What does a conservative conserve or a liberal liberate?
-
I'd recently read an essay by H.G. Wells on the destruction of the English language. I thought I'd see what I could do to apply it to today. The double speak that he spoke of got me thinking of the labels put on the two parties and their respective subgroups. This of course can be expanded to both parties. The irony is that the word liberal and conservative are used in a way that doesn't reflect what the groups do. At one point or another both parties have been guilty of not following their own creed of the word used to describe them. 1)Their own money 2)The well being of the country 3)freedom 4)health care affordability 5)women's rights 6)following the law Anyone have any others they'd like to add to the list of false claims to the use of conservative or liberal? This is partially a joke so don't take it too seriously. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
You are becoming a conservative now?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I'd recently read an essay by H.G. Wells on the destruction of the English language. I thought I'd see what I could do to apply it to today. The double speak that he spoke of got me thinking of the labels put on the two parties and their respective subgroups. This of course can be expanded to both parties. The irony is that the word liberal and conservative are used in a way that doesn't reflect what the groups do. At one point or another both parties have been guilty of not following their own creed of the word used to describe them. 1)Their own money 2)The well being of the country 3)freedom 4)health care affordability 5)women's rights 6)following the law Anyone have any others they'd like to add to the list of false claims to the use of conservative or liberal? This is partially a joke so don't take it too seriously. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Since we're not to take this seriously, how about,
A conservative when in power will liberate you from your money while a liberal when in power
will conserve effective spending thus ensuring that your tax money will always be spent.:cool:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Since we're not to take this seriously, how about,
A conservative when in power will liberate you from your money while a liberal when in power
will conserve effective spending thus ensuring that your tax money will always be spent.:cool:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
Nice. :laugh: I don't think anyone else took this as the sarcastic joke it was meant to be.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I'd recently read an essay by H.G. Wells on the destruction of the English language. I thought I'd see what I could do to apply it to today. The double speak that he spoke of got me thinking of the labels put on the two parties and their respective subgroups. This of course can be expanded to both parties. The irony is that the word liberal and conservative are used in a way that doesn't reflect what the groups do. At one point or another both parties have been guilty of not following their own creed of the word used to describe them. 1)Their own money 2)The well being of the country 3)freedom 4)health care affordability 5)women's rights 6)following the law Anyone have any others they'd like to add to the list of false claims to the use of conservative or liberal? This is partially a joke so don't take it too seriously. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
The terms when used within a political context should be with respect to one's nation/state's founding documents or historical order. Therefore, a conservative's beliefs can be dramatically different than another conservative's beliefs of another nation/state. The same goes for the liberal qualifier. Conservative positions on various issues manifest from generally agreeing with intentions of the founders of the nation/state. Liberal positions stem from assumption that the founders failed in some way at setting the course of a nation/state. I guess that over a long period after a fundamental transition of a nation, the liberal and conservative names would neccessarily flip-flop in all respects.
-
The terms when used within a political context should be with respect to one's nation/state's founding documents or historical order. Therefore, a conservative's beliefs can be dramatically different than another conservative's beliefs of another nation/state. The same goes for the liberal qualifier. Conservative positions on various issues manifest from generally agreeing with intentions of the founders of the nation/state. Liberal positions stem from assumption that the founders failed in some way at setting the course of a nation/state. I guess that over a long period after a fundamental transition of a nation, the liberal and conservative names would neccessarily flip-flop in all respects.
