Community is not voluntary. It's a contract. It's binding.
And yet let's cut to the chase. Liberals want to control conservative property and finance. It is never gonna happen. Nor should it. Beyond necessary taxation, no reparations, welfare, or social equality programs should ever be forced on an electorate that never elected you.
This is one of the main reasons for a clear division in US politics.
It may have taken freedom and conscience a long time to change our minds and hearts, but even the bible advocates a cheerful and willing giver as opposed to a mandatory one.
You may argue that Ananias and Saphire had no choice, but anyone who knows God, the Holy Spirit knows that He does not simply go around slaying people for being disobedient.
jar always told me to throw God away. Maybe he had a point. And even though you always deny deny deny that you are advocating for a government to institute mandatory taxes, reparations, and social changes for the good of everyone, you really do support such a system.
Liberals want to control conservative property and finance.
Of course conservative propaganda would tell you that. They want you to help protect THEIR property and finance - while they're stealing yours.
Phat writes:
It is never gonna happen. Nor should it.
Of course it shouldn't. But it's a lie. It's the conservatives who want to control YOUR property and finance.
Phat writes:
Beyond necessary taxation...
Nobody is suggesting anything beyond necessary taxation. But feeding the children IS necessary.
Phat writes:
... no reparations...
Get off that. Why shouldn't you pay what you owe?
Phat writes:
...welfare, or social equality programs should ever be forced on an electorate that never elected you.
You fucking bastard. How can you DARE to be against feeding the hungry?
Phat writes:
This is one of the main reasons for a clear division in US politics.
Yes, there is a division between hateful, greedy bastards like you and people with compassion. There are also a lot of people in the middle who can be fooled by your lies.
Phat writes:
even the bible advocates a cheerful and willing giver as opposed to a mandatory one.
It MANDATES a cheerful giver. Give your last two mites or you fry.
It's only because of greedy, hateful bastards like you that the churches have failed to fulfill their mandate. It's only because of greedy, hateful bastards like you that the government is FORCED to be the conscience of society.
Phat writes:
You may argue that Ananias and Saphire had no choice, but anyone who knows God, the Holy Spirit knows that He does not simply go around slaying people for being disobedient.
You DO NOT know God.
Phat writes:
And even though you always deny deny deny that you are advocating for a government to institute mandatory taxes, reparations, and social changes for the good of everyone, you really do support such a system.
Supporting is not advocating. I say we unbelievers HAVE to do it. Our consciences demand no less.
But YOU fight against it.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
Well I finally did it. I pushed the right buttons to get an honest reply out of you. There really IS a liberal agenda. YOU really ARE authoritarian s. You justify the mandatory control because after all it NEEDS to be done. Why did you have to try and sell me a nice nice agenda when the facts show that you guys make it your secular version of a religion? I may have been born at night but not LAST night! And you won't win the next election.
ringo writes:
Supporting is not advocating. I say we unbelievers HAVE to do it. Our consciences demand no less.
And so it begins. Each side claims that the other side is the villains. We have liberalism as a secular authoritarian "ideal" to counter what you see as fake and hateful conservatives who use a made up Jesus. I really need to start a new topic on this.
I pushed the right buttons to get an honest reply out of you.
Every reply you get from me is an honest one.
Phat writes:
There really IS a liberal agenda.
It isn't a "liberal" agenda. It's a decent agenda. All decent people support it.
Phat writes:
YOU really ARE authoritarian s.
I asked you before what's "authoritarian" about it. You didn't answer. How about an honest answer?
Phat writes:
You justify the mandatory control because after all it NEEDS to be done.
As I have said, we HAVE the mandatory taxes regardless of the party in power. But it's only the hated "liberals" who want to spend the money to feed the children. You right-wing fanatics want to give it all to the rich.
Phat writes:
Why did you have to try and sell me a nice nice agenda when the facts show that you guys make it your secular version of a religion?
You talk about "facts" but you don't show any.
Phat writes:
And you won't win the next election.
I'm not running in any election.
And you're the last person on earth who's capable of predicting election results.
Phat writes:
Each side claims that the other side is the villains.
But it's easy to show the villainy on the conservative side. Your hero Trump brags about cheating on his taxes. He brags about groping women. He can't open his moth without lying. And his henchmen in the Republican Party protect him from the law.
And YOU agree with him on everything. At least you're ashamed to openly support him.
