I am curious about any thoughts about the value of freedom but was struck by Ajax longing for something lost. I am wondering what that freedom was which was lost and what it would be like to have it restored.
Much of it has to do with states rights and the usurpation of local goverance by the federal government. I don't want California telling people in Florida we have to lock down or we have to be masked up. I don't want inner city governments dictating gun control to rural cultures. Our current laws work fine.
If 2/3 of people decide to have children and shirk their responsibilities on them, in a world with freedom restored the taxpayer would not be on the hook to provide for however many children these people choose to put upon us.
If a president leaves the border open to import endless poverty into the country, in a free the taxpayer would not be on the hook for that.
If we have evidence that Covid came from a Chinese lab leak we should be able to post that without getting banned or the FBI forcing social media to ban it.
If the voters want to choose Donald Trump to be president, the administrative state can't disenfranchise them by weaponizing the DOJ with a two tiered system of justice.
Ajax, thank you for the response. I can see some sense in fearing some of these dangers. 2/3 families not supporting their children would be social disaster. People coming from outside the country should be limited and should work to contribute to the country.
Tax is a trickier subject. On the one hand it takes money from you which limits what you can do. On the other hand tax can support security and health of the country. If it works well taxes help make our country richer and a richer country means richer individuals living in it who can do more with their money.
It makes sense to me to think that some government expenses, (taxes of course) contribute to the wealth of society more than others.
So ... You'd be happy living in a world with a lot of adult people in it who were starved, neglected and denied education as children, and who not unnaturally felt like taking it out on the comfortable citizens who decided that was OK, because it was all their parents' responsibility.
Right. Good luck with that.
By that logic the left would be scared of disenfrachising Trump supporters. Good luck with that. Those unwilling to defend their property don't get to keep it very long in this world. They don't remain free very long either.
Pardon me, but you really do want to see an end to any tax-funded support for the children of people too poor or feckless to care from them properly. True, no? If so, you clearly intend the consequences of so doing, as set out in my post. Please confirm.
I, on the other hand do NOT want to 'disenfranchise Trump supporters'. If, as seems likely, Trump is selected as the Republican candidate, there is, so far as I know, no means by which his supporters could be prevented from voting for him. So even if "the left" did want to 'disenfranchise Trump supporters', how do you imagine they could do it? Please explain.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
By that logic the left would be scared of disenfrachising Trump supporters. Good luck with that. Those unwilling to defend their property don't get to keep it very long in this world. They don't remain free very long either.
Pardon me, but you really do want to see an end to any tax-funded support for the children of people too poor or feckless to care from them properly. True, no? If so, you clearly intend the consequences of so doing, as set out in my post. Please confirm.
I, on the other hand do NOT want to 'disenfranchise Trump supporters'. If, as seems likely, Trump is selected as the Republican candidate, there is, so far as I know, no means by which his supporters could be prevented from voting for him. So even if "the left" did want to 'disenfranchise Trump supporters', how do you imagine they could do it? Please explain.
The left is already making plans to keep Trump off the ballot in the general election.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Tax is a trickier subject. On the one hand it takes money from you which limits what you can do. On the other hand tax can support security and health of the country. If it works well taxes help make our country richer and a richer country means richer individuals living in it who can do more with their money.
There's a movement on the right with Trump that says we can't talk about cutting social security and hope to win an election. Politically Trump is right about this. But just because the majority wants social welfare, doesn't mean they're willing to pay for it. Voters aren't necessarily rational. In their minds you can just tax the rich and have free everything. I think the majority is mistaken in this belief.
Our current corporatist model where the government takes money from efficient companies and redistributes this money to companies they like doesn't actually promote innovation. It's a perversion of the free market economy. This corporatist model is actually practiced in both the US and China. And it's causing similar problems for both countries. China isn't the economic juggernaut they've been made out to be.
In response to your original post, another area where I believe we've lost freedom is with the global scamdemic. I'd recommend the book, "Liberty or Lockdowns," as a good response to many of the freedoms we've lost as a result of the scamdemic, not the least of which being the degree of debt slavery we've placed upon those who are unlucky enough to inherit the USA.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Tax is a trickier subject. On the one hand it takes money from you which limits what you can do. On the other hand tax can support security and health of the country. If it works well taxes help make our country richer and a richer country means richer individuals living in it who can do more with their money.
