Petulant Children of UC Berkeley

[nando]

is it derogatory to call you a white nationalist because you're a fan of Briebart?

[TimeMachinE30]

Free speech for me, not thee.



Can we protest outside your place? Prevent the free flow of traffic to your place of work or worship or desire? Burn your items? Trash your places?


That is the big sigh of relief with this instutions ignorance: burn your own shit, teach me a lesson.

[marshallnoise]

I just think its wrong to throw people into groups. It makes no sense on that same individualist level that Frederic talks about.

I voted for Bernie, because I thought he was honest, and looking out for us as a nation. Not interested in personal goal or grandeur. Obviously the Democratic party didn't, with all their different methods to obstruct his popularity.

I also vote Pro 2nd Amendment whenever an Issue comes up I can vote on in whichever state Im living in, as Im a strong proprietor of an armed and defensible nation. Although I do wish gun stores required a Gun safety class before purchase, too many idiots with firearms today.

Its just improper to label people, we are all individuals. All different.

Not trying to continue this shitshow but Bastiat called socialists out and labeled them as such at every corner. How do you reconcile that? I would say he reconciled that because he knew that the leftist/socialist doesn't value freedom/individualism in the first place.

I think you fear being labeled and then written off immediately thereafter. I understand that. With me, personally, you can be who you are and I have no issues with you. You are a smart guy and I respect that.

[mbonder]

he reconciled that because he knew that the leftist/socialist doesn't value freedom/individualism in the first place.

How is it possible that this statement can be made? This is what WSchnitz was getting at in his recent posts, you are categorizing an entire portion of the population with this statement. Just because someone believes in having social safety nets such as medicaid and social security doesn't mean that they don't value individualism and freedom.

I would also say that the benefit of some social policies is that they provide a person with the ability to take risks because there is a parachute available if they fail. I would say that this increases freedom for an individual to make choices that they wouldn't otherwise make.

Obviously there are social programs that overstep their original intention, or are only beneficial for one specific sector of the country, but by and large, I don't think that having social security or other such programs, or supporting them for that matter makes a person less interested in individuality or freedom.

[z31maniac]

How is it possible that this statement can be made? This is what WSchnitz was getting at in his recent posts, you are categorizing an entire portion of the population with this statement. Just because someone believes in having social safety nets such as medicaid and social security doesn't mean that they don't value individualism and freedom.

I would also say that the benefit of some social policies is that they provide a person with the ability to take risks because there is a parachute available if they fail. I would say that this increases freedom for an individual to make choices that they wouldn't otherwise make.

Obviously there are social programs that overstep their original intention, or are only beneficial for one specific sector of the country, but by and large, I don't think that having social security or other such programs, or supporting them for that matter makes a person less interested in individuality or freedom.

*golf clap*

[marshallnoise]

How is it possible that this statement can be made? This is what WSchnitz was getting at in his recent posts, you are categorizing an entire portion of the population with this statement. Just because someone believes in having social safety nets such as medicaid and social security doesn't mean that they don't value individualism and freedom.

I would also say that the benefit of some social policies is that they provide a person with the ability to take risks because there is a parachute available if they fail. I would say that this increases freedom for an individual to make choices that they wouldn't otherwise make.

Obviously there are social programs that overstep their original intention, or are only beneficial for one specific sector of the country, but by and large, I don't think that having social security or other such programs, or supporting them for that matter makes a person less interested in individuality or freedom.

Easy: If you have to confiscate money from one person to give it to another, that's antithetical to liberty and freedom.

Reconcile that through the prism of liberty.

[Wschnitz]

I think you need to give more thought to country scale and relative wealth before judging social policies. Marshall obviously is more of the libertarian train of thought, thinking everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. However its pretty apparent, at least in our country and in this era, it no longer works.

Its also questionable if it ever worked, in history, many of those people who boasted about being self made men, were often not self made men. Many of them had similar situations to President Trump, getting an inheritance and turning that into a life.

The only real big name in Recent History who cant be correctly attributed to being a self made man is easily Andrew Carnegie, and he held many positions on taxation that conservatives would find ridiculous. The Major one being that inheritance tax should be at or near 100%, Because a man/woman who has everything given to him or her is very unlikely to work a day in their life. Which is where a lot of conservatives draw parallels to socialist policies, saying welfare and UBI is the same thing. Which, can't really be said when the scales are extremely different, and individuals are tough to lob into one group in how they will act when supported with such policies.

[marshallnoise]

I disagree 100% with your idea about inheritance tax. That's just crazy. Most of the time, the only thing people have to pass down to their children is land that has been in their family for generations. Tax that at 100% and all you do is make everyone poor. That's just fucked up.

Look, I believe in safety nets, but in a very, very limited sense. If you are missing limbs, have well documented mental health issues, or have massive life altering events, we should help people. But we cannot have people on unemployment perpetually. We cannot have people on food stamps perpetually either. And we certainly can't continue subsidizing businesses and farms like we do too.

Bastiat, once again, sums up the state of welfare and government programs perfectly:

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

[Wschnitz]

Obviously you didn't read, its not my idea.

[marshallnoise]

Obviously you didn't read, its not my idea.

I just reread it. The way it was worded threw me off. Sorry about that.

Teddy Roosevelt was the one who introduced the inheritance tax.

[Wschnitz]

No problem, I do think there should be some Inheritance tax, but I don't agree with Carnegie that it needs to be 100% The benefit of Inheritance tax is it prevents dynasty's from forming, the negative is it often can be abused to take away land, family homes, etc that have been in family's for generations.

[marshallnoise]

No problem, I do think there should be some Inheritance tax, but I don't agree with Carnegie that it needs to be 100% The benefit of Inheritance tax is it prevents dynasty's from forming, the negative is it often can be abused to take away land, family homes, etc that have been in family's for generations.

I think it can be reasonable. One thing us Americans are unaware of, largely, is the idea of blue blood aristocracy that is prevalent in Europe. All over Europe there are thousands of families that have nearly all the wealth. We have a few of those families like the Rockefellers and Kennedys but, it ain't the same.

[decay]

marshall reminds me of that joke about how cats are the ultimate libertarians; totally convinced of their own independence but in reality, completely the opposite.

do you think *you've* never benefited from anything *my* tax dollars paid for? (hint: pretty sure i pay in more than you do)

[z31maniac]

Yeah, he's using developments from his parents and grandparents tax dollars to espouse his uninformed, narrow opinions.

(The Internet, in case anyone is wondering)

[Kershaw]

Easy: If you have to confiscate money from one person to give it to another, that's antithetical to liberty and freedom.

Reconcile that through the prism of liberty.

Easy? If you REALLY believe that, you should hate the USA. Because the USA is built on confiscating money/liberty/wealth/property from others and redistributing it.

From the very beginning right up to the present day. We took the land and wealth from the Native Americas and we took the money and wealth away from the Iraqis. That's the way we do business. And deregulation only enhances that mode of operation. The more money you have, the easier it is to make more money and keep others down. So technically, because you profit from living in the USA, and the USA confiscates wealth from other countries, I want to see you giving your ill gotten gains back. Please post videos of you handing out dollars to foreign governments.

Or you can stop being simple about this.