GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

MediaGuy · 10-21-2011, 02:50 PM

I like Ron Paul.

I like libertarian values.

However - the implicit, Ayn-Rand trust in basic human goodness in these so-called values, and their imposition on the social, moral values of "Mr X" or "Ms X" is really what bugs me.

First of all, we've seen what "Reagenomics" or voodoo economics does; all these bailouts and permissions and breaks to the rich have not helped the economy, though they've helped job booms and the economies of foreign countries.

We've seen that even slight tax impositions on the 99% by the Democrats have caused surpluses almost without exception.

Does the prevention of abortion and other human freedoms help the bottom line?

The very belief in the human soul is a religious concept; the definition of the beginning of Life, already hazy, is a personal belief, as yet unproven by science or religion..

To remove a person's right to do with their life/future and personal self/body based on moralistic/religious beliefs is against liberterian values as far as I'm concerned.

To confuse this with collective social "responsibilities" is an error, I think.

After all, the postal service, garbage pick-up, changing the bulbs in streetlamps and more are all socialistic activities that I think nobody would vote against government taking on as a civilized and social responsibility.

Yet the Libertarians and Republicans accept this.

So when it comes to "big government" it seems there's no real difference between the size/volume of government between the two sides of the fence, just on where this volume is going to be imposed - and abortion is just a sliver of what right-wing/republicans/libertarians seek to achieve.

One side seeks to impose their laws/rules/values in your personal life, the other seeks to do so on an economic basis.

Yet the economic basis, and it's proven, has some rationale: reduced crime, reduced violence, egalitarian access to public/social services such as medical support, job-seeking support, educational support, and so on....

The right-wing or whatever Americans call it wants to pull all that and impose moral/religious/philosophical beliefs on the population who if they act against these belief-impositions are willing to legislate them, at a cost to everyone.

So the difference seems to be in socialism systems: will it be economic socialism, or moralistic socialism?

Once any society becomes big enough, socialism (NOT communism for the knee-jerkers among you) becomes inevitable, it seems...

:D

10-21-2011, 02:50 PM
MediaGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Montrealquebecanada Posts: 5,500	I like Ron Paul. I like libertarian values. However - the implicit, Ayn-Rand trust in basic human goodness in these so-called values, and their imposition on the social, moral values of "Mr X" or "Ms X" is really what bugs me. First of all, we've seen what "Reagenomics" or voodoo economics does; all these bailouts and permissions and breaks to the rich have not helped the economy, though they've helped job booms and the economies of foreign countries. We've seen that even slight tax impositions on the 99% by the Democrats have caused surpluses almost without exception. Does the prevention of abortion and other human freedoms help the bottom line? The very belief in the human soul is a religious concept; the definition of the beginning of Life, already hazy, is a personal belief, as yet unproven by science or religion.. To remove a person's right to do with their life/future and personal self/body based on moralistic/religious beliefs is against liberterian values as far as I'm concerned. To confuse this with collective social "responsibilities" is an error, I think. After all, the postal service, garbage pick-up, changing the bulbs in streetlamps and more are all socialistic activities that I think nobody would vote against government taking on as a civilized and social responsibility. Yet the Libertarians and Republicans accept this. So when it comes to "big government" it seems there's no real difference between the size/volume of government between the two sides of the fence, just on where this volume is going to be imposed - and abortion is just a sliver of what right-wing/republicans/libertarians seek to achieve. One side seeks to impose their laws/rules/values in your personal life, the other seeks to do so on an economic basis. Yet the economic basis, and it's proven, has some rationale: reduced crime, reduced violence, egalitarian access to public/social services such as medical support, job-seeking support, educational support, and so on.... The right-wing or whatever Americans call it wants to pull all that and impose moral/religious/philosophical beliefs on the population who if they act against these belief-impositions are willing to legislate them, at a cost to everyone. So the difference seems to be in socialism systems: will it be economic socialism, or moralistic socialism? Once any society becomes big enough, socialism (NOT communism for the knee-jerkers among you) becomes inevitable, it seems... :D __________________ YOU Are Industry News! Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB! ICQ: 248843947 Skype: Mediaguy1