Government Deregulation

[bobbyjimmy]

You guys continue to astound with your inability to use logic, reason, or facts in your bizarre assertions. I was asked to talk about morals and the moral principle of force, I did so, and so far none of you can respond to the argument because you have none. So I guess we're done with that one. As to your continued attack on the Democratic Party, I already told you, the democrats have nothing to do with being progressive or trying to care for this country so your repeated "connections" are bogus. Not to mention amazingly ignorant. Ted Rall is not a democrat- he's a cartoonist, definitely liberal, and he repeatedly makes fun of democrats AND republicans for being the hypocrites they are. If you look at the cartoon in question (which I doubt you have) you'll see that he was being ironic, something obviously beyond your ability to comprehend. Ted Rall is not racist- he makes fun of and criticizes the fact that, in this day and age, racism continues to exist, especially in the areas of government he is ridiculing. He is using an obviously-offensive term to make a sharp point, which clearly went over your head. Not to mention, Ted Rall does not represent the Democratic Party- he's an individual with his own opinions. You guys are living in outer space.

Instead of copying-and-pasting your heroes' opinions, try formulating some of your own, with facts to back them up. It's easy to live in an ignorant world as long as you don't bother rubbing your beliefs against the harshness of fact. I'm done wasting my time responding to all your allegations while you quietly avoid responding to things you know you can't respond to. Again, no one is listening to you but each other, so have fun playing catch all day long on here. The liberal socialist menace will continue without you, and when you find me in our lunch line at the concentration camp where we are all given our daily ration of bread and water, you can tell me "I told you so."

 

[Gipper]

Thomas Sowell's thoughts have nothing to do with this. Let's stick to the topic, unless you're saying you don't understand your own beliefs and require Mr. Sowell to explain them for you. GenSeneca made a very clear, declarative statement which you are defending. I'm asking either one of you to back it up with logic. You, a serial killer, it doesn't matter who we're talking about- morals are absolute and unchanging regardless of who we're talking about. The argument against a government system that affords health care to everyone, as I am understanding you, is that it is immoral because no one has the right to use force on anyone (those are GenSeneca's words.) If this is true, then it follows that the concept of both a police force and an army is also immoral. That's just basic logic. So either your original assertion is wrong (in which case, say so) or you better have a logical, rational argument that somehow explains this discrepancy... or, you do genuinely believe that we should have no police or army, which is actually the most defensible position out of these 3 choices, as it is consistent with the belief that no one has the right to use force on anyone. Which would make you an anarchist, which is fine with me. I just want you to be logical and consistent.

I hoped you would comment on Dr. Sowell's article only because I would like to learn what a leftist thinks of his opinions.

I think your post above proves what I feared about you. You do not see any difference between the law abiding and the criminal. You believe there is no morality or immorality. Am I right? IMO a policeman using force on a criminal is entirely different than a government using force on its citizens to confiscate their wealth and give it to another. Why does this concept not resonate with you?

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I hoped you would comment on Dr. Sowell's article only because I would like to learn what a leftist thinks of his opinions.

I think your post above proves what I feared about you. You do not see any difference between the law abiding and the criminal. You believe there is no morality or immorality. Am I right? IMO a policeman using force on a criminal is entirely different than a government using force on its citizens to confiscate their wealth and give it to another. Why does this concept not resonate with you?

Because you're not giving a reason. An opinion with no logic behind it is worthless; you're just making up morality as you see fit and not giving any reason why anyone should believe you. If it's so self-evident, then the logic should be easy to describe. If you can't explain it to yourself, how can you expect anyone to listen to you? Is there a difference between between a law abiding citizen and a criminal? It's a loaded question. In some ways, yes, in others, not at all. It doesn't matter what I think right now- what matters is whether your argument is logical. Which, so far, it is not. So, again, the statement "It's immoral to initiate the use of force against others" must be argued logically. I already pointed out some potential holes in the argument but you haven't responded to them, so we can't move forward. Be clear about what you mean and then we can go on.