It is real simple, you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny, there is no evolution of a government. Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted OR the people are less powerful, more regulated, and restricted.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
It is real simple, you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny, there is no evolution of a government. Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted OR the people are less powerful, more regulated, and restricted.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Ah yes, the happy black and white world of CSS, there is only 'a' or 'b' and nothing in between - the same way of thinking that most children grow out of by the time they hit sixteen
Rhys "With no power comes no responsibility"
-
It is real simple, you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny, there is no evolution of a government. Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted OR the people are less powerful, more regulated, and restricted.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny
Liberty --> liberation, liberated, liberal. Your true politicals have been revealed. CSS is the pinko commi liberal he has always said he hates. :-D
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
The terms when used within a political context should be with respect to one's nation/state's founding documents or historical order. Therefore, a conservative's beliefs can be dramatically different than another conservative's beliefs of another nation/state. The same goes for the liberal qualifier. Conservative positions on various issues manifest from generally agreeing with intentions of the founders of the nation/state. Liberal positions stem from assumption that the founders failed in some way at setting the course of a nation/state. I guess that over a long period after a fundamental transition of a nation, the liberal and conservative names would neccessarily flip-flop in all respects.
-
I'd recently read an essay by H.G. Wells on the destruction of the English language. I thought I'd see what I could do to apply it to today. The double speak that he spoke of got me thinking of the labels put on the two parties and their respective subgroups. This of course can be expanded to both parties. The irony is that the word liberal and conservative are used in a way that doesn't reflect what the groups do. At one point or another both parties have been guilty of not following their own creed of the word used to describe them. 1)Their own money 2)The well being of the country 3)freedom 4)health care affordability 5)women's rights 6)following the law Anyone have any others they'd like to add to the list of false claims to the use of conservative or liberal? This is partially a joke so don't take it too seriously. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
It is real simple, you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny, there is no evolution of a government. Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted OR the people are less powerful, more regulated, and restricted.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted
What would be the nature of your ideal Government? How would you ensure that it remained less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted?
The government at the federal level would be responsible for the military, immigration protocol, and currency. States would be solely responsible for law enforcement and construction of public state highways. City and county level would be to responsible for local law enforcement, ordinances, and basic roads. The courts would be the engine of law enforcement, and they shouldn't cost anything since they are the whole point in having a government. If you can't get justice without paying mega fees then whats the point in having a government?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
It is real simple, you either have Liberty or you have Tryanny, there is no evolution of a government. Government is either less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted OR the people are less powerful, more regulated, and restricted.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The government at the federal level would be responsible for the military, immigration protocol, and currency. States would be solely responsible for law enforcement and construction of public state highways. City and county level would be to responsible for local law enforcement, ordinances, and basic roads. The courts would be the engine of law enforcement, and they shouldn't cost anything since they are the whole point in having a government. If you can't get justice without paying mega fees then whats the point in having a government?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You have described the nature of your Government. Now, how would you ensure that it remained less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted?
ict558 wrote:
Now, how would you ensure that it remained less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted?
By not allowing a central bank to control the currency and throw money around wherever it pleases in near total secrecy. By not allowing the government to run the school system. By not allowing the government to give people free money in echange for votes.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Now, how would you ensure that it remained less powerful, more regulated, and more restricted?
By not allowing a central bank to control the currency and throw money around wherever it pleases in near total secrecy. By not allowing the government to run the school system. By not allowing the government to give people free money in echange for votes.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing a central bank to control the currency and throw money around wherever it pleases in near total secrecy.
Fair enough.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing the government to run the school system.
Who will run the school system? How will it be funded?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing the government to give people free money in echange for votes.
How will a free and democratically elected legislature be prevented from doing this?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing a central bank to control the currency and throw money around wherever it pleases in near total secrecy.
Fair enough.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing the government to run the school system.
Who will run the school system? How will it be funded?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
By not allowing the government to give people free money in echange for votes.
How will a free and democratically elected legislature be prevented from doing this?
ict558 wrote:
Who will run the school system? How will it be funded?
Schools would be private, paid for directly. It would create a competitive environment as far as increasing quality of education and decreasing prices of tuition. Charity would certainly be available for certain low income families. After all, with hardly any taxes and regulations, the economy would be booming and people would be more inclined to donate to a cause.
ict558 wrote:
How will a free and democratically elected legislature be prevented from doing this?
