A reminder for Liberals about the rich.

Despotism isn't limited to government.

Plenty of what the private sector does can be described as oppressive. Eventually, you realize that liberty is always limited when you live in a society.

There's a continual balance between government control and corporate control. The government is really the only counterbalance to corporate abuses, but unfortunately, the government is often a tool of corporations.

In effect, the only long term hope a population has for maintaining freedom is to continuously hold government accountable while using it to keep the rich from abusing the system.

 

Oh and don't forget forcing their religion on everyone.

 

So take down the government for allowing the corporations to do what they do, rather than taking down the corporations for actually doing it? That doesn't sound like it will work. Take down the government and there's nothing to stop the corporations from doing anything to want to anyone they want.

Corporate-appointed powers won't be (aren't now) elected by the people whose lives they affect. When Wal-Mart decides to destroy a town, that decision isn't made by the people in the town, it's made by the people at the Wal-Mart offices off in Wal-Mart land, wherever that is.

I live on the west coast. Having a government run from the east coast, in Washington D.C., is sometimes a problem. But having a government run from some corporate board in New York is no better -- actually, much worse. Still east coast, too.

 

And if you are able to read more than one line (and/or properly quote that there is a numbering in front of your example), it is also, equally validly defined as:

freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

or

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

google definition

The governmental part is not the critical part of the definition.

In addition to that, I believe that it would be fair to say that to stand for liberty is to work for that the maximum number of people have the maximum amount of liberty, would you not agree?

Now, conservatives (I'm not sure exactly what the appropriate group name would be, chose one) set freedom and economic freedom equal. To... others (again, I can't be bothered to find the correct name), a person who keeps 100% of his McDonalds salary is not as free as a person who keeps 100% of his executive corporate salary. The freedom to afford food for the day is greater than that of affording a third car.

Also, to be without money is to not be free. A person who cannot afford the time or money to, for instance, pursue a hobby is by his economic restraints obligated, restricted and hampered (words copied from the definition).

Not being able to do what you want, that is lack of freedom. Regardless of who restricts you.

 

No. It's a mantra that is constantly repeated by socialists.

 

Whatever you are upset with corporations about, it's State law and Government that makes it possible. They simply would not exist if it weren't for government. I find it hard to believe that we should go after private citizens for a system created by Government.

 

None of that contradicts my original point. "Freedom from control..."

Please get a clue.

 

Of course not. You won't get all of my argument if you won't quote all of my post.

You based your argument on an incomplete definition. When actual definition was applied, faulty statements (such as liberty = "freedom from government") were proven wrong.

Government is not the only thing that controls us. Lack of money can control a life way more than government can. We cannot live lives without being controlled, only without redistribution of wealth, control stays with those who are wealthy enough to have that freedom anyway.

 

Precisely. It isn't 'freedom from any government whatsoever', but just 'freedom from arbitrary or despotic government'. It's also 'freedom from arbitrary or despotic control' by others, so there has to be some form of (non-arbitrary and non-despotic) government to ensure that the freedom of the individual isn't hijacked by other, non-governmental controlling forces. In other words, the role of government (because they are the only ones with the legitimate legislative power in a society to do it) is to ensure that 'liberty' is maintained for everyone, not to simply avoid doing anything at al, and allow the liberty of some to be removed and overridden by others.

That is where 'libertarianism' tends to misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of 'liberty' - it tends to ignore the 'arbitrary or despotic' bit, and assume that it should therefore mean complete freedom for individuals (and corporations) to do whatever they want, however they want to do it, free from any form of interference or regulation, no matter what the consequences for the 'liberty' of everyone else (individuals and other businesses) in society.

That is precisely why I am a 'Liberal', not a 'Libertarian'.

If, however, the idea of the thread is to suggest that redistribution of wealth by taxing the rich just to give money to the poor, despite any imbalance of individual effort, is wrong (and possibly 'arbitrary') I'm not going to disagree.

That is precisely why I am a 'Liberal', not a 'Socialist'.

Relative taxation levels are a question of balance, and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share in contributing to society and its common functions in a way which is affordable to them and does not rob them unduly of the fruits of their labour or their ability to survive on what they have earned. Of course, the precise applicable figures in different societies and under different circumstances will always be a matter of varying opinion!

 

You were wrong from the very beginning.

No matter what you add to the definition, I'm still right.

Words have more than one meaning, but no definition of Liberty is pro-authoritarianism. No definition of Liberty fits your warped far-left views. You have proven yourself wrong over and over again, yet you claim some kind of semantic "victory." It's disturbing.

All of the points you've made are stupid arguments.

Nothing about Liberty involves trading one form of slavery for another.

Duh.

