PDA

View Full Version : Hillary: Bush at 'war' with science



Philosophia
October 5th, 2007, 09:33 AM
Hillary: Bush at 'war' with science

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday accused President Bush of being at war with science and said that if she is elected, she would sign an executive order rescinding the ban on embryonic stem-cell research.

The New York Democrat accused Mr. Bush of "muzzling" scientists who gave grim climate-change reports.

From here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071005/NATION/110050078/-1/RSS_NATION_POLITICS).

:wtf:

Tullip Troll
October 5th, 2007, 09:40 AM
well thats good

Wicce
October 5th, 2007, 11:06 AM
But wait! I thought Hillary was Bush Jr.! Or at least with the way some people carry on about her...

Laisrean
October 5th, 2007, 11:30 AM
But wait! I thought Hillary was Bush Jr.! Or at least with the way some people carry on about her...

She is, in some ways, worse than Bush when it comes to issues regarding individual rights. She said the concept of the individual should be abolished for the "common good", which is very similar to something Adolf Hitler had said.

Moonlight's Daughter
October 5th, 2007, 12:40 PM
Well I am all for stem cell reserch.. but what does that have to do with global warming?

banondraig
October 5th, 2007, 12:44 PM
She said the concept of the individual should be abolished for the "common good"

you're not serious!? :hairraise

do you have a source for that?

Laisrean
October 5th, 2007, 01:58 PM
you're not serious!? :hairraise

do you have a source for that?

I don't know what the source is, but the quote is well circulated on the net. It goes like this:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

PeatBog
October 7th, 2007, 12:37 AM
She said the concept of the individual should be abolished for the "common good", which is very similar to something Adolf Hitler had said.

Hitler probably also said "Hi" at some point, well "guten tag" at least.


If we can have a war on "terror", I don't see why not a war on "science" or a war on "platonic solids" for that matter.

Sequoia
October 7th, 2007, 01:45 AM
I don't know what the source is, but the quote is well circulated on the net. It goes like this:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

As I understand it (no links at this time), she is pretty much for censoring the media (especially video games and movies), crying "think of the children!", and is against personal rights except when it comes to women's rights like abortion. Which doesn't make much sense to me. Pro-choice, but only when it comes to terminating lives? Hmm. :2G:

Laisrean
October 7th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Hitler probably also said "Hi" at some point, well "guten tag" at least.

Big difference between saying "Hello", which is a common word everyone uses; and saying that the collective hive is more important than individuals.

SSanf
October 7th, 2007, 07:54 AM
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

-Hillary Clinton, 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salva31

PeatBog
October 7th, 2007, 11:04 AM
Big difference between saying "Hello", which is a common word everyone uses; and saying that the collective hive is more important than individuals.

Still, referencing that Hitler said it doesn't disprove it, and it's been said throughout history by others like Ghandi, Jesus and JFK. I haven't heard anything about any of them committing genocide, so maybe that one sentence, in perhaps an hour-long speech, won't foretell Hillary committing genocide. Benjamin Franklin said "we must all hang together, or we'll surely hang apart."

banondraig
October 7th, 2007, 11:09 AM
and again for wikipedia-haters:

link (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/hillary_clinton.html)

Can we move on from the reductio ad Hitlerum now?

Wicce
October 7th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Still, referencing that Hitler said it doesn't disprove it, and it's been said throughout history by others like Ghandi, Jesus and JFK. I haven't heard anything about any of them committing genocide, so maybe that one sentence, in perhaps an hour-long speech, won't foretell Hillary committing genocide. Benjamin Franklin said "we must all hang together, or we'll surely hang apart."

Apparently I have to spread karma around more so I can't give you any, but this was a great post. I'm pretty sure if we listed the historical figures who had said the equivalent of the Hillary quote it would number into the dozens and include faces beloved and reviled.

Laisrean
October 7th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Still, referencing that Hitler said it doesn't disprove it, and it's been said throughout history by others like Ghandi, Jesus and JFK. I haven't heard anything about any of them committing genocide, so maybe that one sentence, in perhaps an hour-long speech, won't foretell Hillary committing genocide. Benjamin Franklin said "we must all hang together, or we'll surely hang apart."

