|
Discussion: Are liberals OVER?
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
No. We gave Hillary the popular vote, and others went to third parties.
We aren't actually declining. Just not happy with the current system.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 30,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LoKoPaNdA
We're stronger than ever
It's a bit shameful that so many of you gay men are against us btw. Liberals helped you get your RIGHTS.
|
To be fair, though, as amazing as it is that the gay rights movement has made such amazing strides (although, I will note, that it was a conservative government in the UK who brought the gay marriage bill to Parliament), it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree whatsoever with left-wing views of economics. At all. I believe in small government, low taxation and free market capitalism. Those principles just aren't expressed by anyone from the liberal establishment.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
To be fair, though, as amazing as it is that the gay rights movement has made such amazing strides (although, I will note, that it was a conservative government in the UK who brought the gay marriage bill to Parliament), it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree whatsoever with left-wing views of economics. At all. I believe in small government, low taxation and free market capitalism. Those principles just aren't expressed by anyone from the liberal establishment.
|
That's fine, but most people want the wealthy to pay more taxes. Small government and low taxes for the poor and middle class is a valid viewpoint tho.
It's just that it's proven Wall Street is greedy and wrecks the economy. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 68,548
|
I guess it's just politics' Charmbracelet era. The Emancipation of Liberals will come soon.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
That's fine, but most people want the wealthy to pay more taxes. Small government and low taxes for the poor and middle class is a valid viewpoint tho.
It's just that it's proven Wall Street is greedy and wrecks the economy. That's a fact.
|
Three wolves can outvote one sheep about eating it. Obviously the poor will want money for free, because most poor people in Western countries will blame everything else but themselves for their situation. I mean, of course they might not become very well-off in a second, but how hard can it be not to make poor life choices to lead a normal, lower middle class life?
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Because feudalism was inefficient and ineffective. Capitalism is the fairest way to distribute wealth possible. The amount of money one gets is determined by the value of their work on the free market. A high school History teacher might have great knowledge and work hard but earn crap, simply because he can be very easily replaced with another graduate. The supply is greater than demand. Doctors, on the other hand, are nearly always in shortage, because it's a very difficult university course to complete and the job comes with great responsibility.
The government doesn't have any money. All of its money comes from taxes. If the taxes are higher for the rich and lower for the poor, while the poor receive government aid, it's basically theft and redistribution of wealth without any valid reason. It's not like the rich people don't deserve their money, they provide or used to provide something so coveted in the market that other people valued it more than the money they gave them.
About inheritance, it's a controversial thing. I was not born a billionaire, however I don't shout and demand money from people like Paris Hilton, because 'it's not fair'. What I can say in that subject is that stupid people with inherited fortunes do not have to be more successful than very intelligent and well educated people from impoverished backgrounds. I support scholarships for intelligent students from poor families to give them a chance to move up the wealth ladder in a fair way, or a system of repayable loans like it is in the UK.
|
I'm sorry but no. In order to achieve any kind of organised society, some degree socialism is necessary. Unless you want to do away with government institutions like the army or law enforcement....
You want to talk about effective, tell me what's effective about having people who are already born into poverty, denied a right to free education and a chance to improve their financial circumstance? Is it better for over half of your population to be uneducated? That means less doctors, less medicine, less technological advances, less diplomacy, more war, that sounds super effective right?
As for taxing the rich and aiding the poor. Even classical liberal John Locke knew believed that their should be a limit on accumulation of wealth. There are billionaire's who don't even spend half of their income, that money can be taxed and distributed more effectively.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/30/2011
Posts: 2,986
|
We were literally a couple of thousand votes away from talking about how nationalism is over and the Republicans are finished for good. Hillary even won the popular vote. So no.
Politics works in cycles. The left will rise again when the right screws up.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 30,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
That's fine, but most people want the wealthy to pay more taxes. Small government and low taxes for the poor and middle class is a valid viewpoint tho.