On the other hand, you have not shown that "liberals" are villains. It's pretty hard to find villainy in feeding the hungry and healing the sick, isn't it?
Phat writes:
We have liberalism as a secular authoritarian "ideal"...
1. Either back up your claim about authoritarianism or shut up about it. 2. Nobody is saying it's an "ideal". It's the bare minimum.
Phat writes:
I really need to start a new topic on this.
You don't need a new topic. You just need to respond to the rebuttals.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
It isn't a "liberal" agenda. It's a decent agenda. All decent people support it.
Phat writes:
YOU really ARE authoritarian s.
ringo writes:
I asked you before what's "authoritarian" about it. You didn't answer. How about an honest answer?
OK. Lets start with the Oxford Dictionary.
au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism-- noun: authoritarianism 1) the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. 2) lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.
You can employ your euphimism of "decent agenda" all you like, but the fact is you prefer equality over freedom. If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them. That is, by definition, the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. I prefer the right to control (and distribute) my own private property and my own private money. The liberal authoritarians HATE that! Which, again, is why we have a political division in this country.
Ray Dalio explains it all rather well in this video, which I doubt any of you will watch. He DOES know what he is talking about, however.
And Theodoric knows less about economic realities than he imagines.
authoritarianism 1) the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
That would be the conservatives, forcing women to carry dangerous pregnancies to full term.
Phat writes:
2) lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.
That would be the conservatives, with no concern for whether the poor starve or freeze to death.
Phat writes:
You can employ your euphimism of "decent agenda" all you like, but the fact is you prefer equality over freedom.
It's not a euphemism.
Yes, I do prefer people to eat equally instead of having the freedom to starve. That is not authoritarian.
Phat writes:
If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
You should be ashamed of yourself for hoarding "your" assets while children go hungry.
Phat writes:
That is, by definition, the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
Not even close. It's a social contract. Fulfilling the terms of a contract is not authoritarian.
Phat writes:
I prefer the right to control (and distribute) my own private property and my own private money. The liberal authoritarians HATE that!
The liberals hate it when you watch children starve and don't do anything about it. AND you have the gall to act all holier-than-thou about it.
Phat writes:
Ray Dalio explains it all rather well in this video...
If it could be explained well... ("Y'see, Lord, I had to step on that homeless man's face because...") and if you're half as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to explain it yourself.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
I do prefer people to eat equally instead of having the freedom to starve. That is not authoritarian
I like how you frame your argument. *cough* appeal to emotionalism*cough*. Not that I need to defend myself, but I am far from being a "Mr. Potter" or an "Ebenezer Scrooge" just because I lean conservative. My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian. And before you all start cussing me out, I am NOT against helping the poor. I DO help many of them, more than you think or imagine. My argument centers on whether giving and providing for ALL of the people (be it a nation or a world) *should* be mandated by government (be it local, national, or global) rather than left up to individual decisions. My argument is that any mandatory system beyond taxation for basic services (which we have now) is authoritarian and SHOULD be opposed. As I said before,
Phat writes:
If any child in the world were hungry, you would consider it a sacred duty for the government (a liberal progressive one, likely eventually a global one if the antichrist spirit gets its way) to tax or utilize my assets in order to feed them.
Social Justice ringo writes:
Yes. A thousand times yes.
And you would chide me for "not doing what Jesus mandated I do". You don't believe the man/God ever existed, yet you always roll Him out of the archives whenever you want to support your authoritarian liberal agenda! You won't get all of the votes on this one unless you keep letting enough hungry and desperate people (without background checks) into the country simply to swing the vote perpetually to your party, ideology, and "side".
See, I know where this all is going to end up.
ringo writes:
If it could be explained well... ("Y'see, Lord, I had to step on that homeless man's face because...") and if you're half as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to explain it yourself.
You have not refuted my argument that liberals are (also) authoritarians. You simply blame the conservatives for being the WRONG authority. And since none of you sense that God is real, you justify liberal authoritarianism as necessary because
quote:we unbelievers HAVE to do it. Our consciences demand no less.
. The problem is that "you guys" make up a little more than 50% of the population---hardly a mandate for such a "necessity".
My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian.
Are any liberals actually proposing that? Or are you just making it up.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
I am making it up to a degree. It has not yet actually happened, since the money we now pay is adequate to address most bipartisan issues. Addressing ringo specifically, I find that he advocates doing whatever is necessary, My issue is that he thinks that in a crisis, everyone's money is fair game for use. In other places, such an action is known as a bail-in.
