Jump to content

twylyght

HUDDLER
  • Content count

    7,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,650 Awesome

6 Followers

About twylyght

  • Rank
    The picture of how I care
  • Birthday 08/25/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Converted

  • Location
    The upstairs bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

9,287 profile views
  1. I'd rather fix the system before I throw more money to be wasted on it. Most conservatives are looking at the track record of the federal government (and large bureaucracies in general) and seeing how a lack of accountability has fostered the most consistently corruptible systems in human civilization. There simply isn't enough genuinely honorable people attracted to politics to keep it running honestly, much less effectively. The simple fact is that human nature becomes complacent when people are able. When we interject some means of reliable accountability (i.e. competition) then providers can no longer rest on their laurels by virtue of their existence. That doesn't mean that charity ceases to exist. That doesn't mean that good people cannot continue to do good things. It simply diversifies the means that people can voluntarily assemble and freely associate to do what they believe is right. In many cases, a number of people will opt out of altruism and seek to do the least amount possible or find the means to rig the game in their favor. So here's the conundrum. Do we have regular revolutions on the severely off-chance that we'll get a benevolent dictator that will oversee a generation of prosperity for all citizens, or do we pull as much of the rug from underneath an enabling system to take that major contributor of rigging the game out of the equation? We still need to find a means to tamp down the inevitable monopolies that emerge in free markets, but we at least maximize the resources of a more viable pool of truly altruistic people to effect the most good.
  2. Apparently, the Bolsheviks have spoken
  3. Well, you LOL'd, and that certainly beats any rational argument I could offer.
  4. Wrong again. I said an unaccountable centralized government. Though not perfect, local governance is way more accountable that someone enacting policy thousands of miles away. Some city planners have done quite well with their zoning laws. Others haven't. At that point, I can vote with my feet and leave to a place that I believe is better managed.
  5. If you truly want something democratic, then you'll back an actual free market and let people decide how they opt to use their resources. If you want something more totalitarian, you'll opt for confiscation and threats of violence for non-compliance.
  6. Oh look, pointing out that people are bashing politically enabled cronyism and labeling it as capitalism and here comes Philly labeling it as fallacy Tell me again about how Leninism, Marxism, and Socialism are different
  7. Once again.... presuming that I'm a Republican and that I voted for Trump... which I didn't The dream is that the vast majority of people simply don't operate out of a baseline of self-interest but on some standard of morality that you deem worthy. I've given up that dream a long time ago and decided to deal with the world as it is.
  8. Like I said.... prepare yourself for a lot of disappointment in your life.
  9. Welcome to kindergarten.... where everything runs on hopes and dreams
  10. Quick question for those that are pushing for all of these government run programs: Who is going to run these in perpetuity? How much trust and power are you willing to cede to these individuals/groups?
  11. Apparently some people here never graduated beyond kindergarten Kum-Ba-Ya happy time. It must be an amazing world you people live in.
  12. I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. If you are intent on trusting central government with more oversight to fix this, I have nothing for ya. Good luck in life. Be prepared for a lot of disappointment.
  13. Unless you are okay with classifying people as livestock, then this is "West India" Capitalism. The answer isn't putting more control in the hands of sociopaths in DC. The answer is pulling up the apparatus that businesses leverage to distort the free market. If the politician doesn't have anything to "sell", then the businesses have nothing to buy.
  14. I'm not arguing that slavery didn't play a part in the generation of wealth for some sectors of society, nor that an attitude of manifest destiny didn't drive a large swathe in the seizure of America's natural resources. What I am arguing is that cotton was not the single greatest contributor of American wealth in the 1600s and 1700s, nor was said wealth a product of free market capitalism. Free market capitalism has been kept at bay by governmental forces to stave off competition in all manner of ways. Fiat regulation, Chicago-style strong arm tactics, K street lobbying, loophole creation and exploitation, subsidies and outright political favors by way of granted contracts with public coffers are but a few of the ways that the market has been kept from being free. If you're argument is that we need more government to fix what they broke in the first place, then your trust is severely misplaced.
×