Why is it that the same folks that ask for free market and no government intervention...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

That's not the point, though. The point is the hypocresy of those asking for a free market yet defending the finding of the church by the State.

---

Why? Limiting lasciviousness is good for society regardless of religion.
It's like supporting laws against disturbing the peace. I don't think people should be having loud house parties at 1 AM on a Tuesday night just because I support capitalism.
Honestly, ya'll are stretching like Reck's asshole on a Saturday night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

You'll never penetrate their thick skulls. Conservatives LOVE, and I mean LOVE, BIG government when it works for their interests. Bloated government spending on the military? They love it. Government legislating morality with regards to drug use, abortion, gay rights, and speech (flag burning should be illegal). They love it. Violations of the 4th amendment if it helps "get thugs off the streets." They love it. Federal government infringing upon states' rights if said state is doing something they don't like. Use of eminent domain. Love it (if it means seizing land to build something like a wall to keep out the evil Messicans).

Liberals are for a "big" government, too, but the difference is liberals at least want to channel that big government into doing good for US citizens and for humanity as a whole. Conservatives want to exercise big government to impose power.

---

They do. And neither are channeling for good. They both serve their corporate masters. Don't kid yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

You'll never penetrate their thick skulls. Conservatives LOVE, and I mean LOVE, BIG government when it works for their interests. Bloated government spending on the military? They love it. Government legislating morality with regards to drug use, abortion, gay rights, and speech (flag burning should be illegal). They love it. Violations of the 4th amendment if it helps "get thugs off the streets." They love it. Federal government infringing upon states' rights if said state is doing something they don't like. They love it. Use of eminent domain. Love it (if it means seizing land to build something like a wall to keep out the evil Messicans).

Liberals are for a "big" government, too, but the difference is liberals at least want to channel that big government into doing good for US citizens and for humanity as a whole. Conservatives want to exercise big government to impose power.

---

They were even against the 2nd amendment when them nigglers had a militia, tbh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

They do. And neither are channeling for good. They both serve their corporate masters. Don't kid yourself.

---

If you honestly want power to return to the people, then corporate wealth needs to be seized and redistributed. That's honestly the only way. Power is money. I've said before, the only way you can rid society of a "master," is through anarchy. Yes, I know anarchy conjures up images of lawlessness in the streets, but as I've told you before, it simply means an abolishment of hierarchies.

Problem is, it would take an almost perfect moral society to live in an anarchy. Sociopaths and psychopaths would likely exploit the law-and-order vacuum to, ironically, rise to some form of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

If you honestly want power to return to the people, then corporate wealth needs to be seized and redistributed. That's honestly the only way. Power is money. I've said before, the only way you can rid society of a "master," is through anarchy. Yes, I know anarchy conjures up images of lawlessness in the streets, but as I've told you before, it simply means an abolishment of hierarchies.

Problem is, it would take an almost perfect moral society to live in an anarchy. Sociopaths and psychopaths would likely exploit the law-and-order vacuum to, ironically, rise to some form of power.

---

How'd that work out for the USSR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

If the Military isn't a social service, what is it then?

---

Can you get medical treatment at a military hospital? Can you live on a military base? Can you call the military to come to your aid? Do you have any interaction whatsoever with the military? Do they have any with you or with your community in the US? They have more interaction with people from other countries than they do with people in their own country. They are not a social service, since they do not provide a service to your community. Being a benefit to you doesn't make them a service to you. Social services falls under the Health and Human Services division, not under the DoD.

Quote:

---

When did Socialism enter the discussion? :lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

They also call any program funded by their tax dollars that might help the poors "socialism," while jerking off to the fact the military gets the biggest portion of their tax dollar. The military is a socialized service just the same as something like universal healthcare.

---

This is Mid conflating socialism with military spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

How'd that work out for the USSR?

---

That's my point. Shitheels will rise to power in that vacuum. The problem isn't necessarily these ideologies themselves, it's the fact sociopaths exist. That's my pet theory of why we never make any significant steps toward the proverbial "utopia." Sociopaths don't want a utopia. They want a system in which they can wield power over others. That passage from 1984 where the main character asks "the party" why they're doing what they do, because their behavior seems so irrational to him. Their response: Power.

It's literally like a drug for that mentality. I actually believe humanity is overall good, but the 5% of the population or whatever on that anti-social spectrum are enough to keep progress stagnant.

^^^^

Quote:

---

Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

---

Mid - even though there are some like you who have genuine brotherly love and want the best for at least the majority of people, the fact remains that many supporters on each side of the isle (and between isles) want whats best for them individually. Social welfare programs that benefit the downtrodden and misfortunate also benefit the lazy. Trickle down economics that benefit the middle class (supposedly) moreso benefit the wealthy. Individuals who claim to be for the collective are quite often looking out for their own interests and try to sell that as socially aware policy. The examples are everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

That's my point. Shitheels will rise to power in that vacuum. The problem isn't necessarily these ideologies themselves, it's the fact sociopaths exist. That's my pet theory of why we never make any significant steps toward the proverbial "utopia." Sociopaths don't want a utopia. They want a system in which they can wield power over others. That passage from 1984 where the main character asks "the party" why they're doing what they do, because their behavior seems so irrational to him. Their response: Power.

