Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It's about contributing to society. We don't operate in a vacuum as individuals. There are things that we must do collectively and those things need to be funded. There's a vast difference between that and saying that it is illegal to own property or charge interest. Between that and making all banks and industry publicly owned.

No, we don't operate in a vacuum as individuals - individuals working in harmonious co-operation with each other, both individually and collectively, for mutual benefit defines the term "society", The reason Government exists is because some individuals feel they can enjoy the benefits of society without harmonious mutual co-operation and when the State supports those individuals it is actively working against society.

The forced confiscation of a portion of your benefits and rewards earned from your contribution to society indicates you have no entitlement to ownership of property.

It appears you feel government is the sole agency of collective action and because of that the necessity for individuals to contribute to or create a society is over-ridden and the State eventually becomes its sole engineer, at which point it is called totalitarianism. At some point in the State's progressive growth you will notice it is somewhat totalitarian in nature or maybe it will have had to arrive there completely before you notice.

Edited by Pliny

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Maybe... but they'll also be workers who definitely are people.

People who are workers and investors both - Imagine that.

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Posted

The "forced to have a child when they can't afford it" concerns me. Who's out there forcing people to have sex and what do we do about it!? rolleyes.gif

The 1950s called. They want you to come back now.

Posted

Exactly. Individual freedom and responsibility are being erroded, little by little by the left.

Really? Is that why you advocate for control over women's bodies and for grown adults' ability to score weed? You blame it on "the Left"? That's taking responsibility! :lol:

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

Really? Is that why you advocate for control over women's bodies and for grown adults' ability to score weed? You blame it on "the Left"? That's taking responsibility! :lol:

I do neither of those things. You're obviously off your meds again.

Posted (edited)

I do neither of those things.

You're saying you've never advocated against a woman's right to an abortion or against the decriminalization of marijuana?

You are aware this forum has a searchable history, aren't you?

I see this long-term shift as proof, that the pro-life position isn't just about morality, but also science. Your average non-partisan person recognizes that an unborn child, with a heart-beat etc, is more then just "a lump of cells" or "zygote" or whatever other pajorative term the anti-life crowd likes to use to try to delegitimize their existence. Those who advocate abortions under any cirumstance will eventually go the way of the slave owner, and we'll all be better off for it.

But anyways, generally I'd agree with you. But we as a society tell people what they can and cannot do all the time, through laws and regulation. Why should marijuana be exempt? Because you like to get high?

I guess "we as a society" are telling people what they can and cannot do all the time. It's not just "the Left" eroding personal responsibility after all. :lol:

Edited by BubberMiley
"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

You're saying you've never advocated against a woman's right to an abortion or against the decriminalization of marijuana?

You are aware this forum has a searchable history, aren't you?

As usual you're mischaracterizing my views. I have no time for you, nor am I going to start posting about abortion and pot in this thread. Troll somewhere else.

Posted

How is quoting a mischaracterization? More likely, you are uncomfortable being called on the hypocrisy of whining about government intervention in your personal life while saying we should sustain and increase it.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

It's not about the pot and abortion. It's about social control and how you, just like your heroes in the GOP, constantly engage in doublethink.

I love hearing social control accusations from you nanny state types.

Posted (edited)

I love hearing social control accusations from you nanny state types.

Edited by BubberMiley
"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted (edited)

How is this even being discussed? It's patently obvious that the modern left wants the government to have greater economic control/power and that the modern right wants the government to have greater social control/power. Neither side is anywhere close to being advocates of individual rights and responsibilities. Both are authoritarian and both stand for the continued growth of government, differing only in the kinds of things they want to dictate to their citizens.

Edited by Bonam
Posted (edited)

The thing is, it's not hypocritical to advocate a role for government in keeping a stable society and economy while advocating limiting the power of the state over personal body decisions like abortion and weed use. It's very hypocritical to advocate limited government in all cases except for personal body decisions.

It's also so obviously hypocritical that the right-wingers invariably scurry away angry whenever you bring it up. laugh.png

Edited by BubberMiley
"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Posted

The thin is, it's not hypocritical to advocate a role for government in keeping a stable society and economy while advocating limiting the power of the state over personal body decisions like abortion and weed use. It's very hypocritical to advocate limited government in all cases except for personal body decisions. It's also so obvious that the right-wingers invariably scurry away angry whenever you bring it up. :lol:

I don't see how it's any less hypocritical but, fwiw, I don't advocate either of those things...

However, the abortion thing is pretty easy to argue..

The freedom of an unborn fetus from being killed supercedes the freedom of a woman from being pregnant.

Posted

I don't see how it's any less hypocritical but, fwiw, I don't advocate either of those things...

However, the abortion thing is pretty easy to argue..

The freedom of an unborn fetus from being killed supercedes the freedom of a woman from being pregnant.

The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too?

The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all.

And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too?

No to all of those.

The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all.

The mother can do whatever she wishes. But when you ask somebody else to do it for you, on other people's dime, in becomes an entirely different matter.

And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense.

No, actually, the number of people that consider themselves pro-life keeps rising. The pro-abortion crowd is on the wrong side of history. Right beside those against same-sex marriage, and civil rights. The only way the pro-abortionist can logically cling to their beliefs, is to completely ignore science. Their war on science in this regard is somewhat confusing, considering their usual claim to be the most open to science.

Posted
No, actually, the number of people that consider themselves pro-life keeps rising.

Actually last time I looked only about 20% of people in the west favor banning abortion., and about another 20% of people favor it being legal in all circumstances. The majority favor it "sometimes" and if inquire further it usually depends on whether it happens very early or later on.

My guess is you saw this poll here, and liked the headline, but didnt bother to read it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-23/us/us_gallup-poll-abortion_1_abortion-rights-anti-abortion-groups-carol-tobias?_s=PM:US

The pro-abortion crowd is on the wrong side of history. Right beside those against same-sex marriage, and civil rights. The only way the pro-abortionist can logically cling to their beliefs, is to completely ignore science. Their war on science in this regard is somewhat confusing, considering their usual claim to be the most open to science.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted
The pro-abortion crowd

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

For that matter, pro-life is only pro-birth. After that you and the rest of the social conservatives out there could give a crap less what happens to the mother and child.

Posted

Except maybe cutting child tax benefits and doing next to nothing to help mothers in poverty. That certainly says pro-life to me. You must have that baby, but piss off if you're looking for any help providing for it.

Posted (edited)

Better to have control of your reproductive life than to be forced to have a child that you cannot provide for. That's why places that have the best access to contraceptives and birth control have the least abortions.

Edited by cybercoma
Posted

The problem is that puts the government in the aburd position of having to protect millions of fetuses from negative consequences through actions of the mother. Remember abortion isnt the only way a mother can harm an unborn child. Should the government stop her from drinking alcohol and smoking ciggarettes as well? Maybe they should enforce a healthy diet too?

The reality is that women have defacto control in this situation, and the government has no real control at all.

And that is the REAL answer to why the government assigns rights to a child at birth not conception. Birth is the point at which the government can actually sieze that child and provide for its care through some other surrogate. And thats why anti abortionists have been

losing this fight in pretty much the entire modern world... common sense.

If women have defacto control in the situation, does that not get the guy who knocks said girl off the hook if she goes through with the pregnancy. After all she could have had an abortion

"Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary

"Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary

Economic Left/Right: 4.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,927
    • Most Online
      1,878

    Newest Member
    BTDT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...