In 2008, the banks and financial institutions were bailed out. Some think that if a similar crisis occurred nowadays, the solution would have to be a bail-in since the Fed no longer has the money for a bail-out. The public collectively does, however.
Addressing ringo specifically, I find that he advocates doing whatever is necessary, My issue is that he thinks that in a crisis, everyone's money is fair game for use.
As usual, you are probably misunderstanding ringo.
And I'll remind you that it is the Republicans who are wanting to steal the social security trust fund and give it away to the very rich.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
I like how you frame your argument. *cough* appeal to emotionalism*cough*.
People dying is an emotional subject. Empathy doesn't necessarily strengthen my argument but lack of empathy weakens yours.
Phat writes:
Not that I need to defend myself, but I am far from being a "Mr. Potter" or an "Ebenezer Scrooge"...
I damn near quoted Ebenezer Scrooge.
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
"Then let them die and reduce the surplus population."
Sounds a lot like you.
Phat writes:
... just because I lean conservative.
You're not mean and nasty because you're conservative. You're conservative because you're mean and nasty.
Phat writes:
My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian.
And that argument is wrong. Is an administration that taxes ALL finances held by ALL private individuals to build roads and schools authoritarian?
Phat writes:
I am NOT against helping the poor.
You certainly come across that way.
Phat writes:
My argument centers on whether giving and providing for ALL of the people (be it a nation or a world) *should* be mandated by government (be it local, national, or global)...
For *should*, substitute "has to be because nobody else is doing it*.
Phat writes:
... rather than left up to individual decisions.
See above. Individual decisions are failing miserably.
Phat writes:
My argument is that any mandatory system beyond taxation for basic services (which we have now) is authoritarian and SHOULD be opposed.
Feeding people IS a basic service. It doesn't get any more basic than that.
Phat writes:
And you would chide me for "not doing what Jesus mandated I do".
YES.
Phat writes:
You don't believe the man/God ever existed, yet you always roll Him out of the archives whenever you want to support your authoritarian liberal agenda!
You really are an idiot.
I expect you to do what Jesus said because you DO claim to believe in him. I have asked you many times, If you really do believe in Him, why would you not do what He said? It has nothing to do with what I believe. It's about knowing YOU by YOUR fruits.
Phat writes:
You won't get all of the votes on this one unless you keep letting enough hungry and desperate people (without background checks) into the country simply to swing the vote perpetually to your party, ideology, and "side".
I told you before, I'm not asking for votes.
Phat writes:
You have not refuted my argument that liberals are (also) authoritarians.
Sure I have. I have pointed out that ALL governments tax their citizens. That is not authoritarian. YOU have not responded to the rebuttal.
Phat writes:
You simply blame the conservatives for being the WRONG authority.
Not for "being" wrong. For DOING wrong.
Phat writes:
The problem is that "you guys" make up a little more than 50% of the population---hardly a mandate for such a "necessity".
Eating is a necessity. No "mandate" is needed for feeding people. It's the decent thing to do.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
And I'll remind you that it is the Republicans who are wanting to steal the social security trust fund and give it away to the very rich.
Seriously? If so that is evil, evil, evil. Link me up with some data to support this.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
I do read the news and I do use google but I do need to brush up on my political ideology(ideologies?) since unlike many Democrats and Republicans both, I don't simply listen to my own peanut gallery and glean my ideologies off of soundbites from the news, videos, and newspaper commentary. I strive to be a moderate, but I'm not sure which ideological path will help (all of us, I suppose) the most.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
Not that I need to defend myself, but I am far from being a "Mr. Potter" or an "Ebenezer Scrooge" just because I lean conservative. My argument is that yes, an administration (imagine a global government) that insists upon control and distribution of ALL finances held by ALL private individuals in the context of feeding everybody would in fact be authoritarian. And before you all start cussing me out, I am NOT against helping the poor. I DO help many of them, more than you think or imagine. My argument centers on whether giving and providing for ALL of the people (be it a nation or a world) *should* be mandated by government (be it local, national, or global) rather than left up to individual decisions. My argument is that any mandatory system beyond taxation for basic services (which we have now) is authoritarian and SHOULD be opposed. As I said before,
™ Version 4.2
