Are you ready to be deprogrammed?

[wiscoaster]

Pretty scary talk. Proceeds from pretty scary thinking.

Interesting, though, how if you invert just a few references the same comments might be applied to the other side.

This is not our United States of America if such is taken seriously. By either, or any, side.

 

[str8_forward]

Pretty scary talk. Proceeds from pretty scary thinking.

Interesting, though, how if you invert just a few references the same comments might be applied to the other side.

This is not our United States of America if such is taken seriously. By either, or any, side.

but unfortunately about 70 million people are not smart enough to filter through these blatant lies. Do you guys remember the uproar when it was suggested to "convert" homos into straights?
Most of the media is dangerous, when billy-goat clinton's scandal broke out, I explained to many people that if Goebbels would have had the lying media and the Internet at his disposal, you'd be all speaking German, taught in camps.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The future is known. Comerade. Only the past changes.

 

[WrongHanded]

They're talking about the people who have been diverted from, and then isolated from the traditional and long established news media outlets, in order to spoon feed them conspiracy theories through fringe "news" sources.

This thread is addressing the issue: https://notechtyranny.com/index.php...acts-and-falsification-an-honest-inquiry.132/

 

[theotherwaldo]

I've been deprogrammed.
I used to be a Democrat... .

 

[WrongHanded]

I've been deprogrammed.
I used to be a Democrat... .

That's funny.

I deprogrammed myself.
I used to be a Libertarian....

But once my answers to economic and social issues devolved into "let them die in the gutter", I realized I might need to rethink things.

 

[theotherwaldo]

That's funny.

I deprogrammed myself.
I used to be a Libertarian....

But once my answers to economic and social issues devolved into "let them die in the gutter", I realized I might need to rethink things.

You've obviously never been on Skid Row in any major city that has Liberal leadership - or been dependent upon a Liberal agency.
-As a welfare case worker told my Mother when Dad was temporarily disabled, "You look young and healthy. Go peddle your ass."

 

[WrongHanded]

You've obviously never been on Skid Row in any major city that has Liberal leadership - or been dependent upon a Liberal agency.
-As a welfare case worker told my Mother when Dad was temporarily disabled, "You look young and healthy. Go peddle your ass."

Oh sure, I've never been here and I've never been there. No, I've never been dependent on any government aid.

I'm sorry your mother was treated that way, but such an attitude from one welfare case worker cannot be extrapolated out to an entire system.

 

[JohnKSa]

But once my answers to economic and social issues devolved into "let them die in the gutter"...

Which principle of libertarianism are you interpreting to mean "let them die in the gutter"?

 

[WrongHanded]

Which principle of libertarianism are you interpreting to mean "let them die in the gutter"?

John, if you're going to quote something I wrote, try to include my screen name/handle/whatever. I almost missed it entirely.

Libertarians wants a minimum of government, with no handouts or social safety net provided. So when people cannot support themselves for whatever reason, they must rely on family, friends, charity, or ..... die in the gutter.

I suppose we could argue as to what the "big L" Libertarian Party would like to do, but I'm not sure they even really know. The "little l" libertarians as they call themselves (who don't follow the party line) basically want a minarchy. Which is thoughtless.

 

[bummer7]

I'm sorry your mother was treated that way, but such an attitude from one welfare case worker cannot be extrapolated out to an entire system.

I agree we should not blame the entire system on one bad actor. Yet, at the same time, we keep hearing progressives telling us Trump voters are racist.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I was one of those that was "left in a gutter to die."
When my mother was having a difficult pregnancy a couple of Public Health interns dropped in to check her out.
When they were finished with her they looked in on me,
I was five years old and had severe rickets, to the point that my long bones would bend and not break.
They discussed me like I wasn't there. The consensus was that I was a classic failure-to-thrive case and that they shouldn't get involved.
As one said, "At best, he'll be in a wheelchair by twelve and never make eighteen."

That was fifty-nine years ago... .

 

[WrongHanded]

I agree we should not blame the entire system on one bad actor. Yet, at the same time, we keep hearing progressives telling us Trump voters are racist.

Not all progressives are saying that. And some that are (such as myself) are saying some Trump supports are racists. But I've been clear that I do not think all or even most are. Take it in stride. People say stuff we don't like sometimes.

 

[str8_forward]

They discussed me like I wasn't there. The consensus was that I was a classic failure-to-thrive case and that they shouldn't get involved.
As one said, "At best, he'll be in a wheelchair by twelve and never make eighteen."

That was fifty-nine years ago... .

Glad you were able to prove them to be wrong and add a load of more years to the 64 you have had already.

 

[JohnKSa]

Libertarians wants a minimum of government, with no handouts or social safety net provided.

The focus is on minimizing GOVERNMENT handouts/safety nets.

So when people cannot support themselves for whatever reason, they must rely on family, friends, charity, or ..... die in the gutter.

That's exactly what happens now. Except that charity can also come from the government.

