Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/18/2004 6:20:28 AM EST
This article sums it up nicely. May our chains rest lightly upon us

www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder8.html
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:33:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:16:07 AM EST
WTF did I just read?
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:18:27 AM EST
I need Cliff's Notes, that confused the hell outta me. What was his point?
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:22:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
I need Cliff's Notes, that confused the hell outta me. What was his point?



He's saying that even with RKBA, we're under the boot of a tyrannical .gov. He says that as long as we have RKBA, we will not rise up against the .gov, no matter how many other rights we lose.

He has a point. He just didn't make it all that clearly.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:25:05 AM EST
I was going to post that this morning, but then I decided that Snyder was long on complaints and short on solutions. What is the answer? He doesn't tell us.

Snyder wrote "A Nation of Cowards," a piece I have used to convince more than a few people into being gun owners. I am currently working on a friend who is a school teacher who absolutely hates guns. He is very confused.



Do we lack freedom in America? Yup, we sure do! Is voting going to get it back? Nope. What will? Telling the politicians to go to hell would be a good start.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:26:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



They should certainly NOT lose that.
Doing away or reforming SS is a fine and correct thing. Denying 40 years of paying into is robbery and should be dealt with severely.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:27:00 AM EST
We already see the results of this now; most people are used to sucking of .gov's teet, so they couldn't imagine armed revolution. That makes RKBA a non-issue for them.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:28:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Do we lack freedom in America? Yup, we sure do! Is voting going to get it back? Nope. What will? Telling the politicians to go to hell would be a good start.



But, the problem is, how do we effectively tell the politicians to go to hell. A few people have tried it on their own, but raising a flag in front of your trailer home and declaring your independence doesn't work. So, it has to be a massive effort across the nation, one the government can't ignore or suppress.

I don't think we are a that point, yet.

GET OUT AND VOTE, and pray. It ain't over yet.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:50:00 AM EST
heh, I thought this link might be a bit much for GD. Not enough PIE or BOTD

As individuals, we can't accomplish much on a local level. But how do we get a truly conservative message across, a message which the vast majority of modern day Americans are ignorant or disapproving of? Tough to do, if not currently impossible, when most people probably ARE content with their daily lives.

Too many people accept far too much assistance to want to see it go away, and Big Brother keeps promising more slop for the hogs. But at some point, not enough slop will be available, as the producers can only produce so much.

I think things will have to get a lot worse before they get better.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:07:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:20:45 AM EST
The gun issue only confused the point of that essay, which was an outstanding one.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:23:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:23:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By RAVYN:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



They should certainly NOT lose that.
Doing away or reforming SS is a fine and correct thing. Denying 40 years of paying into is robbery and should be dealt with severely.

That's happening right now. The government spent my Dad's SS pay-ins years ago.
I'm paying for him RIGHT NOW.
I have no realistic hope that SS will be there for me.
I am likely being robbed, and will never see that money.
So are you.
Why?
Because there is no such thing as individual SS accounts. It is a general fund, and the government draws out money for various other projects.
Somebody is going to lose something before it is over with, and the victims are just going to have to deal with it.



I agree with your assessment DF. But you can't deny anyone who has paid in. I don't have a clean cut answer. Do we stop taking money from say ...the 21yr olds...Let them invest on thier own. Earmark certain money from an already taxed item and fund SS for the ones who have paid in but not allow any more people to enter the program...don't know...its a shit deal no matter how you look at it...
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:39:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 9:40:33 AM EST by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:42:15 AM EST
SS is a boondoggle at this point. Our society ages, with more benefits promised daily to the masses by both parties. You do the math.

If I could opt out of SS now and keep all my future $ to be paid in to the sustem (I'm still in my late 30's) I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I think the use of the second amendment in this article was quite clever-and sadly right on target. We are being bent over the barrel in many other ways.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:46:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 9:47:28 AM EST by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:54:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Ravyn, how do you convince those people who think that a PROPER function of government is taking care of people's retirement (conversely, if there are privatized retirement accounts, then private corporations are hogging power, which makes it fascism) that retirment acounts should be privatized because the government has so royally screwed things up?

