Ron Paul, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity in ATLAS SHRUGGED III

[Orruar]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?

[HeallunRumblebelly]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?

Unless you see your children as investment vehicles. Which has been the case throughout the majority of history [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?

I am pointing out the ignorance that most people think when they think "socialism". And that the system is viable when there are no corruption involved.

Capitialism works great in a microeconomy. But requires heavy regulation in a global /our economy due to the simple fact that as corporations get bigger they get less human. When ideology works against the betterment of mankind, in any instance, that is just a bummer to me.


I feel local government is 100% better served by a "right wing" ideology. They do not have the capacity to effect any real changes in social progress. Which is my 100% problem with right wing organizations. But they are fiscally conservative in the approach to growth of a community.


Clear?

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by HeallunRumblebelly [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Unless you see your children as investment vehicles. Which has been the case throughout the majority of history [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe in the past when everyone was a farmer. But in today's society, having/raising children is the most economically disastrous move a young couple can make. It's not about investment.

[Nuggie]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I feel local government is 100% better served by a "right wing" ideology. They do not have the capacity to effect any real changes in social progress. Which is my 100% problem with right wing organizations. But they are fiscally conservative in the approach to growth of a community.


Clear?

I like when what you post makes sense.

[radditsu]

Yeah but you wont like the fact I think federal govt should be as liberal as hell. Social programs. Food safety. Defense spending 5x that of any country besides 100x.
And the curbing of anti human practices by global or national corporations.


Healthcare and social entitlements dawg.

[Orruar]

I'm the opposite. I think the national government should be very minimal and allow cities/towns/communes/etc. to go as socialist as they want. Then people can decide which suits them best and go there. The good practices that lead to the most healthy society will spread and the bad ones will wither and die. Think of it as Darwinism for political ideas.

[JayN]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm the opposite. I think the national government should be very minimal and allow cities/towns/communes/etc. to go as socialist as they want. Then people can decide which suits them best and go there. The good practices that lead to the most healthy society will spread and the bad ones will wither and die. Think of it as Darwinism for political ideas.

this already happening, why everyone flocks to the coasts while middle america becomes more ass backwards and polarized by the day

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Nuggie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Same ideology applies to welfare.

The river dried up dawg.

[Nuggie]

Originally Posted by JayN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this already happening, why everyone flocks to the coasts while middle america becomes more ass backwards and polarized by the day

Yea, because people are leaving arizona/texas/nevada to move to California. Oh, no wait. It's the exact opposite. Keep your failure liberal monetary policies in the blue states where they belong. Look at how Detroit has been destroyed by those same policies.