Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Space_Time, Jun 5, 2016.
Let me first say, using the words create, fund, organize and plan out is just fluff and is totally irrelevant.
1. The government has been a total failure when it comes to fighting wars. Don't confuse our fighting men and women with government, they just get paid by them. Private militaries are more cost effective, more technologically advanced and are changing the way we fight wars.
2. I would challenge this as well, most interstate highways are poorly planned, maintained and are in dire need of repairs. Compare that to privately own toll roads, not even a comparison.
3. What, no mention of Obamacare or the VA, case closed!
4. Law enforcement cannot be compared because we really haven't had a large private LE to compare to, if we did, I can assure you it would be more efficient.
5. 5 is just silly
I guess there's the difference between us. I trust government a lot more than business. Maybe it's the stated goals?
Business-profit above all else.
Government- doing the people's business.
And it might have to do that I know many people who work for the government. They actually care about doing the right thing.
Please don't conflate communism with socialism. That only shows your laziness and ignorance.
- - - Updated - - -
You can add social security to that as well
1. So winning wars is a failure to conservatives? Private militaries? Oh that should be fun huh?
2. Now you're an expert on national infrastructure? There may be problems with it but there's no doubt that private industry has NEVER produced anything of that scale and complexity. Do you "just say anything"?
3.Obamcare is private insurance. The VA...despite it's many problems is still vastly superior to any alternative you might find.
4.It doesn't exist because it's not practical. No one wants private police forces any more than they want private armies. That's insane.
5. Our legal system is silly? No sir. Your responses are silly.
Wait you really believe this? Do you actually agree with the "soul" of the argument or are you just trying to bend it to win. Your use of the words "National" and "Cost effective" make it seem like the latter.
If our failures in fighting wars the last 50 years has escaped you, well I guess you have no business in the debate.
We don't fight to win anymore and we can thank the political left for that, check your history, it supports my claim.
As far as private militaries being fun as you say, we've been using them successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, unfortunately the government still pulls some of the strings.
Obamacare is ruled by the government my friend, where the hell have you been.
Typical liberal mentality, the government imposes idiotic laws & regulations on private business and when the failures come to light, the left blame the business!
Like I said before, using our constitution as a comparison to government vs private sector is idiotic to say the least.
Adhering to it is where liberals fail.
So your idiotic claim is that a private army would have done better in Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Using them? Hardly. They do some o the ancillary work but nothing like what our military does.
Put down the crack pipe...
Obamacare is a PRIVATE enterprise. Who do you right the check out to? A private insurer.
So even those two rebuttals were meager and a waste of time. Just stop posting. It's embarrassing for you.
Well one thing for sure, the internet lets just about enyone be a tough guy!
Social democracy might throttle your property with regulations and red tape, but it probably wouldn't outright take it. Modern social democracy, at the very least, nationalises sparingly. I can't imagine the SDP nationalising anything.
But even if you do oppose both ideologies and view them both as forms of property theft, conflating ideologies which are actually very different in terms of their goals and whom they serve isn't very productive in terms of political discourse, and willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting political concepts generally isn't a great idea. I oppose all forms of capitalism, from social democracy to anarcho-capitalism, and I think they all serve the same ruling class and the same ends (because of this, I think there's actually more reason to conflate forms of capitalism than to conflate a form of capitalism with socialism). I don't even think any form is much better than another. But I don't act like they're all the same - because they aren't.
Ah, sorry. I probably needed some coffee when I was replying to that.
From what I've seen, though, Americans seem to like referencing Europe - or at least France (!) and Scandinavia - when talking about the merits of socialism [sic]. I have no idea why. Most of Europe isn't even that social democratic.
Among the American left, Scandinavia is looked upon as some sort of utopia, which makes it odd when they think enacting Venezuelan polices will bring Scandinavian results.
Obviously we disagree. However, as a communist, can you at least say that you can create your communist utopia while living next door to people who are not communists? See, I don't think you can. Capitalists can live next to communists, no problem, so long as they understand that their ideas have to remain only their ideas. No forcing communism on people who do not want it.
Nobody else who follows marxist ideology has been able to do that. It's either your way, or the re-education camps.