Who said anything about genocide? In my opinion Hitler was bad enough even without the genocide, with the flag worship and everything being controlled and devoured by the state.

You want another example of why Hillary is like Hitler? She voted to authorize the Iraq war; she voted to authorize torture; she voted to authorize the domestic spying program; and so on and so forth. Ooops, looks like I gave you more than one reason why she is like Hitler.

So, did Jesus or Gandhi approve of war and torture? I think not. Hitler did, and so does Hillary.

If you don't believe me, look up her voting record.

Jesus and Ghandi never said the concept of the individual should be abolished for the state. Both of them were enemies of collectivism. Remember how Jesus turned over the money table? Or how Gandhi non-violently resisted British rule?

Are you seriously saying Hillary is in the same league as Jesus or Gandhi? I think if Hillary were alive in 33 A.D, she'd be one of the ones calling for Jesus' torture/execution; and if she were in India she would probably kiss the ass of the British to rise up the ranks so she could push people around.

banondraig
October 7th, 2007, 02:46 PM
What about this?


Still, she got sustained applause when promising to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research,

PeatBog
October 7th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Who said anything about genocide? In my opinion Hitler was bad enough even without the genocide, with the flag worship and everything being controlled and devoured by the state.

You want another example of why Hillary is like Hitler? She voted to authorize the Iraq war; she voted to authorize torture; she voted to authorize the domestic spying program; and so on and so forth. Ooops, looks like I gave you more than one reason why she is like Hitler.

So, did Jesus or Gandhi approve of war and torture? I think not. Hitler did, and so does Hillary.

If you don't believe me, look up her voting record.

Jesus and Ghandi never said the concept of the individual should be abolished for the state. Both of them were enemies of collectivism. Remember how Jesus turned over the money table? Or how Gandhi non-violently resisted British rule?

Are you seriously saying Hillary is in the same league as Jesus or Gandhi? I think if Hillary were alive in 33 A.D, she'd be one of the ones calling for Jesus' torture/execution; and if she were in India she would probably kiss the ass of the British to rise up the ranks so she could push people around.

Most people using Hitler comparisons bring at least the suggestion of genocide to the table. I'm not a Hillary fan by the way, and won't be voting for her.

I doubt Jesus or Ghandi were for totalitarianism, but they and many others were not gurus of the virtue of selfishness. Thinking holistically of society is nothing new, has been around for millennia, and didn't start with Hitler and end with Hillary's 1993 statement (countries like Norway, Sweden, Canada and the US have socialist aspects), so I wouldn't think the sky is falling from a single Hillary quote. It's her voting record that sucks.

Djiril
October 7th, 2007, 03:02 PM
What about this?

I approve.

Djiril
October 7th, 2007, 03:06 PM
and again for wikipedia-haters:

link (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/hillary_clinton.html)

Can we move on from the reductio ad Hitlerum now?

I don't see any reason to trust that site more than Wikipedia. Is there an official transcript or something?

banondraig
October 7th, 2007, 03:12 PM
I don't see any reason to trust that site more than Wikipedia. Is there an official transcript or something?

Not that I'm aware of. While in general I find Wikipedia to be a useful resource, the particular page linked clearly had an agenda.

banondraig
October 7th, 2007, 03:20 PM
here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

Bear in mind this speech was made before access to the World Wide Web was common.

Djiril
October 7th, 2007, 03:33 PM
here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

Bear in mind this speech was made before access to the World Wide Web was common.

Really? It sounded like she refered to some events that happened in the last few months.

Laisrean
October 7th, 2007, 03:34 PM
I doubt Jesus or Ghandi were for totalitarianism, but they and many others were not gurus of the virtue of selfishness.

Jesus and Gandhi were against selfishness and greed, but they were also against coercion. If you didn't give money to help the less fortunate, they would certainly frown on that, but they wouldn't stick a gun in your back and force you to give up your property to the "greater good".

Check out Corinthians 9:7: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

So yes, Jesus did say that it is more likely for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, but he never said that government goons should seize his wealth and redistribute it for the "greater good".