 

Liberty is against all control regardless of source.

Being poor is also to be controlled. Not by another person, but that doesn't mean you're free. You are controlled by your lack of money.

Nothing about Liberty involves keeping a bad slavery when a lesser one comes along.

The type of governmental control we have here in Sweden is negligible. There is the tax, but other than that, a government heavy country will make sure that their government isn't too cumbersome. I appreciate that the situation in the US is different, your government isn't as effective and occasionally downright counter effective, but any system can fail if it is handled wrong, that doesn't mean the concept is wrong.

 

The government does need to be changed so that it's less vulnerable to money.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I said that right. What I mean is, as far as the government is concerned, every individual should be equal. A homeless person with no assets should be every bit as important, and have just as much say in government affairs, as a billionaire with ancestral estates all over the world. That is not currently the case, and it needs to be.

But just because someone is able to change the law to make what they do legal doesn't mean that I'm not still going to hold them accountable as individuals for their own actions.

And doesn't your argument demonstrate that government is the solution? If the only way to keep someone from doing something harmful is to make it illegal, then we need a strong government that is capable of keeping the corporations and other financial powers in line. If the problem is that the government is allowing the capitalists too much free reign ... well, then, the obvious solution is to stop allowing the government to allow the capitalists too much free reign.

 

That's why "Lib-Dem" policies are so hypocritical.

Being poor means not being productive enough.

It's "self induced" slaver.

You are digging yourself deeper. Keep going.

This comment ignores history. See: Russia, China, Roma... all of human history.

It's wrong for different reasons.

 

Arbitrary or despotic. What makes you believe that our current government is either?

 

So people are nothing more than producers to you? I appreciate that so (or similar) might be your view, but it's hardly consistent with "liberty". You go for freedom for those who produce, I go for freedom for everybody.

So is "self induced" slavery ok? For instance, many Africans went knowingly into loosing battles, only to be captured and sold as slaves, but they went there by own free will, "self induced".

And isn't that a very crude tool? Are single mothers who work their behinds off considered unproductive? Lucky for Paris Hilton she's more "productive" than that.

What a wonderful way to be condescending without actually supplying even an argument.

Again, these statements are not exclusive to socialism, it is however exclusive to nations where the leader has too much power. Russia, China, Rome, but also, Louis XIV, Hitler, Hussein and so on. And it makes sense, a nation which is only interested in their leader and has no interest in the people has no interest in making the bureaucracy bearable.

Our counter example is, as always, Sweden. Socialistic (in comparison) but no emphasis on the leaders. They don't "come into power", they "serve". No fame is gained (can you name a Swedish leader without looking them up?), no money (lobbyism is illegal under "corruption"). Thus there is no point in making things unbearable, so they removed the unnecessary stuff. We do our tax returns with a text.

 

That's an interesting perspective.
Of course, I believe the purpose of government (any government, not just ours) is to provide for the best interests of the people it represents. This is particularly true when government is made up of democratically appointed individuals.

Does allowing 1% of the population to hoard 40% of the nation's wealth, while hundreds of thousands of folks rely on welfare just to survive, sound like it's in the best interests of "We the People"?
[video=youtube_share;QPKKQnijnsM]http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM[/video]

As for your definition of liberty... that depends on what dictionary you use.
"liberty
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

 

Presumably you meant "self induced slavery"...
You're wrong.
[video=youtube_share;0BszHshieSc]http://youtu.be/0BszHshieSc[/video]

 

Why bump a very old troll post?

 

Pure amusement on my part...
And there are numerous posters who routinely express similar BS.

 

Cutting to the chase here, and I can agree to this under the right conditions, NOT the current conditions.

I want everybody to pay the exact same amount of taxes annually. No percentages, no deductions or other IRS magic. I figure in order for everybody to pay their fair & equal share, we have to take the poorest among us to establish how much he can pay. I figure he pay about a $100. a month, maybe a little less, but not under $50. dollars.

So Crotch Bros., you and I will all pay $100-50. dollars a month so we are all treated equally to the can man.

Now there isn't going to be a whole lot of money for government to run America, so we will have make some drastic cuts, end most departments, end social programs like SS, Medicare, Homeland Security, end the military & foreign & corporate aid, transportation systems like trains, highways, airports, parks, etc. But that is OK, because we will all be treated equally and pay the same amount of taxes. And really, why I should I pay more than you or the can man?

Fair enough?

 

Let's see, $100 a month times 360million is $36Billion a month or $432Billion a year, just about enough to pay interest on the national debt. Of course the sudden huge reduction in government spending will tank the entire world economy, which could recover to post WW2 levels by about 2090 if enough infrastructure survives the wars.