The free Stuff
Darth Beaver
Meine Ehre heißt Treue
I am not sure who wrote this so I can give credit that way. But this should explain things even to the hard core leftists.
inb4somemoroncallsmearepulicratorademlican
inb4somemoroncallsmearepulicratorademlican
Don't you really feel like this about our current country?
The folks who are getting the free Stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free Stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free Stuff, can no longer afford to pay for both the free Stuff and their own Stuff,
And, the folks who are paying for the free Stuff want the free Stuff to stop.
And the the folks who are getting the free Stuff, want even more free Stuff on top of the free Stuff they are already getting!
Now... The people who are forcing the people who Pay for the free Stuff, have told the people who are RECEIVING the free Stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free Stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free Stuff, have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free Stuff, by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free Stuff, and giving them the free Stuff in the first place.
We have let the free Stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free Stuff than paying for the free Stuff.
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free Stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free Stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
Comments
Its true tho - their are only two ways to go the first, true and full libertarianism or the second, the collapse of society as we know it. The collapse, if managed properly could get rid of the massive over population problem, but it would be back to an agrarian society which 1. Most people could not cope with 2. Some fool would want to be in charge of.
Yes. Any other form is at best an oxymoron of its own term - left libertanarism removes the means of all forms of basic human interaction and transaction - at best any society subject to it - if a society could be subject to something with an underlying principle that no one should be suject to anything - would have no base for trade and if followed, starvation and tribalism would result in my opinion.
Of the thoughts on anarchism, individualist anarchism does come close to libertarianism, but contains no checks and balences at all. Until such times as humans have evolved away from acts that abuse the rights of others, it is completly unworkable. In times where it has been tried but held within some form of framework, such as the Summerhill school in the UK, once groups reach a performing stage it can work, but without a framework to guide the group to that stage it is always destined to failure - the group either would wipe itself out or the lack of buy in from individuals would result in complete social Dawinism - not in itself a bad thing at all, but often overlooked by proponants of individual anarchism.
It could only work if man was not a social animal - being such a social animal as we are, it cannot work.
Right wing libertarianism is almost diometrically opposed to such a school as geo-libertarianism. Again, geo-libertarianism with its left leaning ideals on property would lead in my opinion to nothing more than massive economic inflation caused by greed and any one of the many forms of one upmanship. On right wing libertarianism itself, it is atractive in that while it does have some rules to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and property, I feel that past scholars have shied away from looking at it - for many reasons including but not limted to the inability of the political classes to recognise man as a being that can best judge what it best for the individual - its lack of centralised power makes it 'un-sexy' and provides no points at which any one writing a journal artical could or even should seek to dominate anyone else - again, something in the nature of politicians and accademics.
I do quite like the works and ideas of Herbert Spencer, but it is clear from his later writings that he suffered some self doubt and congnative disonence on his ideas. He probably thought the answer he had given was too simple and thought it had to be more complicated than what he had proposed, but then doubt is the way of man to some extent.
A lot of his works are available for free from here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=165&Itemid=28
Its a good site that has a hell of a lot of free resource on it.