 

[cashmcall]

I'll believe you believe that if you tell me you are against having a police force, an army, or any other body that enFORCES any laws, rules, regulations or policies of anyone. Next time I get a speeding ticket I'll give you a call to protest the government on moral grounds.

Are we taking about "moral equivalence"? you guy's ARE all the same

 

[GenSeneca]

I'll believe you believe that if you tell me you are against having a police force, an army, or any other body that enFORCES any laws, rules, regulations or policies of anyone. Next time I get a speeding ticket I'll give you a call to protest the government on moral grounds.

It seems you need some clarification on the concept of initiating force against others:

INITIATE: to begin, set going, or originate

If someone walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face without provocation, they have initiated force against you. Now if that guy punched you in the face because you were trying to steal his wallet, you are the one who initiated force against him.

Hopefully that helps you to better understand the concept because I'd like for you to address what it is I was actually talking about.

 

[cashmcall]

I hoped you would comment on Dr. Sowell's article only because I would like to learn what a leftist thinks of his opinions.

I think your post above proves what I feared about you. You do not see any difference between the law abiding and the criminal. You believe there is no morality or immorality. Am I right? IMO a policeman using force on a criminal is entirely different than a government using force on its citizens to confiscate their wealth and give it to another. Why does this concept not resonate with you?

his refusal to acknowledge any real differences between a law abiding citizen and a criminal, people, or groups of people,black or white.. tends to obstruct society from dealing in any way with those differences, no matter how important they may be. This constant lack of realism makes Leftists significant enemies of rationality.

Another illustration of the quite foul depths to which the equality doctrine can sink is the repeated claim by Leftists of "moral equivalence" between very disparate people and groups. For instance, at the height of the Cold War, Leftists would routinely claim that Communist regimes and the economically successful "Western" democracies such as the United States were morally equivalent -- that neither was more blameworthy or praiseworthy than the other. When President Reagan called a spade a spade and described the USSR as an "evil empire", this was regarded as shocking and ignorant by US liberals. How anybody can see any equivalence between systems that murder millions without trial because of their suspected political views and countries that either have no death penalty at all or agonize over every such penalty that they inflict (even when the penalty is for the most heinous crimes) defies imagination. Such "moral imbecility" is startlingly reminiscent of the psychopath and the role of psychopathy in Leftism.

I think his post above confirms what I new about him..didn't he start this thread by calling us children?

 

[bobbyjimmy]

It seems you need some clarification on the concept of initiating force against others:

INITIATE: to begin, set going, or originate

If someone walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face without provocation, they have initiated force against you. Now if that guy punched you in the face because you were trying to steal his wallet, you are the one who initiated force against him.

Hopefully that helps you to better understand the concept because I'd like for you to address what it is I was actually talking about.

Yeah, so again, explain to me how, according to your own definition, it is morally acceptable to have an army that INITIATES force against another country, or a police force that INITIATES force against any individual who thinks differently than that police force. Instead of trying to guess what I may or may not believe, defend your assertions logically so that we can actually reach a conclusion. Taking your own words as a starting point, one is forced to conclude that the U.S. government has acted immorally via its military in almost every battle and war it has been involved with, the notable exception being WWII. The Vietnamese did not walk up and punch us in the face, Mexico (in the 1800's) did not walk up and punch us in the face (they weren't even a hint of a threat), Iraq did not punch us in the face after 9-11, etc. etc. etc. That's our military, an immoral entity as you define it. As for our police force, me driving a car fast is not initiating any force against the police, yet them threatening me with a gun and handcuffing me because I refuse to pull over, or the state taking my car away because I refuse to pay the tickets, that IS initiating force. So, again, if you're willing to stick to the logical consequences of your own definition, then, yes, I'm willing to move forward with this conversation. And that's not even getting into the idea whether your definition is even correct- I'm merely asking you to be consistent with what you are claiming.