It has to be designed within the system. The Constitution is the law, it cannot be ignored. Just as a regular joe blow gets arrested for fraud or scamming someone, so should the politicians.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
Who will run the school system? How will it be funded?
Schools would be private, paid for directly. It would create a competitive environment as far as increasing quality of education and decreasing prices of tuition. Charity would certainly be available for certain low income families. After all, with hardly any taxes and regulations, the economy would be booming and people would be more inclined to donate to a cause.
ict558 wrote:
How will a free and democratically elected legislature be prevented from doing this?
It has to be designed within the system. The Constitution is the law, it cannot be ignored. Just as a regular joe blow gets arrested for fraud or scamming someone, so should the politicians.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Schools would be private, paid for directly. It would create a competitive environment as far as increasing quality of education and decreasing prices of tuition.
The wealth of the customer determines the quality of education, just as it determines the quality of home, car, clothes, furniture, etc. As the free market has stratified stores by socioeconomic status, so it will stratify schools.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Charity would certainly [my emphasis] be available for certain low income families. After all, with hardly any taxes and regulations, the economy would be booming and people would be more inclined to donate to a cause.
"Certainly" is too strong a word. Taxes are factored into people's incomes, when taxation is removed, salaries will fall. With regards to regulations - is anybody regulating the schools, or are we leaving this to parental oversight? People might be prepared to donate to a cause, but there are many candidate causes. Personally, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is way ahead of educating other people's kids.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The Constitution is the law, it cannot be ignored.
All systems can be gamed. It is not necessary to break the law to achieve an objective.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Just as a regular joe blow gets arrested for fraud or scamming someone, so should the politicians.
Very true. Have you an example of a politician committing a criminal fraud or scam? "Change you can believe in" and "Read my lips 'No new taxes'" are hardly criminal.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The courts would be the engine of law enforcement, and they shouldn't cost anything since they are the whole point in having a government. If you can't get justice without paying mega fees then whats the point in having a government?
To rephrase your comment on School funding: Lawyers are private, paid for directly. Creating a competitive environment; increasing the quality of, and decreasing the price of, legal services.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Schools would be private, paid for directly. It would create a competitive environment as far as increasing quality of education and decreasing prices of tuition.
The wealth of the customer determines the quality of education, just as it determines the quality of home, car, clothes, furniture, etc. As the free market has stratified stores by socioeconomic status, so it will stratify schools.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Charity would certainly [my emphasis] be available for certain low income families. After all, with hardly any taxes and regulations, the economy would be booming and people would be more inclined to donate to a cause.
"Certainly" is too strong a word. Taxes are factored into people's incomes, when taxation is removed, salaries will fall. With regards to regulations - is anybody regulating the schools, or are we leaving this to parental oversight? People might be prepared to donate to a cause, but there are many candidate causes. Personally, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is way ahead of educating other people's kids.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The Constitution is the law, it cannot be ignored.
All systems can be gamed. It is not necessary to break the law to achieve an objective.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Just as a regular joe blow gets arrested for fraud or scamming someone, so should the politicians.
Very true. Have you an example of a politician committing a criminal fraud or scam? "Change you can believe in" and "Read my lips 'No new taxes'" are hardly criminal.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The courts would be the engine of law enforcement, and they shouldn't cost anything since they are the whole point in having a government. If you can't get justice without paying mega fees then whats the point in having a government?
To rephrase your comment on School funding: Lawyers are private, paid for directly. Creating a competitive environment; increasing the quality of, and decreasing the price of, legal services.
ict558 wrote:
The wealth of the customer determines the quality of education, just as it determines the quality of home, car, clothes, furniture, etc. As the free market has stratified stores by socioeconomic status, so it will stratify schools.
That is how it should be. Private charities could and probably would exist that would go directly to schools, and I'm sure there would be more than enough people willing to donate considerable amount of money to these charities.
ict558 wrote:
Taxes are factored into people's incomes, when taxation is removed, salaries will fall.
