The Price of Oil

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Scott

doesn't "Protect" = "Safety?"

Protect = preserve. Safety = socialism.

This has nothing to do with military provided protection.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by F&L

Protect = preserve. Safety = socialism.

This has nothing to do with military provided protection.

BLATHER!!!!


Can you split hairs MORE?

How does Safety = Socialism?????

Why not say Safety = Security??? and Security = Nazism????

Aaannnnd therefore Safety = Nazism???

Have you been tortured in some Southeastern Asian Brainwashing Program???

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Scott

BLATHER!!!!


Can you split hairs MORE?

How does Safety = Socialism?????

Why not say Safety = Security??? and Security = Nazism????

Aaannnnd therefore Safety = Nazism???

Have you been tortured in some Southeastern Asian Brainwashing Program???

Now you're just playing semantic games. These days socialism provides many safety nets. Government retirement programs, health care, welfare, subsidized housing and even regulations on businesses like the FDA & USDA all provide safety at taxpayer expense. Whether you want this safety or not, some freedom & property will forcefully be taken.

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by boedicca

Here's the problem:

The moral relativism of giving Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran etc. an equal voice with Free States only benefits thugs. Making brutal dictatorships with terrible human rights records the peers of nations with decent human rights only legitimizes the formers' abuse of their populations.

No thank you.

How do you plan to deal with them then? Kick those countries out and have them form there own sudo alliance of nations? History says that is a bad idea. Kick them out and leave further leave the inhabitants of those nations out on a limb? That won't solve anything.

You have to start somewhere and a free voice is that. You come from a stable democratic nation right? You belive that where you come from people should have the right to voice what they want? You belive everyone should have an equal vote? Even if some of those people are not nice, might belive in questionable things and do bad things?

Originally Posted by Scott

doesn't "Protect" = "Safety?"

If not, I don't see how, unless its done with "purely defensive" Patriot Missile Systems.

I never could understand the whole 'Ministry of Defence'. Maybe they should be called 'Ministry of Offence'. At least in the 40's in Britian we has a 'War Department' and a 'Minister for War'. Sounds a bit more honest.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by F&L

Now you're just playing semantic games. These days socialism provides many safety nets. Government retirement programs, health care, welfare, subsidized housing and even regulations on businesses like the FDA & USDA all provide safety at taxpayer expense. Whether you want this safety or not, some freedom & property will forcefully be taken.

Oh, I see, I'M "playing semanic games" but YOU aren't.

And "Socalism" is a government program that YOU don't use.

Security is a government program that YOU do use.

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Scott

Oh, I see, I'M "playing semanic games" but YOU aren't.

And "Socalism" is a government program that YOU don't use.

Security is a government program that YOU do use.

Socialism is used to keep specific people within society from having to make decisions. Even when you aren't one of those specific people, you still have to pay for it. The military is used to keep the nation secure.

[boedicca]

Originally Posted by Scott

Blather.

The more power the people have, the better. Government represents the people.

Scuze Moi - but concentrating power in the Government is not the equivalent of Individuals having power and control over their own lives. Yes, Government ostensibly represents The People - but the old bromide that Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely still rings true.

[boedicca]

Originally Posted by Mondo

How do you plan to deal with them then? Kick those countries out and have them form there own sudo alliance of nations? History says that is a bad idea. Kick them out and leave further leave the inhabitants of those nations out on a limb? That won't solve anything.

The U.N. headquarters should be in a nation which represents the condition of the greatest proportion of people on the planet: a squalid third world country in which most people live in abject poverty. Why should The Bureaucrats be living it up in New York City with diplomatic immunity that enables them to get away with rape and unpaid parking tickets?

You have to start somewhere and a free voice is that. You come from a stable democratic nation right? You belive that where you come from people should have the right to voice what they want? You belive everyone should have an equal vote? Even if some of those people are not nice, might belive in questionable things and do bad things?

Then let's form an organization of Free States in which certain decent standards of human rights are prerequisites for membership. All the U.N. does is degrade Human Rights by making decent ones the moral equivalent of totalitarian abuse.

Regarding everyone having an equal voice - that is a responsibility as well as a right. Regimes which have proven themselves to be abusers of human rights have voided their right to have input into how nations should cooperate. I also refute your implication that the U.N. should be some form of Supra-Government to which sovereign nations are subservient. Zimbabwe should have no voice in the policies of the U.S., U.K., Canada, Netherlands, etc.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by F&L

Now you're just playing semantic games. These days socialism provides many safety nets. .

Originally Posted by F&L

Socialism is used to keep specific people within society from having to make decisions.

Ah, so it is your PERCEPTION that people that have "safety nets" are encouraged to dance carelessly along the highwire of life, when otherwise, everyone would become perfect balanced, there would be no wind or rain, and everyone would progress across the wire at a sober rate.

Yes, you keep believing in your little Utopia

Originally Posted by boedicca

Scuze Moi - but concentrating power in the Government is not the equivalent of Individuals having power and control over their own lives. Yes, Government ostensibly represents The People - but the old bromide that Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely still rings true.

BLATHER!

Platitudes might serve you well on some desert island, but you'd be the first one to complain about the inefficiency of Govenment Funded Resuce Programs after a day of eating nothing but Coconuts and Fiddler Crabs.

[boedicca]

No, one wouldn't.

But if you wish to cede all of your income and liberty to government bureaucrats, go ahead. Just leave those of us who don't out of your equation.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by boedicca

No, one wouldn't.

But if you wish to cede all of your income and liberty to government bureaucrats, go ahead. Just leave those of us who don't out of your equation.

ONE would be Knashing One's Teeth, and Renduring One's clothing after a single day of Cappuccino Withdrawl.....One would be the first on the beach to line up coconuts spelling "Help, WE NEED A GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESCUE PLANE TO SEE THIS MESSAGE!!!"

[F&L]

Originally Posted by Scott

Ah, so it is your PERCEPTION that people that have "safety nets" are encouraged to dance carelessly along the highwire of life, when otherwise, everyone would become perfect balanced, there would be no wind or rain, and everyone would progress across the wire at a sober rate.

Yes, you keep believing in your little Utopia

Simply having a safety nets allows them to be careless. The freedom to fail must exist or no real progress can be made.