Nonsense. ALL TAXATION redistributes wealth with the force of law. Using your definition, every country on the face of the earth has been socialist, from ancient Egypt, to Rome, to Elizabethan England to the Constitution of the United States. Don't fall for word games . What you mean to say is socialism is welfare. It's much more than that, and it does not require welfare.
Taxation is theft. Sometimes it involves robin hood redistributing what was stolen, and other times it goes straight to the king so he can wear fancy clothes.
It is theft, though. It is using guns to take from some people in order to give it to other people. Sometimes it just goes to the king, and sometimes a slim portion of it gets redistributed to others, but it is always theft.
Then we're all theives. How many years should you spend in the pokey for driving on the roads I paid for?
Taxation is one of those realities that can't be escaped. Calling it theft doesn't make it so, nor does it change the fact that all taxation redistributes wealth. I'll give you the same advice: Don't be conned by word games.
This ain't no argument. You know the drill. You send your IRS agents out with the guns or prison cells of the state to make sure they collect what I have worked hard for, and that is stealing.
Calling this a reality that can't be escaped is not addressing the argument. Same as a thief with a knife against my throat demanding my wallet. That's also a reality I can't escape.
It's also robbery.
You say that this isn't theft, but you offer no argument to support your claim. I know you can't, which is why you didn't.
Omg, belch. First of all, I did provide an argument. Roads. Did you miss that part? How 'bout this: Constitution. Do you not support the Constitution? Thirdly, everyone knows the old phrase, taxes and death...you know. This is grade school stuff here. Anyone who needs it explained is gullible to the rantings of anarchists.
It all boils down to authority, belch. A mugger doesn't have your permission to rob you. The government, on the other hand, is granted the authority to tax in the Constitution. Nobody likes it. That doesn't make it theft.
Roads are not built by suits in red ties. They are built by construction crews that are paid, or they don't go to work building roads. You need the state to build a road? Nope.
The constitution has been ignored by the politicians for so long that it bears no resemblance to the laws. Sorry, but the constitution really is just a piece of paper. When the first gun registration laws hit, or the first "you can't have a machine gun" law was enactted, that was the death of the constitution. There are many other examples. We either follow the constitution, or we don't, and we haven't followed the constitution for many many many many years.
Lincoln was probably the worst of the bunch when it came to following the constitution. Since the civil war, the country has been a post-constitutional government.
If you don't like anarchists, then you probably won't like debating with me, because that is essentially what I am. Arguing against that makes you a statist, so you're gonna have a hard time with me.
Okie doke belch. You're not making much sense. Anarchy noted, but we're a constitutional republic. Wishing it away doesn't make it so. The Constitution explicitly gives the government power of taxation. Gun laws, Lincoln, and everything else you wrote is irrelevant. Maybe you should give up all the benefits provided by taxation and go be a mountain man. I doubt you will, which makes you a hypocrite.
Now, if only there was some way that you could find some sort of evidence to oppose what I stated.
No, it's not a constitutional anything. The minimalist federal government that was ratified back in the day is long long long long gone, so you can't say that.
Well, you can, but you won't be taken seriously. And yes, the constituion allows taxation. What it doesn't do is allow the enormous federal government that taxes are being used to pay for now.
and no, those things I mentioned are not irrelevant. Just examples of how we do not have a constitutional government.
Can I give up the benefits provided by taxation? lol. If I could, you wouldn't need your guns. You need your guns, which is why that last bit is a laugh.
Our government provides a common platform for competition in the private sector.
The list of what that is composed goes on and on and on - banking, judicial, law enforcement, open markets, national defense, SEC, patents/copyrights, employment/public accommodation law, transportation, environment, safe/secure food/medicine, etc., etc.
In each one of those areas, the work of the government is significant and multifaceted.
The idea that you used 5 instead of 500 is where you first went wrong.
You're now my favourite person on this forum that I disagree with, simply because you actually understand why you disagree with me.
Socialists and social democrats don't have a history of cooperation, and a lot of people forget that. Social democrats killed Rosa Luxemburg. The USSR was counting on a German Revolution to get a developed partner in the west so that they could develop more slowly, and when the social democrats killed Rosa Luxemburg and the rest of the Spartacists they killed that and condemned the USSR to their fate.
Separate names with a comma.