It's literally like a drug for that mentality. I actually believe humanity is overall good, but the 5% of the population or whatever on that anti-social spectrum are enough to keep progress stagnant.

---

I got news for you. We got nothing but sociopaths in our govt. now even without the communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Mid - even though there are some like you who have genuine brotherly love and want the best for at least the majority of people, the fact remains that many supporters on each side of the isle (and between isles) want whats best for them individually. Social welfare programs that benefit the downtrodden and misfortunate also benefit the lazy. Trickle down economics that benefit the middle class (supposedly) moreso benefit the wealthy. Individuals who claim to be for the collective are quite often looking out for their own interests and try to sell that as socially aware policy. The examples are everywhere.

---

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with looking out for your interests first. I have no problem with that. We all do it, and we all should do it. But I think we also need some kind of collective spiritual or psychological "awakening" (and no, not suggesting religion, even though some could use that if they're inclined) that realizes that material things won't bring you actual happiness. Mega rich people who have 40 houses around the world and mountains of shit they never, ever use or appreciate act more like addicts than people who buy or collect things to legitimately enjoy them. And no, I'm not suggesting we legislate "consumption," I'm just pointing out our collective addiction to "things" which prevents progress toward helping others.

And then there's the "addiction to power" mentality I pointed out above. People like Bezos and such are no longer interested in wealth and "things," they're interested in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Mid - even though there are some like you who have genuine brotherly love and want the best for at least the majority of people, the fact remains that many supporters on each side of the isle (and between isles) want whats best for them individually. Social welfare programs that benefit the downtrodden and misfortunate also benefit the lazy. Trickle down economics that benefit the middle class (supposedly) moreso benefit the wealthy. Individuals who claim to be for the collective are quite often looking out for their own interests and try to sell that as socially aware policy. The examples are everywhere.

---

The problem is that even if there are opportunists, I rather still move forward and then try to weed them out, because the alternative is do nothing and more of the same. And it's chock full of opportunists there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

I got news for you. We got nothing but sociopaths in our govt. now even without the communism.

---

Sure. I never denied that, but you also don't like the anarchy solution (which I agree isn't achievable). So what's the solution?

I would use their sociopathy and narcissism against them. These psychologies are rather easy to manipulate. They'll shift with the winds in order to stay in power, so what this requires of us is to hold them mercilessly accountable. But the core issue is we the people can't agree on which way to shift them. I want to shift them toward implementing universal healthcare and taxing the ever loving fuck of out of the oligarch class. You perhaps don't. We both think we're right, so we remain at loggerheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Sure. I never denied that, but you also don't like the anarchy solution (which I agree isn't achievable). So what's the solution?

I would use their sociopathy and narcissism against them. These psychologies are rather easy to manipulate. They'll shift with the winds in order to stay in power, so what this requires of us is to hold them mercilessly accountable. But the core issue is we the people can't agree on which way to shift them. I want to shift them toward implementing universal healthcare and taxing the ever loving fuck of out of the oligarch class. You perhaps don't. We both think we're right, so we remain at loggerheads.

---

The solutions are returning to fairness as much as possible. The solutions are expecting honesty. The solutions are people giving a fuck. We have a nation full of narcissists.

One example is Obamacare. We knew it was bull shit. The idea of companies cutting hours b/c they don't want to pay healthcare? That's why healthcare can't be tied to employment. And then when the govt. has us by the balls, everything is raised. Just like that, overnight, healthcare went from one-sixth of the economy to one-fifth. I literally watched as Obama changed his stump speech for that. His corporate overlords got in his ear and said, no we expect a bigger cut. What a faggot. And low IQ Americans accept this. And the rigged media touts it as a success. It's bull shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Can you get medical treatment at a military hospital? Can you live on a military base? Can you call the military to come to your aid? Do you have any interaction whatsoever with the military? Do they have any with you or with your community in the US? They have more interaction with people from other countries than they do with people in their own country. They are not a social service, since they do not provide a service to your community. Being a benefit to you doesn't make them a service to you. Social services falls under the Health and Human Services division, not under the DoD.

---

You are just grasping at straws here but whatever. For the sake of argument, let's say the military isn't a service. It is still funded by tax money. Which was all the point midnightpulp was making. If the military isn't a service to the community, then all the more reason to stop being paid by it, tbh.

Quote:

---

This is Mid conflating socialism with military spending.

---

Military spending is funded by the government taxing the people. I don't know if it is Socialism, but it sure as hell isn't capitalism, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

The solutions are returning to fairness as much as possible. The solutions are expecting honesty. The solutions are people giving a fuck. We have a nation full of narcissists.

