Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
2BNCR, I tried the email you offered earlier and it is dead. Do you have a current email? I have found another source , but it is for the full $100,000 up front. Kevin
Its ok sprite, I don’t expect to have credibility with an atheist, but I would argue that atheism is a form of religion with its own belief systems. However, I was not attempting to have a discussion about religion; I was defending the historical record of the founding of the USA. It is easy to distort that record among people whose study of it has been only superficial, and to make false claims, such as you consistently make. Where is the logic in that type of argument? I am simply offering the counterbalance to the distortions you put forth as fact.
The most recent is:
“The U.S. once held a universal principle which, at the time, considered black slaves as less than human and therefor undeserving of constitutional protections.”Anyone who has done even a minimum of study of that era knows your statement is patently false. It is a fact that the slavery question nearly prevented the formation of the Union, because there was such objection to it by many leaders of the day. And of course slavery was wrong but the USA did the more to end the practice than any other country. But the point you were trying to make, that universal principles change, is also false. The struggle between tyranny and liberty is the struggle of universal principles in conflict. The universal principle of inalienable rights we possess does not change, just the actors change.
Back to the OECD. Should Costa Rica have the sovereign right to self determination? Most collectivists would have to argue no, if they are to be consistent. It would seem to be logically inconsistent to say that a country can have the right to self determination, but the individual does not. What’s ironic is that Costa Rica has the reputation of cooperating very closely with the IRS and is definitely not known as any type of tax haven.
Edlreed, perhaps it would be useful for you to go back and actually read the words they used and study the language of the time. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but ignorance of the nuances of a language is no excuse for assigning murky motives to those in question. Not every word in use today is understood exactly how it will be understood 200 years from now. There is nothing elusive about their language at all. They were clear and concise in their denunciation of tyranny in all its forms; whether the “crown” or a government dominated by one particular Christian denomination.
And I must say your argumentation is sorely lacking in substance. No one, other than you, is saying:
Edlreed said: “ those Christian forefathers felt the pursuit of property was God’s design to make us happy.”This is just another straw man argument that shows your bias and prejudice. The pursuit of happiness is a God given right, however the pursuit of God and His righteousness is the proper objective. God, being more “Libertarian” than “Totalitarian” has gifted us with free will and has set up a world in which we are able to choose.
Edlreed said: . “Aha. I am one who takes no pride in my knowledge as it has shown me how little I know.”
There are some universal principles that we need to master, or at least to take pride in…in order to study the historical documents. Logic, reason and objectivity are chief among them. I invite you to bring more to the table than lukewarm sarcasm and flaccid reasoning.Also, lets leave “GOD” out of it for now…He is used to being ignored and He can take it. I would argue the pre-existence of “natural rights” which preclude the power of the “State”. I am not an anarchist, so I will agree that we need a form of government structure, but I vehemently reject the idea that our “rights” derive from the “State”. Our Liberty predates the state and is superior to it in all respects.
By the way edlreed, if you study the historical documents, you will find that the pursuit of “happiness” meant “property” in their world view. Since most of us have been damaged by public education, I offer the addendum to keep us on track in our discussions.
No, Jefferson did not believe in National Banks over private banks…he said that the presence of banks is more dangerous than standing armies. And no, Jefferson was not a collectivist. You are thinking of Hamilton, who was a proponent of central banking and was an antagonist of Jefferson. And yes, most of the founders where Christians and no, they did not have a healthy fear of organized religion. Those are projections of someone promoting an agenda and trying to distort the historical record to advance that agenda.
I find it interesting how intolerant some people become when someone mentions God. Especially when only referencing historical facts, not proselytizing. Makes me wonder how confident some people are about their own convictions.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who are not students of economics who fail to see the outworking of the inevitable consequences of bad economic policy. I am part way into “The End Of Prosperity” where the historical record show the results of different policies. The knee jerk raising of taxes has been demonstrated to slow economic activity and result in lower revenues to government. The book can be ordered here:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Prosperity-Higher-Economy-If-Happen/dp/1416592385/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239846821&sr=8-1Let’s tie this back in to the original thought of this thread. The various alphabet soup entities like the OECD, IMF, World Bank, etc, etc are all examples of the forces of Tyranny that are on the rise. The collectivists are winning. I happen to think the authors of the Declaration of Independence were right and that we have inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property). According to that document, the government was formed to “secure” those rights and if it became a tyranny and stopped protecting those rights, then we have a solemn duty to overthrow the corrupted government. These inalienable rights come from God; they are not a gift from government.