It's just that it's proven Wall Street is greedy and wrecks the economy. That's a fact.
|
But people can't just demand money from rich people because they want it. And taking that through taxation isn't moral. Think about it this way. Three people are sat in a room. 2 people aren't Bill Gates, the other is. They vote 2-1 to take half of his wealth. This is a simplified version of a progressive tax system. I would argue for a flat rate of tax, such that there isn't an argument about paying more or less because each person pays an equal proportion of what they earn.
I agree about Wall St, however. What happened to cause the financial crash is an example of cronyism rather than capitalism. In a capitalist society, the banks would have been made to completely fail. Government cronyism meant that the government guaranteed the debt of the banks using, you guessed it, public taxes. If the banks had been allowed to fail it would have done something to combat the greed of Wall St, and its international counterparts. But because the government (and most governments affected worldwide) bailed the banks out, there wasn't a lesson for them to learn. Sure, a few people went to prison, but the majority of bankers were allowed to carry on with business-as-usual.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Then how did the democratic presidential candidate get almost 2 million more votes than the nationalist right-wing candidate?
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
What do the roots of liberalism have to do with classical liberalism I'm talking about?
Everything government-run or owned is doomed to be less effective than private.
[IMG]Nice try, Jan[/IMG]
|
Quote:
The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of individual freedom and minimal government.
|
Keyword: MINIMAL.
So again, as I said even in classical liberalism, the role of government must exist.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Three wolves can outvote one sheep about eating it. Obviously the poor will want money for free, because most poor people in Western countries will blame everything else but themselves for their situation. I mean, of course they might not become very well-off in a second, but how hard can it be not to make poor life choices to lead a normal, lower middle class life?
|
You are a truly despicable person who has obviously never lived a day knowing what it's like to be born poor and not be able to advance despite working yourself to death every day of your life.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 2,555
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
But people can't just demand money from rich people because they want it. And taking that through taxation isn't moral. Think about it this way. Three people are sat in a room. 2 people aren't Bill Gates, the other is. They vote 2-1 to take half of his wealth. This is a simplified version of a progressive tax system. I would argue for a flat rate of tax, such that there isn't an argument about paying more or less because each person pays an equal proportion of what they earn..
|
Donald Trump was elected by lower working class rural whites on this very concept.
Will it happen? Of course not, because he's a conman, but exit polls showed that many rural whites do want many things Establishment Republicans hate (higher minimum wage, less taxes on them and more on the rich, etc.)
Poor whites just need to get the **** kicked out of them by rich whites to realize by 2020 they got played and they'll come back to Democrats.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
I'm sorry but no. In order to achieve any kind of organised society, some degree socialism is necessary. Unless you want to do away with government institutions like the army or law enforcement....
You want to talk about effective, tell me what's effective about having people who are already born into poverty, denied a right to free education and a chance to improve their financial circumstance? Is it better for over half of your population to be uneducated? That means less doctors, less medicine, less technological advances, less diplomacy, more war, that sounds super effective right?
As for taxing the rich and aiding the poor. Even classical liberal John Locke knew believed that their should be a limit on accumulation of wealth. There are billionaire's who don't even spend half of their income, that money can be taxed and distributed more effectively.
|
The army or law enforcement isn't socialist, it's necessary means for any state to survive. It's been there way before socialism or capitalism were even invented, simply because no society would have survived without it.
Education is not a right. It's a good or an investment in a better future. For humanitarian reasons, I would support free, basic public schools teaching the overall populace basic stuff about their country. However, attendance should be voluntary and kids who constantly violate the rules and refuse to study should be expelled. High schools and universities should be private and paid for, while maintaining the scholarship system to allow brighter and poorer students to move up.
I believe that a person's wealth is not to be touched or tampered with. If we are to redistribute one bit of a billionaire's fortune, then why not go a step further and make everyone equal with their money? Simply, because it's his money he worked hard for, earnt and he has the only right to use it as he wishes. Most billionaires support charity organisations anyway. Expropriation is acceptable, however only with compensation equal to the worth of the property or bigger.
