as hostile without that being the intent, so I deleted it

Last edited by Stannis on 22 Aug 2014, 5:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

For sure, I can understand that. Don't worry about it bro, I'm no better when it comes to that.

The welfare reforms that you listed don't seem very compassionate to me. It seems like the usual wish list put out by business lobbyists that want parts of government to be corporatised, so they can fleece the public. I am not interested in replacing government tyranny, with corporate tyranny. I understand that the two are largely synonymous now, but you won't solve that problem by privatising yet more of government, and dismantling the parts of it that operate outside of the profit motive.

The mainstream right libertarian movement in america just looks to me like populist marketing of traditional GOP, "let's funnel the public wealth and assets to the rich as fast as we can", policies. If you're not rich yourself, or if you're interested in social justice generally, I think it's a mistake to buy into it.

Ok a couple things...what if someone is on welfare because they are disabled? If the disability is not 'temporary' they are going to need continued welfare or finanancial help of some kind.....problem with charity is charity doesn't exactly have obligations they can pick and choose who they want to help based on anything since its privately ran and wouldn't probably be regulated as well to ensure people who need that sort of help have access to it, and of course if it is not sufficient then what are those people left with? At least with welfare they can't discriminate as much as they could with charity.

Also a lot of those people probably did not have a very high morality rate or ended up institutionalized or whatever....with the key thrown away, or resorted to crime or survived homeless or offed themselves. But I'd have to do some research on the history concerning that.

Then of course I know if I was not on SSI and getting medicaid I would not be in a very good situation at all....even that isn't a great situation but at least it gives me a little money to live on and access to medical/mental health treatment. I just don't see charity taking the place of that....I'd probably just end up worse off than I was before getting on SSI if they got rid of all welfare programs and attempted to replace it with charity.

So yeah obviously the prospect of function well enough to support yourself or depend on family or private charity.....with no option of government help if those things aren't sufficient is not something I am particularly comfortable with. Of course there are various sorts of welfare...not all has to do with trouble functioning per say. But yeah just skeptical that private chairity would effectively replace welfare.

Also where would the federal government get money for the tax credit for people who contribute to the chairity? from taxes? And why shouldn't the government have some responsibility towards the welfare of its citizens? Also especially for people with autism it might be hard to get the community to help you especially if the community doesn't like you, or what if you don't have a church, or church decides not to help and what if there are no private chairities one qualifies for?

I just see far too many issues with trying to entirely eliminate welfare...might as well get rid of regulations on job safety and rules that require compensation for injuries on the job bring it back to the good old days of even more employer exploitation of workers, child labor and no safety regulations so lots of deaths, injuries or illnesses due to unsafe conditions with no compensation for any of it, also why not privatize the fire department ect.