De Vaticanus GodwiniiFollow

Well, John was a fisherman, and you know what sort of tales they're apt to tell.

As a fisherman myself I would like to go on record now as hoping she's at least 15, an early bloomer and a gymnast when I finally succumb to the urge.

Alright, that's just spooky. I don't use this name on the leg fetishist sites I post to. How'd you know?

It's all so clear now.

Really? You've never noticed how often the Dems talk about all their social spending programs when campaigning? They go to the poor neighborhoods and talk about health care, and welfare, and lack of jobs, and providing a "safety net", education for their kids, food on their tables, etc? You don't think that influences those people to vote for them?

Just a little bit?

Did it smell like pew polish and the host?

gbaji being a tool and all, aside for a moment...What he says is actually true.

The one thing I would add is that some people are gullible enough to believe that so and so politician is giving you 'benefits' because they actually care about your wellbeing as opposed to your vote, and other people are gullible enough to believe that politicians care enough about your wellbeing enough to protect you from some contrived 'threat du jour' that they, and only they are able to protect you and your family from, as opposed to your vote.

In other werds, one side buys its votes using peoples tendencies towards laziness or greed and desire to get something for nothing, either with social benefits or subsidized housing/tractors or even hard cash.

The other side scares its victims with stories of threats to their 'way of life' to the point where they willingly hand over their freedoms, their children (to fight in the wars that their leaders like to start) their cash and votes, to be protected.

What this illustrates to me is that there is no shortage of people who are happy to be 'beholden' to one political affiliation or another.

Dumbasses! One and all.

/sigh
Yeah.



Tard

Our government should be the hand that feeds shouldnt it? Under your precept the masses would be beholden to religions or corporations.

No. It shouldn't. It's supposed to create an environment in which we can thrive and then get the hell out of the way. Nothing in the principles of the founding of this country assumed, expected, or required that it should ever directly provide material goods for/to the people.




There are many religions, corporations, and privately owned businesses both large and small. There is only one government. See. If I don't like the religion I'm in, I can leave, or choose another. If I don't like my employer, I can leave and choose another job. And because there are many of them, they'll tend to try to be the religions and workplaces that people want to work and pray in. And since there are many of them, they can each be different, and thus provide for a diverse population, with different expectations and needs.

There is only one government. If you put it into the role of replacing religion and employer, you are taking away all of those choices from the people. If I don't like how the government handles my education, what do I do? If I don't like the government jobs, what do I do? If I don't like the products of those things, what do I do?

A society is best served when government has the least influence over the people. The problem is that far far too many people don't see the dividing line between "protecting" the people and "controlling" the people. As a result, they support policies that do the latter, while shouting from the highest rooftops that they are doing the former. The very concept of "positive rights" leads to this sort of inability to distinguish between protection and control. When you see no difference between harming someone and failing to help them, you lose the ability to tell when what you're doing crosses from the government protecting you from harm, and controlling how you live.


Social liberalism as an ideology is a disaster waiting to happen. It's just that most people don't realize it.

So we have two different choices? Soylent green or Soylent red?

How about we give people thousands of choices by not putting government "in charge" of everything in the first place?

I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything other than a lack of sanity, gbaji.

Which isn't to say that you aren't right, just that most people learn better by being subjected to an actual example than by having it explained to them. How do most people learn not to put their hands on stove burners?