• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.

So you are more of a traditional liberal. Understood.

The issue I have with traditional liberalism, with the goal of equal opportunity, is that you simply can't have equal opportunity. The only way to have completely equal opportunity, is to remove all opportunity.
 
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.

On principle, anything that takes power and choice away from the government and gives it back to the people is a good thing.

I loathe, the idea of taxing income. That negatively rewards positive behavior with more taxes. You work harder, get paid more, and pay more taxes. In that world, why would anyone want to work harder or improve themselves? That's the fatal flaw in socialism ...it promotes and rewards mediocrity.

Wouldn't you agree?
 
Why don't police and military count? Why is forced taxation and social planning acceptable only for areas you define but not others? You'll probably cite the constitution, but I have decades of legal precedent to stand up to any argument based on strict constructionism.

Are you honestly saying police and military are social planning?

On the one hand, you're proposing a mixed economy (by your definition, a community police force is certainly a socialist organization) but arguing that mixed economies are based on abuse. But that's a point that's almost not worth making, because your ideas are anathema to most Americans, so they will continue to safely exist only in your mind.

Not this crap again. Look I saw this coming and police is not welfare nor is it part of a mixed economy. You people are predictable as hell. Please look up the term already.

And your redirecting crap is annoying as hell to boot.
 
Last edited:
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.

You do realize the government only deals in forceful cooperation right? You know you just proved me right again on another point I made, yes?
 
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.


In what world?


j-mac
 
Yes, that post clearly aligns me with Karl Marx and Pol Pot and the Chairman Mao.

You might not be exactly like him but you do share much in common. You also seem to enjoy redirecting focus away from the actual argument regularly.
 
Hmmm. Quandary. If capitalism is a code word for me choosing what is in my best interest and you choosing what is in your best interest than how can anything else be part of that equation? Unless you mean, as I suspect that you do, that you will decide if there is just way too much free-decidin' goin' on out theah! You can fix that by taking away a portion of my ability to choose for me. You will choose on my behalf. That is what you really mean, isn't it?

Two things.

Capitalism is not a code word for self-interest, although self-interest obviously plays a key role. Capitalism harnesses human behavior to fuel production, which is why it works. But self-interest isn't the only human motivation.

It's not me deciding anything. It's the political will of the electorate. Thus, representative democracy is what ultimately regulates the market and makes it responsive to our needs.
 
It's not me deciding anything. It's the political will of the electorate. Thus, representative democracy is what ultimately regulates the market and makes it responsive to our needs.

Are you serious? The market is already responsive to your needs.
 
I would say that from a legalistic stand point, America has leaned more Right. Moreover, if many of the states that went (more) Republican since the 2010 mid-term election had their way, they'd push the country more Right from a legal perspective. In that regard, how would that America any different from the Middle-Eastern countries we've witnessed from afar retain a particular party in power for upwards of 20-35 years? To be sure, the only thing that truly separates us from them where the hold on power is concerned is in countries like Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt it's been a matter of one man rule (for the most part; the Baath Party in Iraq and religious zealots in Iran notwithstanding).

Think about it...think long and hard. And while you're at it consider which party's politics have been in play the majority of the time since the 80's.

You're confusing Democrat and Republican with Left an Right . They can both be either/or. depending on circumstances, but the question concerned a long term trend.

Most agree that the Leftward process began with FDR (some say Wilson), with a surge provided by LBJ and now another with HBO. Once the government becomes involved in the economy, and the family, they become extremely difficult to remove and succeeding generations come to accept them as normal and often a "right".

Here's an interesting column on the nationalization of the family, and the easily observable consequences.

Bringing It Home :: SteynOnline

Well, ask yourself these simple questions:

1) Have your moments been restricted? Can you not go wherever you please both within your city? Your State? Your country? Or do you have to show your papers at every checkpoint?

2) Can you not still say whatever you want short of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room?

3) Have you or anyone you know been pulled from the peaceful confines of your home against your will WITHOUT explanation or WITHOUT a warrant?

1) Yes, I travel a lot, usually international, and am always frisked at airports, like everyone else, and always without probable cause.
2) Yes, but restrictions are certainly being considered, including boycotts of businesses and government censorship.
3) No


Well, when you have economic instability and equality for as long as it's been present in this country,

Actually the USA has enjoyed remarkable stability during its 235 years. None have done better.

when people are are assailed for no other reason than to trim expenditures for budgetary concerns and when regulations

Which people are being "assailed"?
which could help move the nation forward but are instead stimmied for political reasons than to win political points, I'd say there's a reason the "class wars", "race wars" and "religious wars" have seemed to take root.