There's a movement on the right with Trump that says we can't talk about cutting social security and hope to win an election. Politically Trump is right about this. But just because the majority wants social welfare, doesn't mean they're willing to pay for it. Voters aren't necessarily rational. In their minds you can just tax the rich and have free everything. I think the majority is mistaken in this belief.
Ajax, perhaps you know different people than I do. I do not know anybody who thinks we just tax the rich and every thing is free. I pay taxes and have for many years now. Social Security is something people pay for.
When I spoke of a rich society making individuals more wealthy I did not mean social welfare. I meant that a strong society has many goods a services available at reasonable prices while a society not functioning as well has fewer avaible goods and services and those at higher prices.
Tax is a trickier subject. On the one hand it takes money from you which limits what you can do. On the other hand tax can support security and health of the country. If it works well taxes help make our country richer and a richer country means richer individuals living in it who can do more with their money.
I can see tax for military and police services. But even at that, I think very few people prosper as a result of war or crime. War and crime end with more losers than winners. Any economic system needs a certain level of morality on the part of the people to result in prosperity.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but it seems like you're advocating for a command economy where the government decides where money should be invested. I don't believe this is the most efficient use of resources and I certainly don't believe that such an economy is an example of liberty. Liberty means that if you earn the money, you get to choose what is done with it. When a majority gets together and says, "We want your house, your car, your money, and because we're the majority we have the right to take it," this is an example of tyranny and is immoral. There's nothing virtuous about being generous with another man's money. It's immoral. I also think history has proven that command economies result in more poverty while free market economies (in spite of their shortcomings due to a fallen world) do enjoy more wealth than command economies.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Tax is a trickier subject. On the one hand it takes money from you which limits what you can do. On the other hand tax can support security and health of the country. If it works well taxes help make our country richer and a richer country means richer individuals living in it who can do more with their money.
I can see tax for military and police services. But even at that, I think very few people prosper as a result of war or crime. War and crime end with more losers than winners. Any economic system needs a certain level of morality on the part of the people to result in prosperity.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but it seems like you're advocating for a command economy where the government decides where money should be invested. I don't believe this is the most efficient use of resources and I certainly don't believe that such an economy is an example of liberty. Liberty means that if you earn the money, you get to choose what is done with it. When a majority gets together and says, "We want your house, your car, your money, and because we're the majority we have the right to take it," this is an example of tyranny and is immoral. There's nothing virtuous about being generous with another man's money. It's immoral. I also think history has proven that command economies result in more poverty while free market economies (in spite of their shortcomings due to a fallen world) do enjoy more wealth than command economies.
Ajax, I agree with you that a economic system needs a certain level of morality on the part of the people to result in prosperity.
I most certainly am not advocating for a command economy. You sound like you read Ayn Rand and fear her vision in Atlas Shrugged is what is happening in America. I can think there is value in the warning but I believe in a free enterprise system.
The left is already making plans to keep Trump off the ballot in the general election.
Please specify the means that the wicked left is using to achieve that end.
If it is just a matter of Democrats saying "Trump really is a immoral guy with no respect for constitutional democratic processes, and will break any rule to get back into power - so he would be a really bad choice for Republican presidential candidate", that is simply legitimate political discourse protected by the First Amendment. Do you have a problem with that?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
The left is already making plans to keep Trump off the ballot in the general election.
Please specify the means that the wicked left is using to achieve that end.
If it is just a matter of Democrats saying "Trump really is a immoral guy with no respect for constitutional democratic processes, and will break any rule to get back into power - so he would be a really bad choice for Republican presidential candidate", that is simply legitimate political discourse protected by the First Amendment. Do you have a problem with that?
Do you know what a ballot is? When you go into a booth to vote there's a list of candidates that you can choose from to vote for. State and local Democrat officials are trying to make sure Donald Trump's name is not on that list over some legal fiction they've created in the partisan justice system. That is what it means to be kept off the ballot.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
State and local Democrat officials are trying to make sure Donald Trump's name is not on that list over some legal fiction they've created in the partisan justice system. That is what it means to be kept off the ballot.
ajax, you may have been taken in by a parody account. Check out this link:
