(September 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm)TaraJo Wrote: But there's another level to it. See, I want to see wealth tied to a persons productivity simply because I think we can accomplish more that way.

Wouldn't we all?

(September 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm)TaraJo Wrote: However, this conversation seems to be the key difference I notice between most Libertarians and Republicans. Libertarians preach the good of a free market while the Republicans try to keep pushing trickle down economics. I can respect the views of the Libertarians, even if I don't agree with them. .

I explained the difference earlier. Social opinions are nowhere near the same. The rights to abortion, welfare, structure of the federal government itself, Medicare, public education, state's rights and border policies are a handful of areas the parties disagree. Economics are an area the most Republicans and Libertarians can agree, as both stances are moderately to severely conservative in nature.

(September 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Personally, I'd like to institute more libertarian policies, but first we have to reduce the power and influence of corporations. I fear that if we simply reduce the size and scope of the government without doing that, corporations will become the defacto government and they'll be a fuck of a lot harder to control than our government is now.

Negative. If we realign our economy from a federal base on down, everything will fall into place. Industry could be brought back to the Americas if tariffs were placed on imports from American outsourced labor in order to increase the cost of production to an equal to or greater price than domestic production. The size of the government would make no difference, as current laws allow super corporations to run global markets in our back yards. Fifty thousand Feds can't change what fifty couldn't if there are no laws to enforce.

(September 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Well, no, once you get past the basic necessities, money doesn't really buy happiness. However, those basic necessities have been being threatened lately. Remember all those people being evicted from their homes when the housing bubble burst? Medical costs are headed in the same direction; I have a friend, Amy, whose family didn't make enough for medical insurance and her husband died because he had throat cancer that he couldn't get treated. Nobody is going to be very happy if they're sitting there on their death bed because they can't get throat cancer treated.

But there's another level to it. See, I want to see wealth tied to a persons productivity simply because I think we can accomplish more that way. Yeah, those rich kids are pretty well off and they're never going to have to lift a finger to keep on top. What if they didn't? What if they had to work hard and produce and put new ideas into the marketplace in order to maintain their privileged position? I want to see more production from the top levels of industry and new innovations from them and I think they can do it if they had the right incentive.

However, this conversation seems to be the key difference I notice between most Libertarians and Republicans. Libertarians preach the good of a free market while the Republicans try to keep pushing trickle down economics. I can respect the views of the Libertarians, even if I don't agree with them. Republican economic policy that relies on supply side economics has not worked. There's a very important difference between the two.

Personally, I'd like to institute more libertarian policies, but first we have to reduce the power and influence of corporations. I fear that if we simply reduce the size and scope of the government without doing that, corporations will become the defacto government and they'll be a fuck of a lot harder to control than our government is now.

Hey, I agree with much of what you wrote in this post, including trickle down economics not really accomplishing what it claims to and also with there being a big difference between Libertarian economics and those of the Republican party.

I still disagree that Americans are really suffering, the people who lost their houses didn't end up starving in the streets, they just ended up living in smaller apartments. That's fine with me. Many of our problems come from the idea that we are entitled to have all these things we don't really need. It's presented that the American dream is living in a big house with lots of kids that we don't need, and space that we don't use. That's part of the reason that people lost their houses. They bought houses they thought they needed, but didn't really. I think that is the dream that's been sold to us, but I think there is a difference between productivity and happiness.

I guess that's the other thing I take issue with, I don't think that 'being on top' in an economic sense is really all that important in ones life. Or at least it shouldn't be. I guess I'm not really concerned about us 'accomplishing more' in an economic sense. There are just so many more important things than money. I think that you are right that the rich would be more productive if they had to work for it, but I don't really concern myself with what rich people do, I don't think it's that important.

(September 28, 2012 at 3:57 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm)cratehorus Wrote: I can't?.......... communism was never reached

That's irrelevant. I'm not asking you to show me an example of a communist state. I'm asking you to show me (i.e present an argument) that communism doesn't punish success and reward laziness. In my view, communism does this. In a capitalist society, a persons idea can reward them with money if they work hard to turn it into a viable product. In communism, private enterprise is illegal, meaning any good ideas a person has effectively belongs to the state. They have no benefits that the rest of the workforce have. Laziness is rewarded because the system can't bear to see anyone destitute, so the lazy get paid for sitting on their ass.

In capitalism, the same thing happens, if not more so, people who work 90 hours a week live in poverty, while the children of the wealthiest in society, never lift a finger, their whole life.

Quote:

Quote:communism has never resulted in anything?.............. because it was never reached

This is a typical argument of communists. It's quite simply an avoidance of the truth...that wherever communism has been attempted, it has failed.

There can never, be something, such as a "communist nation", it can never exist, therefore you will never find an example of one

Quote:

Quote:I can't?............. because no government has ever had TOTAL control over it's economy

Ever heard of a place called North Korea?

North Korea has no oil, since it is not even, just allowed to trade for oil, it does NOT have total control over it's economy.

By, your logic............ the most dangerous person in the world is a freely-elected public official

(September 29, 2012 at 1:34 am)cratehorus Wrote: In capitalism, the same thing happens, if not more so, people who work 90 hours a week live in poverty, while the children of the wealthiest in society, never lift a finger, their whole life.

It isn't the same thing, for a couple of reasons:

1) In capitalism, only the wealthy can afford to sit on their ass; in communism, everyone can, since the government will pay to keep them alive.

2) The children of the wealthy cannot live like that forever; nobody can. If you do not have an income, and are living off a large sum of money, you will eventually run out of money, especially if you have kids, and they have kids, etc, and you all live off the same supply of money. In communism, one could theoretically live off the state and have their children and grandchildren live off the state for as long as the state is around.

Quote:There can never, be something, such as a "communist nation", it can never exist, therefore you will never find an example of one

Yes, there can. A nation is simply a large group of people all inhabiting the same area. A communist nation would be a large group of people, all inhabiting the same area, and all living in a communist society. I'd agree that a "communist state" (though some exist) isn't a true form of communism, but to say that there can be no communist nation is not true. A "nation" is not a political term; it's more of a human-geographic term.

In any case, how do you think you can ever convince me of communism if you admit that it can never exist? Seems a bit pointless to me.

Quote:North Korea has no oil, since it is not even, just allowed to trade for oil, it does NOT have total control over it's economy.

The government does the trading, thus the government does have total control over its economy.

Quote:By, your logic............ the most dangerous person in the world is a freely-elected public official

Eh???

I don't know about that....a lot of atheists come off as more conservative than liberal.....perhaps Libertarian or pick-and-choose liberals.

But then again, the Left-Wing has become just another form of conservatism in countries like the United States...basically just the US and Australia.

(September 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It isn't the same thing, for a couple of reasons:

1) In capitalism, only the wealthy can afford to sit on their ass; in communism, everyone can, since the government will pay to keep them alive.

2) The children of the wealthy cannot live like that forever; nobody can. If you do not have an income, and are living off a large sum of money, you will eventually run out of money, especially if you have kids, and they have kids, etc, and you all live off the same supply of money. In communism, one could theoretically live off the state and have their children and grandchildren live off the state for as long as the state is around.

Warren Buffet has over $60 billion, his children, never have to work, a single day, in their life.

Yet, most of them do, so why do they?

Quote:Yes, there can. A nation is simply a large group of people all inhabiting the same area. A communist nation would be a large group of people, all inhabiting the same area, and all living in a communist society. I'd agree that a "communist state" (though some exist) isn't a true form of communism, but to say that there can be no communist nation is not true. A "nation" is not a political term; it's more of a human-geographic term.

In any case, how do you think you can ever convince me of communism if you admit that it can never exist? Seems a bit pointless to me.

If you want an example of a country with a successful worker's progressive movement, then look no further than your own.

There can NEVER be a "communist nation" because that phrase is an oxymoron

Quote:The government does the trading, thus the government does have total control over its economy.

If Saudi Arabia and all the oil producing OPEC nations, decide to have an oil embargo against the US, what would our nation look like?

....... who did you learn about communism from Margaret Thatcher?

(September 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Warren Buffet has over $60 billion, his children, never have to work, a single day, in their life.

Yet, most of them do, so why do they?

Uh...

(September 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The children of the wealthy cannot live like that forever; nobody can. If you do not have an income, and are living off a large sum of money, you will eventually run out of money, especially if you have kids, and they have kids, etc, and you all live off the same supply of money.