 

[cashmcall]

bobby jimmy.. So in your mind your opinons are all that matter.. and conservative thinkers such as myself and many others who take ideas, principles and ideology seriously are simply incomprehensible and fit only for ridicule. Leftist thinkers do very often work their way carefully through an argument or set of ideas but do so only if the conclusion of the argument is suitable for propaganda or insult . They want to persuade others that something which suits them is "right" but they themselves do not believe in.

But the appeal of Leftism to the average person is simple: The preacher of Leftism offers something for nothing. And that is always hard to resist -- fraudulent though it usually is. If the Leftist offers to redistribute somebody else's wealth into your pocket, that is one hell of an appealing scam. The Leftist's constant hypocritical preaching of equality does sometimes succeed in creating the impression that the Leftists will manage to give poorer or working class people a bigger slice of the American Pie... and poorer people must obviously find that at least initially appealing. This is of course why labor unions have always had strong affinities with the Left. Leftists appear to want a better deal for union members.

 

[cashmcall]

I misspoke, sorry. We all agree who the bad guys are- corporations and the government that bends over backwards to serve them. What I was referring to was the complete lack of understand of political history, and the bizarre things that pass for "fact" around here... like, Mitt Romney is a progressive, George Bush is a progressive... everyone around here seems to think they were both the lesser of two evils... which makes no sense. The people you guys are complaining about are not pursing a socialist doctrine, but a neo-liberal conservative one; they don't see this world as a communal chunk of land we all live on and need to take care of, they see it as a gigantic real-estate opportunity to be gobbled up like a Monopoly board. Hence the removal of all sorts of regulations that kept Wall Street from gambling with our economy- but somehow you think the opposite is happening (maybe not "cashmcall" whos name I don't remember seeing, but most of the other folks on this board that were piping up during the election.)

I missed this one..NO we don't agree on who the bad guy's are..

 

[Gipper]

Yeah, so again, explain to me how, according to your own definition, it is morally acceptable to have an army that INITIATES force against another country, or a police force that INITIATES force against any individual who thinks differently than that police force. Instead of trying to guess what I may or may not believe, defend your assertions logically so that we can actually reach a conclusion. Taking your own words as a starting point, one is forced to conclude that the U.S. government has acted immorally via its military in almost every battle and war it has been involved with, the notable exception being WWII. The Vietnamese did not walk up and punch us in the face, Mexico (in the 1800's) did not walk up and punch us in the face (they weren't even a hint of a threat), Iraq did not punch us in the face after 9-11, etc. etc. etc. That's our military, an immoral entity as you define it. As for our police force, me driving a car fast is not initiating any force against the police, yet them threatening me with a gun and handcuffing me because I refuse to pull over, or the state taking my car away because I refuse to pay the tickets, that IS initiating force. So, again, if you're willing to stick to the logical consequences of your own definition, then, yes, I'm willing to move forward with this conversation. And that's not even getting into the idea whether your definition is even correct- I'm merely asking you to be consistent with what you are claiming.

I and many like me would never agree to America using it's army to initiate the use of force against another country in an unwarranted manner. This is why we are against Bush's war in Iraq and the constant interventions our military is and has undertaken.

You continue to misrepresent our position. Why? No one in this thread advocated the unwarranted use of force by police or army.

Yes the US has acted immorally by using military force around the world. But my dear friend, this has been going on for a long time. Are you just now realizing that many on the right do NOT believe in these unprovoked military interventions? It is time to bring all our troops home and mind our own business.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

bobby jimmy.. So in your mind your opinons are all that matter.. and conservative thinkers such as myself and many others who take ideas, principles and ideology seriously are simply incomprehensible and fit only for ridicule. Leftist thinkers do very often work their way carefully through an argument or set of ideas but do so only if the conclusion of the argument is suitable for propaganda or insult . They want to persuade others that something which suits them is "right" but they themselves do not believe in.

But the appeal of Leftism to the average person is simple: The preacher of Leftism offers something for nothing. And that is always hard to resist -- fraudulent though it usually is. If the Leftist offers to redistribute somebody else's wealth into your pocket, that is one hell of an appealing scam. The Leftist's constant hypocritical preaching of equality does sometimes succeed in creating the impression that the Leftists will manage to give poorer or working class people a bigger slice of the American Pie... and poorer people must obviously find that at least initially appealing. This is of course why labor unions have always had strong affinities with the Left. Leftists appear to want a better deal for union members.