There are also a growing number of people who figure that the next barrier of freedom to tackle in an advanced civilized society is that of economic freedom. This isn't just a passing thought, but rather a cornerstone of their vision for the future. Right now they will tell you that you are a slave to the almighty dollar, and thus cannot be truly free.

The possibility of a gun ban scared me for a SHORT time. Then I realized exactly the point of the above article. If you can make people embrace the concept of a benevolent and powerful government, you can get them to do anything to keep it. The fact that gun control is such a hot potato issue can be used against us. They throw us a bone and let us keep a controversial gun and we'll sit back and keep quiet about whatever else they do.

It always bothered me a little when I ran into somebody who was a single issue voter. If there are enough people who pay attention to only one issue, then the Statists can leave the issue alone or even advance it, and whatever else the government is doing is going unnoticed.

Several years back, I kept having gunhaters tell me that they'd accept a dictatorship in place of our current Republic if the dictatorship would promise them safety.

How do you argue with that?



Sadly, there IS no rational arguement for that. (in thier minds). You would be arguing the proposition that people must work harder and for less security. Your arguement would only work if your opponent wasn't lazy. The majority of americans will take the easy road every time.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:56:30 AM EST
I am split on this. On one hand I think "gee, we win on the sunset of the AWB, and congress passes a law forbidding the use of your SSN for identification purposes, but you people are still complaining."

On the other hand, I remember the following quote from the trailer for Celcious 41.5 (or something):

"If a dictator provides free health care and free college education then I like that dictator"
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:58:08 AM EST
I've given the SS/medicare question a lot of thought, and the most likely outcome is monetization of the trust funds.

In other words they'll sell the bonds that are currently in the trust funds, that are backed only by the taxing power of the state, to the Fed, which will simply create the cash necessary.

Of course this will lead to significant inflation and the money the boomers get back won't buy as much as the money they paid in, but at least they'll get paid.

Money really just confuses the issue, the real issue is whether or not we can produce enough goods to go around.

Tax rates are another of these issues that people are confused about, the tax rates mean nothing.

What matters is what percentage of GDP government consumes. It doesn't matter if it pays for that consumption with tax money, interest revenue from the federal reserve, issueing debt, or just printing the money. All that does is transfer the burden from one citizen to another, the people pay the full burden of government spending regardless.

In order to have a rational discussion about taxation first you have to decide how much government should consume, and then you should decide what the fairest way to fund it is. We never have that discussion in American politics, we have tax and spend vs. borrow and spend and those are our choices.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 9:59:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:00:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:03:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By RAVYN:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



They should certainly NOT lose that.
Doing away or reforming SS is a fine and correct thing. Denying 40 years of paying into is robbery and should be dealt with severely.



somebody is going to have to lose their payments. More than likely it will be the children of the baby boomers who pay into social security their entire lives but never see any return.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:09:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
You got it right, Ravyn. Enough people really do buy into the 'civilized society' poppycock and won't let go of the dream, that the whole system will have to collapse before anything changes.



Its a shame...but quite frankly...beyond our control...



Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:17:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:28:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 10:33:48 AM EST by danonly]

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
How do you explain liberty to people (the left) who think that freedom is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to keep and bear arms, but rather that real freedom is being free of economic burdens?
And that the best way to that freedom is economic redistribution and eliminating capitalism?
How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



wtf?

you forgot the sarcasm smiley df.

ok, i'm totally confused. being free of economic burdens is socialism or communism? isn't that what economic redistribution is? isn't that the opposite of capitalism?


Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:38:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 10:44:14 AM EST by the]

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
How do you explain liberty to people (the left) who think that freedom is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to keep and bear arms, but rather that real freedom is being free of economic burdens?



I'm not sure you can.

But some have unknowingly 'tried.' Death, while not quite as fun as free stuff, can provide 'freedom' from those economic burdens as well. And it seems the more famous opponents of those burdens only seem to deliver freedom in that way.