Also, the ten commandments say "thou shalt not steal", and Jesus considered himself a Jew and therefore followed the 10 commandments.

And here are some quotes by Mahatma Gandhi which support the same thing:

"Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end."

"One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman."

So they do indeed frown upon greed and selfishness, but neither one advocated collectivism. But Hitler and Hillary do/did.

You imply socialism is a noble ideal, but I'd suggest looking up what the abbreviation "Nazi" stands for.

And just for the heck of it, here is a quote by Pope John Paul II:

“Where self-interest is suppressed, it is replaced by a burdensome system of bureaucratic control that dries up the wellsprings of initiative and creativity.”
—Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

banondraig
October 7th, 2007, 03:37 PM
Really? It sounded like she refered to some events that happened in the last few months.

drat, that's the wrong one then! the quote originally in question is dated 1993.

i guess a proper transcript, as opposed to a snippet, is not readily available online.

PeatBog
October 8th, 2007, 02:24 AM
Jesus and Gandhi were against selfishness and greed, but they were also against coercion. If you didn't give money to help the less fortunate, they would certainly frown on that, but they wouldn't stick a gun in your back and force you to give up your property to the "greater good".

Neither would endorse the State over the Church. They were very much into communal sharing though. Typically, you give away almost all possessions to the sect you join. Ayn Rand had no affinity for their collectivist ideas, and labeled them "Witch Doctors".


Check out Corinthians 9:7: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

One of the sayings attributed to Jesus?


So yes, Jesus did say that it is more likely for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven,

Yes. Probably not a Randian.


but he never said that government goons should seize his wealth and redistribute it for the "greater good".

He may have viewed taxation as a necessary evil though. The US "founding fathers" rebelled against "taxation without representation ".


Also, the ten commandments say "thou shalt not steal", and Jesus considered himself a Jew and therefore followed the 10 commandments.

Taxation isn't necessarily "stealing". Most all of us have received public education and other benefits like highways, research funds, government jobs, etc. There's alot of stealing in the private sector, some of it shown on balance sheets as "profits".


And here are some quotes by Mahatma Gandhi which support the same thing:

"Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end."

"One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman."

So they do indeed frown upon greed and selfishness, but neither one advocated collectivism. But Hitler and Hillary do/did.

Along with many, many other politicians. Hitler and Hillary are not special in that respect.

It sounds from your quotes that Ghandi probably endorsed Objectivism? He was alive when many of Rand's earlier works were published.


You imply socialism is a noble ideal, but I'd suggest looking up what the abbreviation "Nazi" stands for.

And Hitler wore pants so we should all go naked. Visit Norway or Canada and see if they're doing genocide. I doubt being socialist is making either of them invade Iceland. Poland was probably socialist when they were attacked by Hitler.


And just for the heck of it, here is a quote by Pope John Paul II:

“Where self-interest is suppressed, it is replaced by a burdensome system of bureaucratic control that dries up the wellsprings of initiative and creativity.”
—Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

He's a Randian, I'm sure. Church vs. State.

Hitler and Hillary aren't unique in endorsing collective interests. It's actually endorsed by politicians all of the time, always has been. They both wore or wear pants too, though probably not the same style.

Vampiel
October 8th, 2007, 04:26 AM
I believe this is the quote everyone is looking for.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html



Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Laisrean
October 8th, 2007, 08:40 AM
Neither would endorse the State over the Church. They were very much into communal sharing though. Typically, you give away almost all possessions to the sect you join. Ayn Rand had no affinity for their collectivist ideas, and labeled them "Witch Doctors".

But no one was forced at gunpoint to join a sect (at least not by Jesus, I mean). And what about how Jesus overturned the money table? He was against the Temple (essentially a Church) taking people's money in exchange for blessings.

Jesus thought religion should be free of coercion. It is just his disciples and later followers who twisted Christianity into the brutal forms it took.

And who said anything at all about Ayn Rand?


One of the sayings attributed to Jesus?

Yes. Everything in the New Testament supposedly is. Although, I'll grant you that the book has been edited so many times by so many different people that it is hard to know what is true or not, but it does say that.