Among us we have differing views as to how much we want the government to do and provide. I wonder how many among us really want to be “managed “and “ruled” by government. The yearning and the desire for self determination precludes such totalitarian concepts.
For the record, I do not confuse the functions of government and business. I think the concept of government being run for profit like a business is an oxymoron. By the same token, I do not think that governments should be attempting the job of running businesses. The US economy has been trashed by government regulation. Now with the bailouts, we will get a close up view of how bad it can be to have central planners vainly attempt to run a company. But, of course, everyone in Costa Rica can see that for themselves with the state monopolies or near monopolies in Telecommunications, Banking and Insurance etc.
No Sprite, it is not:
“Governments, on the other hand, are created with a different goal which is to manage society.”
It would be more accurate to say; It is the goal of a Marxist/Totalitarian governments to “manage society”. That is what the historical record confirms.
You also put your Marxist spin on the question of a business existing solely for profit. One has to ask why make money in the first place? The answer is obvious to most: to provide for ones present and future needs, wants and desires. Your class warfare rhetoric is such a broken record, and a pitiful attempt to use the current economic crisis, (created by collectivist policies, not free market) to attempt to portray collectivism as a superior system. Paradoxically the ultra rich that did not earn it, can anyone say Kennedy, are mostly ultra liberal collectivists. The fact is that the majority of American millionaires are first generation, meaning they earned it through providing goods and services that other people freely purchased. Wow, what an amazing concept.
If anyone is interested in an objective view of the “not Free” country of Cuba, you might have a look here.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7161&year=2007
Hey, I just read a very interesting article that is very thought provoking. Not an us vs them type of article, but is an interesting challenge to our ideas about government. It is called: “The Indefensibility of Political Representation” and can be viewed here:
“unregulated free market capitalism.”
Does not exist in the US any more and hasn’t for decades. That is why I am leaving. If true free market capitalism, which requires competition, existed we would not be in the mess we are in now. Again, an oligarchy is a form of collectivism. and I am not moving to Costa Rica because it is socialist, but in spite of it.Sorry eldreed, I thought that last post was from sprite. I have not seen any posts from you before, so I don’t know if you support Castro or not.
I have seen several post where you laud the communist government in Cuba, so I take it that you are of that persuasion. And I unabashedly argue in favor of free market capitalism over any other system. It has produced the most positive advancement for the good of all mankind that no collectivist model can touch. One would have to ignore the positive accomplishments and only focus on the negative.
And I do not argue that the US is perfect. Far from it. I wouldn’t be leaving if it hadn’t become so corrupt/ But I will put the failings of America up against the appalling record of abuse by the collectivists throughout history. The communists have killed 100,000,000 of their own people in their pursuit of the ideal state. check it out here:http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism
People have sought protection from invaders and bandits in all ages, this doesn’t mean they want to be serfs, lorded over by the ruling elite. You are blind to the concentrations of power in socialist and communist countries. America is the only experiment in liberty to the extent we had it. And the descent into oligarchy, which is a form of collectivism, is not the end result of the capitalist system; but the abuse of it by the ruling elite.
I am trusting that the socialist system in Costa Rica is less virulent and that the ambitions of the gov’t are such that they do not descend to the depths that are possible. But, according to the CR constitution, all political power is the province of the state, so we are all living there at the whim of those in power.
I’m still waiting for you to reply to my question about the historical record of the tyranny of socialist and communist regimes?
Well, of course you want to ignore the core argument, which is the forces of Liberty vs the forces of Tyranny. collectivism in all its guises are forms of tyranny, from the soft tyranny that insinuated itself into the US system through such things as over regulation of business, to the classic hard tyranny of such places as the old USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea.
And yes, I am using the logic and argumentation of the essence of the struggle. How about staying on point and stop throwing up straw man arguments and just state that you prefer the form of governments that want the ruling elite to call all the shots and tell everybody what to do?
The yearning to be free is hard wired into human beings. We have been struggling for eons to be free. In America, we finally had a shot at it, but your side is winning at the moment, and our freedoms are disappearing, not because of free market capitalism; but by the forces of collectivism, that seek to concentrate power and privilege for themselves, as they have throughout history.