Given the ineffectiveness of those stark examples, I think those leftists unfortunately need to live under the systems they desire. Leftism grows when it is insulated from feedback, shrinks when it is not. We're just on the upward slope of that cycle, perhaps.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 10:53:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 11:26:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 11:37:33 AM EST by ABNAK]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By RAVYN:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



They should certainly NOT lose that.
Doing away or reforming SS is a fine and correct thing. Denying 40 years of paying into is robbery and should be dealt with severely.



somebody is going to have to lose their payments. More than likely it will be the children of the baby boomers who pay into social security their entire lives but never see any return.




SS is something that should have never been started, at least mandatorily. I had no choice. I had to pay into it. I want the ride that I'm paying for now when my time comes. I'm not willing to be on the shitty side of the line that says "you've been selected to eat it for the betterment of the country". Fuck that. It's not an entitlement mentality. IT'S WHAT I'VE PAID FOR!!!

Perhaps there has to be a point where we no longer take from young people and then they don't get it when they retire. But then you've got to figure out a way to fairly "close out" the system by paying WHAT'S DUE to those above the cutoff.

Can't come up with the $$$ to either pay me back or give me SS? How about a little trade-off? I can take my 401K out when I retire WITHOUT ANY TAXES ON IT. Fair enough? Or even better---I don't have to pay any income tax until it equals what I've paid into SS. Yeah, that's the ticket!


Link Posted: 10/18/2004 12:01:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By danonly:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
How do you explain liberty to people (the left) who think that freedom is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to keep and bear arms, but rather that real freedom is being free of economic burdens?
And that the best way to that freedom is economic redistribution and eliminating capitalism?
How does one go about explaining to people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years that they should lose that?



wtf?

you forgot the sarcasm smiley df.

ok, i'm totally confused. being free of economic burdens is socialism or communism? isn't that what economic redistribution is? isn't that the opposite of capitalism?

You're not as confused as you think you are.
Yes, it is the opposite of capitalism, in a sense. Karl Marx also opinied that capitalism naturally evolves into socialism and then communism.
Here's where DU has been an extremely valuable tool to me. I never understood longterm motivations for communism, because I view it as economic slavery, where you are shackled to an oppressive government and you have no rights outside of what the beaurocrats grant you.
However, the proponents don't look at the evils of communism, but rather at what they see as the evils of capitalism. One easy facet to undersatand is the fact that the capitalist economy is cyclic. There are good times and there are bad times. It is always be that way in capitalism.
Communism aims to correct that with government intervention; the redistribution of income prevents money from pooling on one place.
Next time some politician scowls at you from the TV, wags his finger, and says "The richer get richer and the poor get poorer," remember that that inequality is taken by the state-ist as an evil of capitalism that punishes the unfortunate, while we see the system as rewarding of personal initiative and hard work.
Both sides look at the same thing and view it differently.



we don't have pure capitalism in this country.

Pure capitalism works about as well as pure communism. You wind up with an elite group in power with everyone else sucking hind tit.

Our system has lots of limitations to prevent the excesses that a purely capitalistic economy would bring.

Link Posted: 10/18/2004 1:22:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Do we lack freedom in America? Yup, we sure do! Is voting going to get it back? Nope. What will? Telling the politicians to go to hell would be a good start.



If voting won't get it back, then you are already screwed because you can get a lot more with a few million votes than you will with twice that number in rifles - and if you can't find that many votes, I wouldn't be holding my breath for them to pick up rifles.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 1:32:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:

Do we lack freedom in America? Yup, we sure do! Is voting going to get it back? Nope. What will? Telling the politicians to go to hell would be a good start.





I've said it before and I'll say it again - the politicians are not the problem. The problem is that we have an extremely ignorant electoral population.

People have no idea what freedom is, or what "rights" really are, and are not. Too many think "rights" have to do with cable TV, jobs and low gas prices.

Until the electorate is MUCH better educated, which the liberal politicians do not want, we will cntinue to slide more towards socialism.

CMOS
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 4:03:23 PM EST
Top Top