The less taxes there are, the velocity of money increases, growing the economy.
ict558 wrote:
With regards to regulations - is anybody regulating the schools, or are we leaving this to parental oversight?
It is strictly parental oversight. The type of education parents want to provide for there children is strictly their choice, not anyone elses.
ict558 wrote:
Have you an example of a politician committing a criminal fraud or scam?
Yeah, just read the news you can find new examples everyday.
ict558 wrote:
All systems can be gamed. It is not necessary to break the law to achieve an objective.
It depends on whether the majority of people just sit and watch american idol while eating a microwave dinner.
ict558 wrote:
To rephrase your comment on School funding: Lawyers are private, paid for directly. Creating a competitive environment; increasing the quality of, and decreasing the price of, legal services.
Nobody said lawyers would be free. Just the use of the court system. You can make your case without a lawyer but if you want professional consulting then you have to pay for it. Just like any other kind of consulting, you have to pay for it.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[[](</x-turndown)
-
ict558 wrote:
The wealth of the customer determines the quality of education, just as it determines the quality of home, car, clothes, furniture, etc. As the free market has stratified stores by socioeconomic status, so it will stratify schools.
That is how it should be. Private charities could and probably would exist that would go directly to schools, and I'm sure there would be more than enough people willing to donate considerable amount of money to these charities.
ict558 wrote:
Taxes are factored into people's incomes, when taxation is removed, salaries will fall.
The less taxes there are, the velocity of money increases, growing the economy.
ict558 wrote:
With regards to regulations - is anybody regulating the schools, or are we leaving this to parental oversight?
It is strictly parental oversight. The type of education parents want to provide for there children is strictly their choice, not anyone elses.
ict558 wrote:
Have you an example of a politician committing a criminal fraud or scam?
Yeah, just read the news you can find new examples everyday.
ict558 wrote:
All systems can be gamed. It is not necessary to break the law to achieve an objective.
It depends on whether the majority of people just sit and watch american idol while eating a microwave dinner.
ict558 wrote:
To rephrase your comment on School funding: Lawyers are private, paid for directly. Creating a competitive environment; increasing the quality of, and decreasing the price of, legal services.
Nobody said lawyers would be free. Just the use of the court system. You can make your case without a lawyer but if you want professional consulting then you have to pay for it. Just like any other kind of consulting, you have to pay for it.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[[](</x-turndown)
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That is how it should be.
Fine, the majority of kids get a Walmart education ...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Private charities could and probably would exist that would go directly to schools
... and the poorest get a Thrift Shop education.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
and I'm sure there would be more than enough people willing to donate considerable amount of money to these charities
Sunshine, Lollipops, and Rainbows, everything that's wonderful is sure to come your way ... I hate to rain on your parade, but isn't "Tough, you shouldn't have had kids if you can't afford them." more likely?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The [less fewer] taxes there are, the velocity of money increases, growing the economy.
A strange remark for a disciple of von Mises. However, setting that aside, I have not seen any description of a link between taxation and the Velocity of Money. How many dollars' worth of transactions does $100 of Tax spent by the Government generate? How many dollars' worth of transactions does $100 of Tax Saving spent by its Recipient generate? If that $100 finances $2,000 in transactions in a quarter, each dollar has been used 20 times, its Velocity is 20. Were it to finance $1,000 in transactions, its Velocity would be 10. Even if the Government and the Recipient were to spend that $100 on an identical item, there is no way of knowing how many dollars' worth of subsequent transactions the $100 would generate, so their Velocity is indeterminate. This is why the Velocity is calculated from aggregates, e.g., as a function of GDP and the average total amount of Money in circulation for a given period.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is strictly parental oversight.
The parents will assess the effectiveness and quality of the teaching?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The type of education parents want to provide for there children is strictly their choice, not anyone [else's].
So there will be many, smaller, schools to cater for different requirements of parents (Religious, Political, Ethnic, ...)?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yeah, just read the news you can f