Yes. Probably not a Randian.

True, but not like Hillary either. Again, who said anything about Rand?


He may have viewed taxation as a necessary evil though. The US "founding fathers" rebelled against "taxation without representation ".

You're missing the point. Neither the founders nor Jesus said the individual should be destroyed for the "greater good".

Look at the Bill of Rights and how those are guaranteed to individuals and not to collective groups.

Hillary doesn't understand the constitution. She thinks freedom means the right to ask permission, but doesn't understand that freedom isn't granted by the state, but comes from a higher power. The state can only deprive you of freedom.


Taxation isn't necessarily "stealing". Most all of us have received public education and other benefits like highways, research funds, government jobs, etc. There's alot of stealing in the private sector, some of it shown on balance sheets as "profits".

Steal means to take something without the owner's permission. The 10 commandments say "thou shalt not steal"; they do not say "thou shalt not steal without majority approval".

But again, there is a big difference between taxation to fund necessary things and wanting to destroy the individual for the "benefity of society".


Along with many, many other politicians. Hitler and Hillary are not special in that respect.

Not Ron Paul.


It sounds from your quotes that Ghandi probably endorsed Objectivism? He was alive when many of Rand's earlier works were published.

I never mentioned Objectivism and Rand, so you're putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying Gandhi was against coercion, but Hitler and Hillary are for it.


And Hitler wore pants so we should all go naked. Visit Norway or Canada and see if they're doing genocide. I doubt being socialist is making either of them invade Iceland. Poland was probably socialist when they were attacked by Hitler.

1. Nothing inherently evil about wearing pants.

2. I never said Hillary has anything to do with genocide, so you're putting words in my mouth again. I'm just saying Hitler was bad enough even without the genocide, with the warmongering and collectivism... and those ARE valid comparisons between him and Hillary.

3. I never said Norway or Canada were engaging in genocide.

4. I think you are a bit off about Poland.... it was a capitalist nation before the war, and a Communist nation after the war until recently, and now it is coming back to Capitalism. Besides,I never said a socialist nation wouldn't attack another, did I? Remember, both the Soviets and the Nazis considered themselves Socialists, but that didn't stop Hitler from attacking them. Also, the USSR invaded Poland in 1939 as well, and they both carved it in half between themselves.


Hitler and Hillary aren't unique in endorsing collective interests. It's actually endorsed by politicians all of the time, always has been.

Yes. Politicians like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, et cetera..

Certainly not politicians like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Paul, et cetera.

PeatBog
October 8th, 2007, 03:07 PM
Jesus also opposed greed which forms a basis for capitalism. The 10 Commandments weren't included in the US Constitution. Hillary's 1993 quote was perhaps in reference to universal healthcare? Norway, Canada, and many other countries have it, without their individuals destroyed. Ghandi was likely addressing imperial British ruler's taxation, not taxation by a sovereign Indian political entity, in those quotes. Politicians, being administrators of the State, have a coercive power to tax. This isn't something new with Hitler and Hillary.


2. I never said Hillary has anything to do with genocide, so you're putting words in my mouth again. I'm just saying Hitler was bad enough even without the genocide, with the warmongering and collectivism... and those ARE valid comparisons between him and Hillary.

Okay, him, Hillary and a million other politicians. But let's separate the terms "warmongering" and "collectivism". MOST European countries are, and have been, "collectivist" or socialist (universal healthcare, and so forth) though many aren't warmongering.

Of course Hitler was a warmonger, and Hillary to a degree. This is maybe where we have some agreement.


3. I never said Norway or Canada were engaging in genocide.

They're what many libertarians would label here as "collectivist" though, with universal healthcare and Norway's state-administered pension fund. And many libertarians do believe in the slippery slope theory that universal healthcare and such leads to genocide or at least oppression. Europe has generally been socialist versus capitalist, communist or fascist, though most any country is a mixture of isms.

It's Hillary's voting record that I consider lacking though I agree with her on universal healthcare.