Move the nation forward? How so? And the class, race and religious wars are the result of not enough social spending? Is that your take?
 
So you are more of a traditional liberal. Understood.

The issue I have with traditional liberalism, with the goal of equal opportunity, is that you simply can't have equal opportunity. The only way to have completely equal opportunity, is to remove all opportunity.

Well, equal opportunity is an ideal. I agree that it's not fully possible in practice. But, remember, this thread started equating American liberalism to communism, which is patently false. I believe equality of opportunity is an ideal most Americans share.
 
Well, equal opportunity is an ideal. I agree that it's not fully possible in practice. But, remember, this thread started equating American liberalism to communism, which is patently false. I believe equality of opportunity is an ideal most Americans share.

The problem you won't admit is that there is only so much of it to be had unless you force people to pay for and provide things to people and then you are just walking into the building I said you were in. We also both know you just lied about what you support. We both know that healthcare and the sort is about outcome and opportunity. You could be honest if you wanted, do you want to?
 
Last edited:
Two things.

Capitalism is not a code word for self-interest, although self-interest obviously plays a key role. Capitalism harnesses human behavior to fuel production, which is why it works. But self-interest isn't the only human motivation.

Do you do things in your self interest?

It's not me deciding anything. It's the political will of the electorate. Thus, representative democracy is what ultimately regulates the market and makes it responsive to our needs.

Electorate? Not even close. Tell me when did we elect Cas Sustien?


j-mac
 
Are you serious? The market is already responsive to your needs.

In theory, yes. Again, I agree that the market is useful and good, but it does not exist as an ideal.
 
In theory, yes. Again, I agree that the market is useful and good, but it does not exist as an ideal.

Stick to what you said. You said that the market is not responsive to your needs. Do you admit that is false or not?
 
The problem you won't admit is that there is only so much of it to be had unless you force people to pay for and provide things to people and then you are just walking into the building I said you were in.

You're not calling for a world without force, Henrin. I don't share your ideal that all force is abuse anyway. Some force is necessary, as you acknowledge.
 
Stick to what you said. You said that the market is not responsive to your needs. Do you admit that is false or not?

No I said political will makes it responsive, meaning that I believe political will and regulation is required for capitalism to function as intended.
 
Anyway, folks, I got a put an end to the discussion for today. I've got work to get done.
 
No I said political will makes it responsive, meaning that I believe political will and regulation is required for capitalism to function as intended.

regulation is fine as long as it is not designed to destroy the industry it is being levied on without referendum.

j-mac
 
You're not calling for a world without force, Henrin. I don't share your ideal that all force is abuse anyway. Some force is necessary, as you acknowledge.

More redirecting focus from you, I see. Up to the old tricks again, are we? I never said we shouldn't punish criminals that violation our rights and liberties, but you my friend want to punish the innocent and make them pay for what you need and want. See the difference? Do you notice how you just robbed from them? Do you notice how you just violated their rights, misused tax revenue, and violated their liberty? I Know you do or you wouldn't be trying to redirect focus away from yourself and on to me.
 
More redirecting focus from you, I see. Up to the old tricks again, are we? I never said we shouldn't punish criminals that violation our rights and liberties, but you my friend want to punish the innocent and make them pay for what you need and want. See the difference? Do you notice how you just robbed from them? Do you notice how you just violated their rights, misused tax revenue, and violated their liberty? I Know you do or you wouldn't be trying to redirect focus away from yourself and on to me.

I don't share your belief that taxation is punishment, especially not when those being taxed have a say.
 
No I said political will makes it responsive, meaning that I believe political will and regulation is required for capitalism to function as intended.

Regulation is not required for it to function. Laws and courts are needed to make sure people don't violate our rights, but markets do not need regulation to function. That is make believe you just made up. The market naturally IS responsive to people in the market. Regulation has nothing to do with making it work.

You can believe whatever you want and it will never change the facts.
 
Last edited:
I don't share your belief that taxation is punishment, especially not when those being taxed have a say.

Oh so my tax dollars should go towards things to give you want you need? Are you saying that isn't theft?
 
Oh so my tax dollars should go towards things to give you want you need? Are you saying that isn't theft?

Yes, provided their is fair representation, taxation is not theft.
 
Back
Top Bottom