Yeah, that...

cratehorus Wrote:There can NEVER be a "communist nation" because that phrase is an oxymoron

Again,

Tiberius Wrote:Yes, there can. A nation is simply a large group of people all inhabiting the same area. A communist nation would be a large group of people, all inhabiting the same area, and all living in a communist society. I'd agree that a "communist state" (though some exist) isn't a true form of communism, but to say that there can be no communist nation is not true. A "nation" is not a political term; it's more of a human-geographic term.

cratehorus Wrote:If Saudi Arabia and all the oil producing OPEC nations, decide to have an oil embargo against the US, what would our nation look like?

What, exactly is the point? What level of control over the economy do you need for it to be classified as 'total' control? An embargo does not change the fact that the government has total control over its own businesses. If a government had absolute control over its economy, then it would just order other governments to give it money to boost the economy. A government does its best to influence its economy, but it only has indirect control over it. It is the means of production (all of the businesses) that are under government control in socialism.

Communism opposes "nations". The nations that we know today are nations that are there due to similarities and differences between people. Communism seeks to eradicate all similarities and differences between people, and create a single type of human being that is only bent on fulfilling it's most base desires.
This is why communism is hostile to native cultures, traditions and etc. and tries to force people to think same.

In communism, the government does not "pay" for yout shit. In theory, you are just taking what is "yours", as all property belongs to "everyone" and "equal distribution" is theoretically in place, and is governed by the "people", the people, distribute stuff amongst the people.
Say, I want to move to a different city. I immidiately go to an empty house without paying, which has furniture, and basic needs such as water and electricity supplied to it, free of charge.
On the other hand, I leave my old home behind-I cannot take any furniture with me, and someone else goes to live there, after I have left that place.

Obviously, tis' sounds nice, if you actually are pure in your mind and soul, and want to share your property with your kin and brother.
But communism dictates that you should share your property with someone who is not your kin and not your brother, and kinship is not to be taken into consideration no matter what. You cannot leave behind anything for your son to own and look back, this is why the peope in ex-soviet countries are so poor. They cannot accumulate resources.


The views of communism towards "people" is simply to see them as "heaps". Communism views people as a "mass". But this mass does not have to be necessarily motivated by a firm set of ideals, morals and traditions.
My own ideology also puts value on "people", but we believe that without a consciousness, what is a heap and mass of people? Cattle too, live and graze in masses, but they are only fit for slaughter. They too are given equal distribution of materials by their masters.
But they are always nothing more than cattle. If the cattle had the intelligence to unite themselves under a common ideal, a real ideal, they would wield power-even if there was no distribution of resources whatsoever. For that would naturally come with a consciousness, an awakening, the thought of being "kin" and fighting and subduing those who are hostile towards the kin, and are not of the kin.

Regarding the OP and trying to re-frame its raving and hyperbolically-worded questions in a coherent and rational manner:

You won't find many social conservatives in the ranks of free thinkers because one of the principle motives for social conservatives has been taken away. While there are some anti-abortion or homophobic atheists, these positions are harder to justify when there isn't a personal god to appease.

That said, atheists can be expected to run the gambit on economic or foreign policy issues. I've found in the polling I've seen that freethinkers are more likely to identify as libertarian than as conservative.

From my own experience, the social conservative stances I once held were the first to go. Once the facts turned against them, I had no religious reasons to continue holding on to them. However, I remained a libertarian for a long time and even today I'm somewhere between liberal and libertarian.

Back to the way the OP was worded...

(September 25, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Blackrook Wrote: Why are most atheists hard-core leftists who want to turn our nation into a European nanny state?

Atheists claim to be "free thinkers" and yet they fight for more and more control of every aspect of our lives until there is no freedom left for any of us.

Kind of a contradiction if you ask me.

Why has the Republican party gone completely insane?

You see, this is the problem with our political discourse in America. I'd like to have a rational conversation about politics with the other side but what can you do when the other side lives in an alternate reality?

I mean, just look at Blackrock's posts in this entire thread. And this is typical for what I find from those on the other side of the table these days.

Obama passes a watered-down, pitiful excuse for health care reform of our monstrously inefficient and inhumane health care system, leaving the for-profit health insurance companies in charge but placing a few new regulations on them and the other side screams non-stop about "this is socialism!" and "freedom is being taken away by the nanny-state!" And then there's all the shrieks about "death panels" that don't actually exist in reality.

How can I have a rational conversation with these people?

Gotta run but I'll post more on this later...

---

@ 'The_Germans_are_coming'
Remember what I said about the Catholics being the liberal ones?

Maybe it's just the ones I know.