Laisrean
October 8th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Jesus also opposed greed which forms a basis for capitalism. The 10 Commandments weren't included in the US Constitution. Hillary's 1993 quote was perhaps in reference to universal healthcare? Norway, Canada, and many other countries have it, without their individuals destroyed. Ghandi was likely addressing imperial British ruler's taxation, not taxation by a sovereign Indian political entity, in those quotes. Politicians, being administrators of the State, have a coercive power to tax. This isn't something new with Hitler and Hillary.

First of all, and sorry to nitpick, but could you spell Gandhi's name correctly, please? When you spell it like that it makes it look ridiculous when you claim you know what he beleived in and stood for.

Secondly, coercion is coercion no matter who does it, whether they are a thug/criminal or a government agent. Here is another quote by Gandhi if you don't believe me:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"


Okay, him, Hillary and a million other politicians. But let's separate the terms "warmongering" and "collectivism". MOST European countries are, and have been, "collectivist" or socialist (universal healthcare, and so forth) though many aren't warmongering.

How long have they lasted? I'll grant that not every system lasts indefinitely, but there is no socialist system that has lasted more than about 70 years or so. They either change, or they are destroyed. Socialism is not sustainable for an indefinite period. Those countries you've listed are already feeling the strain of trying to fund those entitlements. Health care is being rationed, for example.


Of course Hitler was a warmonger, and Hillary to a degree. This is maybe where we have some agreement.

And authorizing torture.


They're what many libertarians would label here as "collectivist" though, with universal healthcare and Norway's state-administered pension fund. And many libertarians do believe in the slippery slope theory that universal healthcare and such leads to genocide or at least oppression. Europe has generally been socialist versus capitalist, communist or fascist, though most any country is a mixture of isms.

Socialism generally does deteriorate into dictatorships as history will show.


It's Hillary's voting record that I consider lacking though I agree with her on universal healthcare.

Do you also support her plan to give $5,000 to every child in America?

Wicce
October 8th, 2007, 06:22 PM
First of all, and sorry to nitpick, but could you spell Gandhi's name correctly, please? When you spell it like that it makes it look ridiculous when you claim you know what he beleived in and stood for.

Secondly, coercion is coercion no matter who does it, whether they are a thug/criminal or a government agent. Here is another quote by Gandhi if you don't believe me:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

The only ridiculous statement I see is the idea that messing up where one letter is in a word makes it wrong for you to claim you know the person. My name is Sarah. I don't cry and claim people don't care about me if they forget the H, which happens now and then.

Secondly, taxation does not equal coercion. Her quote was about taxation. Every single government is going to tax their citizens in some way and require them to give up a portion of their income, some how, through whatever means, for use the government sees fit to dictate. To equate it to government coercion is utterly ludicrous and a slap in the face to every person who has ever been ACTUALLY tyrannized by governmental policies.

The idea that we live in a 100% capitalist society is also ludicrous...we may not have free public health care, but we have a myriad of other government funded services, up to and including public schools. Should we abolish public education because it is socialist?

PeatBog
October 8th, 2007, 06:32 PM
First of all, and sorry to nitpick, but could you spell Gandhi's name correctly, please? When you spell it like that it makes it look ridiculous when you claim you know what he beleived in and stood for.

Secondly, coercion is coercion no matter who does it, whether they are a thug/criminal or a government agent. Here is another quote by Gandhi if you don't believe me:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"



How long have they lasted? I'll grant that not every system lasts indefinitely, but there is no socialist system that has lasted more than about 70 years or so. They either change, or they are destroyed. Socialism is not sustainable for an indefinite period. Those countries you've listed are already feeling the strain of trying to fund those entitlements. Health care is being rationed, for example.



And authorizing torture.



Socialism generally does deteriorate into dictatorships as history will show.



Do you also support her plan to give $5,000 to every child in America?

So the reference to Hitler was based on the slippery slope after protestations to the contrary?

Laisrean
October 8th, 2007, 06:39 PM
The only ridiculous statement I see is the idea that messing up where one letter is in a word makes it wrong for you to claim you know the person. My name is Sarah. I don't cry and claim people don't care about me if they forget the H, which happens now and then.