I am not preaching leftism, I am not saying we need a socialist state, I am not saying I want something for nothing. I am merely asking you guys to be logical and rational. It is a common rhetorical game you play to avoid answering questions and start accusing the opposing side of X Y or Z. If this were a debate, you would have been disqualified ages ago because you can't stick to the basic rules of a logical discourse. If we ever get around to establishing a logical argument for what you believe, then we can get to whether or not I agree or disagree with your beliefs, which is what I was asked.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm merely asking you to be consistent with what you are claiming.

I am consistent, it's your assumptions about what I believe that cause you think some inconsistency exists. It's always immoral to initiate the use of force against others. Whatever our disagreements, neither of us have a Right to initiate the use of force against the other. You seem to believe you do have such a "right", specifically that you have the "right" to initiate the use of force against anyone who operates a business, you would not argue in support of government regulations if you did not believe you had such a "right" to impose your will on others by force.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I and many like me would never agree to America using it's army to initiate the use of force against another country in an unwarranted manner. This is why we are against Bush's war in Iraq and the constant interventions our military is and has undertaken.

You continue to misrepresent our position. Why? No one in this thread advocated the unwarranted use of force by police or army.

Yes the US has acted immorally by using military force around the world. But my dear friend, this has been going on for a long time. Are you just now realizing that many on the right do NOT believe in these unprovoked military interventions? It is time to bring all our troops home and mind our own business.

Okay, great, finally a concrete response. Now I can start to understand what you're trying to say. So you are against most of our military actions over the past 200 years, which (this is a slight tangent, but) would mean to me that you're also in favor of reducing our military budget by a sizable amount since we wouldn't need such a big army if we weren't going around starting wars all over the place. Am I right in this assumption?

Regardless, you didn't answer part 2- logically, you must also be against having a police force, or, at least, you can only be in favor of a police force that exists merely to protect people from being attacked- in other words, a self-defensive police force, as it were. They should have no power to enforce laws of any kind. Right?

 

[Gipper]

Okay, great, finally a concrete response. Now I can start to understand what you're trying to say. So you are against most of our military actions over the past 200 years, which (this is a slight tangent, but) would mean to me that you're also in favor of reducing our military budget by a sizable amount since we wouldn't need such a big army if we weren't going around starting wars all over the place. Am I right in this assumption?

Regardless, you didn't answer part 2- logically, you must also be against having a police force, or, at least, you can only be in favor of a police force that exists merely to protect people from being attacked- in other words, a self-defensive police force, as it were. They should have no power to enforce laws of any kind. Right?

Yes we do need to reduce the defense budget significantly.

And regarding the police, you again fail to understand the distinctions. If you break the law, you will suffer the consequences. Had you not broken the law, the cops would not have roughed you up. So my lefty friend, you must learn to accept responsibility for your actions....something most of the left apparently are unwilling to do.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Yes we do need to reduce the defense budget significantly.

And regarding the police, you again fail to understand the distinctions. If you break the law, you will suffer the consequences. Had you not broken the law, the cops would not have roughed you up. So my lefty friend, you must learn to accept responsibility for your actions....something most of the left apparently are unwilling to do.

Well then explain to this ignorant lefty pal how you define "the law", because if the law is that everyone has to chip in to a pool of money that will be used to help anyone who has medical needs, then I expect my police force to prosecute anyone refusing to abide by this law. No one ever asked me if I agreed with the concept of a speed limit, or a thousand other rules that you have to abide by if you live in this country. Yet I am forced to abide by them every day for no other reason than the fact that there are cops out there who will FORCE me to do so one way or another. As far as I understand it, if our leaders, whom we freely elected, choose to pass universal health care, then that becomes law, and, as you so eloquently pointed out, anyone who is against that is against the law and must suffer the consequences.