Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 631940)

Fascism isn't much worse than gang monarchy (aka what you propose).

If you want to declare socialism as the best than fine. Don't even try to tell me that socialists respect individual rights.

Political discussions lack when I don't get to hear the philosophy behind the view so if you are going to respond with criticism then please post why you think private property rights should not be respected.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 631994)

Democracy (in the true sense) is just a synonym for gang rule. The general atmosphere of the words is different, but both words mean the same thing. The majority rules.

Since most socialists are pro-democracy in just about every way, I was attacking those socialists. He called a right-wing authoritarian a "fascist" when he (being in the green quadrant) is a "left-wing libertarian". The term "libertarian" is probably the worst political term there is because it emphasizes "liberty" above all else. The idea for people to do what they want to do is the goal of that movement. However, his leftist approach to it contradicts this because he believes that one should not be able to reap the benefits of his work. Libertarianism, when it isn't guided by a philosophy, has no meaning because either right or left wing libertarianism does not guarantee liberty in all areas. So I was beckoning him to explain his philosophical approach to libertarianism if he wanted to form a rebuttal because if he doesn't then one could just pick apart all the errors in general libertarianism.

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 632049)

The government is by people, for the people and the security thereof.

Originally Posted by anticipation (Post 632060)

what?

Originally Posted by coryallen2 (Post 631754)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...-0.38&soc=0.82


lol

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 632049)

This is probably the most intellectually dishonest thing anyone has ever posted. Emphasizing personal rights while creating programs to protect those rights is not a contradiction. The reason taxes exist is to create mutually beneficial programs and secure our liberties. Trying to get rid of government involvement based on the idea that you don't want to lose 2% of what you make in government spending to allow you to have any liberties at all is outright stupid. We are the government, the government is us. The government is by people, for the people and the security thereof.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 632441)

The price for work is artificial if there are taxes and such involved. You can't reap the benefits of your work when the price for it is artificial.

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 632446)

So you're suggesting we go back to an agricultural economy and trade rather than have an international monetary system?

if so, why?

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 632483)

Why do they have to think about taxes? I'm not asking to be an ass, I've just never heard about this being a factor.

When we promote to salary, we think about the toll on our healthcare budget line, maybe retirement, but not taxes.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 632505)

You have to ask for more because you end up getting less than what you ask for. That is my point.