Well, if someone were out there claiming they knew what you believed in wouldn't you at least hope they knew how to spell your name?

But like I said I'm just nitpicking...


Secondly, taxation does not equal coercion. Her quote was about taxation.

Okay, so taxation is voluntary then? Of course coercion is involved! If you refuse to pay taxes long enough some friendly government men with guns will pay you visit. Are you saying that isn't coercion?


Every single government is going to tax their citizens in some way and require them to give up a portion of their income, some how, through whatever means, for use the government sees fit to dictate. To equate it to government coercion is utterly ludicrous and a slap in the face to every person who has ever been ACTUALLY tyrannized by governmental policies.

The idea that we live in a 100% capitalist society is also ludicrous...we may not have free public health care, but we have a myriad of other government funded services, up to and including public schools. Should we abolish public education because it is socialist?

This debate wasn't started over taxation; but over what she said about individuality needing to be crushed for the "greater good".

Apparently she isn't satisfied with the current size of the government and wants to make it bigger. A larger and more intrustive government can only be brought about at the expense of individuals sacrificing for the "greater good".

Have you seen she wanted to give every child $5,000? Sounds good in theory, but what about how much debt we are already in? We can't afford to sustain Social Security and the other things the government has its fingers in now. How the heck could we ever afford to get into socialized health care as well?!

If she becomes elected, expect her to go on a spending spree and the debt to pile up. I forsee dark days ahead for this country if she wins.

PeatBog
October 9th, 2007, 11:32 AM
First of all, and sorry to nitpick, but could you spell Gandhi's name correctly, please? When you spell it like that it makes it look ridiculous when you claim you know what he beleived in and stood for.

I don't even know what I beleive in.


Secondly, coercion is coercion no matter who does it, whether they are a thug/criminal or a government agent.

So Thomas Jefferson was a dictator because he signed his name to a document that gives the US federal government the power to tax.


Socialism generally does deteriorate into dictatorships as history will show.


When Canada or Norway invades Iceland, or Switzerland invades Lichtenstein, I'll vote for Ron Paul. Just because Hillary is warmonger-lite doesn't prove that all socialist states are warmongers.

Laisrean
October 9th, 2007, 12:33 PM
I don't even know what I beleive in.

That was a typo. I know the correct spelling, but good call on that. :cheers:

I didn't mean any offense, btw. I am just a nitpicker...


So Thomas Jefferson was a dictator because he signed his name to a document that gives the US federal government the power to tax.

The founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil. It IS theft and coercion, as is everything the government does. If we could live in a society where government weren't necessary then we wouldn't need taxation, but we do need it for the roads, police, military, and a few other things which are outlined in the constitution. The taxes are still evil, but they are at least a necessary evil.

But when you expand taxation beyond what is necessary then you are moving beyond necessary evils. Just think, we managed to get by fine for most of our history without a national income tax... doing away with the income tax seems almost unthinkable today, but somehow we managed without it.

Of course, we'd have to trim down our military a lot, so there wouldn't be any unnecessary foreign adventures like Iraq, but I'd say over all we'd be better off if the government received its revenue from just the excise taxes and tariffs as it did prior to 1913.


When Canada or Norway invades Iceland, or Switzerland invades Lichtenstein, I'll vote for Ron Paul. Just because Hillary is warmonger-lite doesn't prove that all socialist states are warmongers.

You can have a dictatorship without the warmongering. Look at Franco's regime in Spain before, during, and after WW2. He was neutral during the war, but he was a Fascist with absolute power. Same with Musharraf and probably most other dictators. They don't invade their neighbors, but are they really bastions of liberty?

As I understand it, Norway is having a problem with political correctness. They don't want to offend Muslims, so they are resorting to censorship. But freedom of expression is one of the most essential components of a free society. The same is true with most of Europe. Remember the Prophet Muhammad cartoons incident?

PeatBog
October 9th, 2007, 03:43 PM
The founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil. It IS theft and coercion, as is everything the government does. If we could live in a society where government weren't necessary then we wouldn't need taxation, but we do need it for the roads, police, military, and a few other things which are outlined in the constitution. The taxes are still evil, but they are at least a necessary evil.

