Priceless!

 

...A political n00b...?

You missed Heiress to a hotel chain.   That's Hot.

Do you honestly believe Obama is a socialist?!?!

I wouldn't mind it. We need more socialism.

I wish Obama believed in class warfare, because that's exactly what this country needs.



I'm sorry you hate America so much, but we have a government which provides a wide variety of services for a wide variety of reasons almost none of which have ever had to do with "liberty". Do you honestly believe the government has ever given a shit about liberty? Do you really think this is actually a meritocracy?

Re: Income redistribution - that's the fundamental basis on which all governments are organized. In exchange for a slice of our pie they throw pie at problems. In the case of Obama, he would like to take a smaller slice of pie from those of us who make less than $250,000 a year, the same amount of pie that Clinton took from those who make more than $250,000 per year, and make some changes to what problems the pie gets thrown at. So what? Honestly, Obama is a fucking sissy about this - if he were a real socialist, or even if he were a fucking pre-Goldwater Republican, he'd see that it's necessary to do whatever it takes to stop the economic stratification that's been going on in this country for the past few decades before it is too late (if it isn't already).

Dick,
Meritocracy, free markets, LIBERTY will create differences in income.  Liberty means the freedom to succeed but also the freedom to fail.  Bill Gates didn't start with a lot of money, but he became the richest man in the country.  And he did it because he made a successful company.  Someone else might not work as hard or might not be as smart.  Should that person be "entitled to succeed" despite not having or doing what Gates did?  More importantly, should he be entitled to some of Gates' success?


Rik,
You want a consistent image?  You want liberty and equality?  If I take something from you, I am violating your rights.  I am taking away your liberty.  Why is it different because the government does it?  If Ron Paul was president he would take less from you than Barack Obama.  Does Obama's election mean it's okay for the government to take more?
As to the "losses" that have come from abolition or suffrage, those are only real losses if you don't believe human beings of different sexes and ethicities are fundamentally equal.  If you believe black people really are property, then the slave owners did suffer real losses.  If you believe women shouldn't be able to vote, then the existing voter base did lose a real measure of control.  I think we can all agree that neither of those to predicates are true, so the "losses" are immaterial.  On the other hand, monetary success is by no means such a black and white issue (no pun intended).  Referring back to Bill Gates, he succeeded by building Microsoft and earned his money by creating a product a lot of people bought.  A person's success shouldn't entitle the government to take it from him (even though, in the reality of our current government, it does).  The situation can be put into the same framework as the flawed examples above by saying: If you believe people have the right to keep what they legitimately earn, then taking it from them creates a real loss.  Unlike sex and ethnicity, differences in skill and work ethic (a.k.a. merit) are fundamental differences between people that do and will exist in spite of "progressives'" attempts to say otherwise.


What so many people don't seem to get is... there is no such thing as government charity.  Governments have only one function: force.  Any time they create a program, any time they "help" someone by giving them healthcare or free education, they do it by first violating someone else's liberty to keep what they legitimately earn.  A certain level of taxes is a necessary evil, if we want a national military or police force, for instance.  But any more than what's a necessary evil is... simply... evil.  Contrast that with real charity: when someone chooses to give money they themselves earned to help someone else, a number of things happen.  First, the money is used infinitely better -- people will always be more careful spending their own money than someone else's.  This means a dollar of real charity will go much further than a government-taken dollar ($600 toilet seats, anyone?).  Most importantly, for someone concerned with consistency in advocating real liberty and equality for all people (yes, even the successful ones), real charity violates no one's rights, and makes the donor feel good in the process.