One example is Obamacare. We knew it was bull shit. The idea of companies cutting hours b/c they don't want to pay healthcare? That's why healthcare can't be tied to employment. And then when the govt. has us by the balls, everything is raised. Just like that, overnight, healthcare went from one-sixth of the economy to one-fifth. I literally watched as Obama changed his stump speech for that. His corporate overlords got in his ear and said, no we expect a bigger cut. What a faggot. And low IQ Americans accept this. And the rigged media touts it as a success. It's bull shit.

---

Yep. This is where we'll agree in lockstep and until this collective psychosis is fixed, American progress will remain stagnant. And yes, the fault is with American culture at large, a cultural mentality that gained traction during the 80s when obtaining wealth was the "greatest good" a person could endeavor toward and is the sole measure of their worthiness. This is why I like Christianity vs. my liberal counterparts, even though I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it and obviously don't agree with some of its other moral dogma, but its message was clear about the evils of greed. The famous quote of, "Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven," wasn't suggesting rich people are inherently evil. It was illustrating how bottomless greed corrupts a person, how it gives that rich person a superiority complex that he uses to justify his treatment of the poor.

This is also why America is about as far of a "Christian nation" as a nation could be. Hence, we're a nation filled with "Jeebotards," not actual followers of Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Yep. This is where we'll agree in lockstep and until this collective psychosis is fixed, American progress will remain stagnant. And yes, the fault is with American culture at large, a cultural mentality that gained traction during the 80s when obtaining wealth was the "greatest good" a person could endeavor toward and is the sole measure of their worthiness. This is why I like Christianity vs. my liberal counterparts, even though I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it and obviously don't agree with some of its other moral dogma, but its message was clear about the evils of greed. The famous quote of, "Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven," wasn't suggesting rich people are inherently evil. It was illustrating how bottomless greed corrupts a person, how it gives that rich person a superiority complex that he uses to justify his treatment of the poor.

This is also why America is about as far of a "Christian nation" as a nation could be. Hence, we're a nation filled with "Jeebotards," not actual followers of Jesus.

---

Or why the woman who gave her only two pence to charity was better than the rich throwing around their wealth while living the life.

I frankly think regardless of left/right, people just need to wake the fuck up. I would've taken Tulsi over Trump (and I'm inclined right) because she was calling out the corruption and being genuine. You really think she wasn't getting one percent even in polls? Shit is rigged, man. Only system players are allowed. These Chumpettes laugh that it's all a conspiracy, but the truth is they support the corruption is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with looking out for your interests first. I have no problem with that. We all do it, and we all should do it. But I think we also need some kind of collective spiritual or psychological "awakening" (and no, not suggesting religion, even though some could use that if they're inclined) that realizes that material things won't bring you actual happiness. Mega rich people who have 40 houses around the world and mountains of shit they never, ever use or appreciate act more like addicts than people who buy or collect things to legitimately enjoy them. And no, I'm not suggesting we legislate "consumption," I'm just pointing out our collective addiction to "things" which prevents progress toward helping others.

And then there's the "addiction to power" mentality I pointed out above. People like Bezos and such are no longer interested in wealth and "things," they're interested in power.

---

While you're having your awakening, those others who will never leave the "me first" realm will pretend to be there with you, but will make sure they get the lion's share of the rewards. What you get from it is a warm and fuzzy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

You are just grasping at straws here but whatever. For the sake of argument, let's say the military isn't a service. It is still funded by tax money. Which was all the point midnightpulp was making. If the military isn't a service to the community, then all the more reason to stop being paid by it, tbh.

---

Sounds like you could be a Federalist.

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).

Quote:

---

Military spending is funded by the government taxing the people. I don't know if it is Socialism, but it sure as hell isn't capitalism, tbh.

---

Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.

---

This sounds romantic and poetic, but it's a bunch of nonsense. Capitalism always had a plan, which was always very clearly delineated: private ownership of means of production with a profit motive. And it has to be constantly monitored and regulated, because historically we have learned that if you do not, you end up with slave masters, robber barons and too big to fail. This doesn't mean I endorse socialism, it simply means that they're simply two different systems, each with it's pro and cons, and each one better suited for particular situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Sounds like you could be a Federalist.

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).


Although the term “capitalism” has long worked as a shorthand signifier for a market economy, there is a sense in which to use it at all is to accept the socialist’s premise that a market economy is a consciously created system, manipulated by its creators for their own material ends. But it isn’t that. A socialist economy is, by definition, a system—it must be created, planned, vigilantly monitored and forcefully regulated in order to function. But a market economy has no plan. It begins to exhibit the qualities of a system when its wealthiest actors are allowed to bend governmental policies to their advantage, but that is a vastly different thing from a system deliberately designed for stated goals from the beginning.

We will surely go on using the terms “socialism” and “nationalism” and “democracy” without knowing quite what we mean by them. We can hardly do otherwise. But at least those things exist. “Capitalism,” in the sense in which its leftist critics use the term, never did.

Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal.

---

Quoting someone else because you don't know what to say. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

...are the same ones that are against the separation of church and state?

---

You kinda have to be at least mildly hypocritical to be an evangelical. I think it is part of the definition.