But when you expand taxation beyond what is necessary then you are moving beyond necessary evils. Just think, we managed to get by fine for most of our history without a national income tax... doing away with the income tax seems almost unthinkable today, but somehow we managed without it.

Of course, we'd have to trim down our military a lot, so there wouldn't be any unnecessary foreign adventures like Iraq, but I'd say over all we'd be better off if the government received its revenue from just the excise taxes and tariffs as it did prior to 1913.

"over all" should be "overall" _whistle_

But if a citizen doesn't feel it "necessary" to be defended by the government, wanting to defend himself, nor use the roads, then along this reasoning, why shouldn't (s)he and others be entitled to opt out of the taxes altogether? One person's necessary evil may be another's unnecessary evil. Alot of americans during that time would have preferred sticking with the Articles of Confederation, so Thomas Jefferson would be viewed as a dictator from that regard.


You can have a dictatorship without the warmongering. Look at Franco's regime in Spain before, during, and after WW2. He was neutral during the war, but he was a Fascist with absolute power. Same with Musharraf and probably most other dictators. They don't invade their neighbors, but are they really bastions of liberty?

How do they compare with democratic socialism in countries like Norway, Iceland and Canada though? Is Switzerland a dictatorship since they have universal health-insurance?


As I understand it, Norway is having a problem with political correctness. They don't want to offend Muslims, so they are resorting to censorship. But freedom of expression is one of the most essential components of a free society. The same is true with most of Europe. Remember the Prophet Muhammad cartoons incident?

Is this an assertion that entitlements or "butter" is the root source of racism? What about an assertion that "laissez-faire capitalism" is the root source of racism because colonial America had racism?

Laisrean
October 9th, 2007, 04:20 PM
"over all" should be "overall" _whistle_

But if a citizen doesn't feel it "necessary" to be defended by the government, wanting to defend himself, nor use the roads, then along this reasoning, why shouldn't (s)he and others be entitled to opt out of the taxes altogether? One person's necessary evil may be another's unnecessary evil. Alot of americans during that time would have preferred sticking with the Articles of Confederation, so Thomas Jefferson would be viewed as a dictator from that regard.

The constitution (as initially written) was the Founders' own interpretation of what were necessary evils and what weren't. They did provide a mechanism for us to alter the constitution if we didn't like certain things about it.

However, the individual states have more slack to govern things than the federal government does. Universal Health Care is probably constitutional among the individual states, but not at the federal level.

The argument you would use to say otherwise is the General Welfare clause, but banondraig posted a link which gave the definition of what that meant in those days, and it applies to the states; not to individuals. Also, funding something is quite a bit different than directly managing it, wouldn't you say?

So if you support Universal Health Care, I'd say aim for that at the state level. It would work better anyway, because every state/region of the nation is different.

But anyways, at the national level the government is really only authorized to do a handful of things: roads, post office, military, etc.


How do they compare with democratic socialism in countries like Norway, Iceland and Canada though? Is Switzerland a dictatorship since they have universal health-insurance?

Switzerland apparently trusts its citizens with firearms, because every home is required to have a machine gun and a box of ammunition. I also admire their foreign policy of non-interference.

As for those other countries, they don't trust their citizens to possess arms, do they? Didn't someone say that when the government fears the people there is liberty, but when you have the opposite there is tyranny?


Is this an assertion that entitlements or "butter" is the root source of racism? What about an assertion that "laissez-faire capitalism" is the root source of racism because colonial America had racism?

I was talking about free speech, which is heavily restricted in those countries in favor of political correctness.

The root cause of racism probably lies in human nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Although politics can fuel it, as we've seen in Hitler's Germany, for example. And yes, colonial America did as well with the institution of slavery.

But slavery is a form of coercion; and that's what I'm arguing against, in case you haven't noticed.

PeatBog
October 9th, 2007, 04:33 PM
Switzerland isn't a dictatorship though socialist? Canada and Norway are dictatorships?

What about people who didn't want the US government's defense, police or roads? Weren't they coerced by the US constitution along this reasoning?