Moreover, why should state officials decide where is the wealth necessary and where it is not? There is usually no one responsible for bad government financial decisions, the money is lost and the administration just won't win second term or something like that. The government doesn't need to care about whether a state program is economically efficient or needed or not, because it will receive the tax money anyway.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 30,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
I'm sorry but no. In order to achieve any kind of organised society, some degree socialism is necessary. Unless you want to do away with government institutions like the army or law enforcement....
You want to talk about effective, tell me what's effective about having people who are already born into poverty, denied a right to free education and a chance to improve their financial circumstance? Is it better for over half of your population to be uneducated? That means less doctors, less medicine, less technological advances, less diplomacy, more war, that sounds super effective right?
As for taxing the rich and aiding the poor. Even classical liberal John Locke knew believed that their should be a limit on accumulation of wealth. There are billionaire's who don't even spend half of their income, that money can be taxed and distributed more effectively.
|
I agree regarding army and law enforcement. Of course some degree of taxation is necessary. Am I willing to pay taxes to fund the army and the police? Absolutely. But am I willing, and should I be expected, to pay taxes to fund whatever project the government has dreamed up today? I think the purpose of the tax is just as important as the percentage of the tax.
As for there being a limit on what people can earn... I disagree fundamentally. I don't think anyone should be in the business of interfering in other people's affairs and telling them what they are 'allowed' to earn. They earned their wealth, they are entitled to it. In order to accumulate so much wealth, they more than likely employed a lot of people, provided a number of goods or services that many other people enjoyed or relied on, and paid a lot of money in tax already. If you cap their earnings, all they will do is stop earning at the cap. Why would they work for free? And in that action they prevent further job and wealth creation.
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lights and Waves
How are liberals over when Hill's lead is already past 1 million and the poll numbers showed that 18-25 all voted blue
|
18 - 29 babes. Don't leave me out!
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Three wolves can outvote one sheep about eating it. Obviously the poor will want money for free, because most poor people in Western countries will blame everything else but themselves for their situation. I mean, of course they might not become very well-off in a second, but how hard can it be not to make poor life choices to lead a normal, lower middle class life?
|
This is really heartbreaking to read. You're in my prayers.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 9,393
|
Nope. The neo-cons, the alt-right, and the ATRL edgy girls may think that they have it made, but liberals are gonna become more militant, less tolerant of the right's b.s., and more determined to fight the system.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 30,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PoisonPill
You are a truly despicable person who has obviously never lived a day knowing what it's like to be born poor and not be able to advance despite working yourself to death every day of your life.
|
The point is perfectly fair, though. There is nothing stopping working class or poor people from doing things to be socially upwardly mobile.
One of my closest friends came from a very poor background. He worked his ass off at school, he didn't mess around, he didn't get into trouble and he did really well in his exams. Now he is at a really good university and will probably get a really good job that pays well.
The fact is, as long as education exists, there is nothing stopping people from making good individual decisions to progress in life. In fact, the incentive should be greater. Work hard at school, pay attention in class, don't get into trouble. These aren't difficult things. And they are actions that I have seen happen throughout my life with friends from two schools and two universities.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PoisonPill
You are a truly despicable person who has obviously never lived a day knowing what it's like to be born poor and not be able to advance despite working yourself to death every day of your life.
|
Appealing to emotion because you're losing and trying to offend me. There are numerous charity organisations that can help the poor on a much fairer and better basis than government funds, demotivating people from working to improve their life conditions.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ace Reject
This is really heartbreaking to read. You're in my prayers.
|
Sorry for not being compassionate for the people whose poverty is their fault in modern Western societies. And sorry for not being 'sensitive' about it. I respect people who work hard to move up the wealth ladder as productive members of the society.
|
|
|
|
|