There is nothing in the priniciples of libertarianism that prevents people who need help from getting it. It just disagrees with the idea that the government should be the entity automatically providing the help, deciding who gets the help, and forcing people to provide money so that they have it to give out.

The handouts and social safety nets provided now actually come from the taxpayers as determined by their representatives. So it would appear that society is fine with giving handouts and providing safety nets. It's just that the government gets to direct the help (largely through unelected personnel in bureaucracies) and gets to take their cut in the process.

My political views align fairly well with libertarianism and I give hundreds of dollars every month to help those less fortunate than I am. I'm perfectly fine with it being handed out or used as a social safety net, in fact that's a big part of why I provide it. But I provide it to the charities I want it to go to and I decide the amount I can give. And while there is some overhead involved with any charity, at least the government isn't taking their big juicy bite of it too.

 

[WrongHanded]

There is nothing in the priniciples of libertarianism that prevents people who need help from getting it. It just disagrees with the idea that the government should be the entity automatically providing the help, deciding who gets the help, and forcing people to provide money so that they have it to give out.

No, nothing that "prevents" people who need help from getting it. They just don't want the government to be involved. Which means people who cannot support themselves need to rely on friends, family, charity,.....or go die in the gutter.

So, nothing new there.

My political views align fairly well with libertarianism and I give hundreds of dollars every month to help those less fortunate than I am. I'm perfectly fine with it being handed out or used as a social safety net, in fact that's a big part of why I provide it. But I provide it to the charities I want it to go to and I decide the amount I can give. And while there is some overhead involved with any charity, at least the government isn't taking their big juicy bite of it too.

Good on you. I can all but guarantee most people would not be nearly as generous as you. Many would probably not give at all, just like they don't now. And in my opinion, it's foolish to believe otherwise. Most people are in significant debt, not because they can't live within their means, but because they choose not to. So I'm guessing they still wouldn't have extra cash for charitable donations even if they could keep more of their paychecks.

The Libertarians have no good answers to any of society's problems. Personal choice on charitable giving and hopes that market forces will fix any problem just aren't real solutions. They would open up the entire society to being ruled by corporate greed and the very wealthy, simply by stepping out of their way.

 

[JohnKSa]

Which means people who cannot support themselves need to rely on friends, family, charity,.....or go die in the gutter.

So four options besides dying in the gutter, all of which are fully consistent with libertarianism. I'm not saying that adding one more won't make a difference, but characterizing libertarianism principles as being equivalent to "let them die in the gutter" is obviously not accurate.

Now, if the "if it saves one life" argument weighs heavily upon a person, they might not be able to apply logic to the problem, but then attempting to force people to make decisions emotionally and to abandon logic is the entire point of that particular argument.

I can all but guarantee most people would not be nearly as generous as you.

Although it surprises some people conservatives, on average, are more charitable than liberals. But I'm not charitable because I'm conservative, so maybe that's a non-starter.

The point is that if people don't want their money given as handouts and charity, the government shouldn't force them to give up their money for those purposes. If society doesn't provide money to those in need, that's the will of the people (democracy--if you will), regardless of the political system in power.

They would open up the entire society to being ruled by corporate greed and the very wealthy, simply by stepping out of their way.

I think a lot of people confuse the minimal government and minimal government regulation of libertarianism with the absence of government regulation of anarchy.

 

[WrongHanded]

So four options besides dying in the gutter, all of which are fully consistent with libertarianism. I'm not saying that adding one more won't make a difference, but characterizing libertarianism principles as being equivalent to "let them die in the gutter" is obviously not accurate.

None of which are guaranteed. Someone with no friends or family who has serious disabilities should not need to seek out a charity capable of, and willing to, support them. We can do better than that, and we do.

The point is that if people don't want their money given as handouts and charity, the government shouldn't force them to give up their money for those purposes. If society doesn't provide money to those in need, that's the will of the people (democracy--if you will), regardless of the political system in power.

The voters have chosen to use the government to provide aid to those that need it with taxpayer dollars. And they've chosen to use a system that forces everyone to participate, because anyone will be able to take advantage of the benefits should they ever be unfortunate enough to need them.

I think a lot of people confuse the minimal government and minimal government regulation of libertarianism with the absence of government regulation of anarchy.

I'd say if the Libertarians want to get rid of regulations and oversight (which they do), that's detrimental to society. It's not anarchy, but it is going backwards.

All of which is why the Libertarians don't get much support with the voters.

 

[JohnKSa]

Now you're arguing against libertarianism, not parodying it. A huge step in the right direction.

Well mostly not parodying it, anyway. Anarchists want to get rid of regulations and oversight. Libertarians want it to be much more limited than it is now. There's a point where there can be too little regulation, but there's really no chance of getting there in a system like ours.

 

[WrongHanded]

Now you're arguing against libertarianism, not parodying it. A huge step in the right direction.

Well mostly not parodying it, anyway. Anarchists want to get rid of regulations and oversight. Libertarians want it to be much more limited than it is now. There's a point where there can be too little regulation, but there's really no chance of getting there in a system like ours.

Okay John. I think we can both agree on that.