Fascism, Socialism, and Communism

[Burke]

Anarchism is just the rule of many small thugs instead of one big one.

And it degenerates into the rule of one big one.

There is no rational alternative to having one govt dedicated to protecting individual rights.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Burke

Anarchism is just the rule of many small thugs instead of one big one.

And it degenerates into the rule of one big one.

There is no rational alternative to having one govt dedicated to protecting individual rights.

I like the odds better fighting a few than fighting untold millions. Oh, and government does not protect individual rights. As you can clearly see, it savages them.

[Burke]

What I clearly see is a modern world that exists as a consequence of govts (primarily ours) that have protected individual rights better than any in history.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Burke

What I clearly see is a modern world that exists as a consequence of govts (primarily ours) that have protected individual rights better than any in history.

Death By Government:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

These figures include the 37,000,000 that were killed in WWI, the war that governments fought to save the world from anarchy.

*snickers*

[Burke]

You're lumping good govts with bad govts just as lefties lump "haves" and "have nots" without observing that wealth is earned by some of the haves and stolen by other haves.

It's called "package dealing."

And, of course, you are hurting only good govts, just as leftists hurt only those who earn their wealth.

Basically, it's a failure to discriminate, one of the two essentials of rational thought.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Burke

You're lumping good govts with bad govts just as lefties lump "haves" and "have nots" without observing that wealth is earned by some of the haves and stolen by other haves.

It's called "package dealing."

And, of course, you are hurting only good govts, just as leftists hurt only those who earn their wealth.

Basically, it's a failure to discriminate, line of the two essentials of rational thought.

To the contrary, I'm throwing the government you defend tooth-and-nail squarely into the center of the mix.

Based on numbers killed, you probably have a better chance of surviving to a ripe old age in Somalia.

[108]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I like the odds better fighting a few than fighting untold millions. Oh, and government does not protect individual rights. As you can clearly see, it savages them.

sounds just like more groups of people fighting

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 108

sounds just like more groups of people fighting

Well, we know that's what government is. But the advantage of government, for people who want to fight, is that government gives them bigger guns to fight with.

[Burke]

For those who dont know, Rand despised govt haters, that is, many libertarians.

Blaming "government" for bad governments is a way of blaming victims for being victims.

If people didn't organize into groups and form govts for self-defense, there would be bliss, no crimes, etc.

Many Objectivists regard them as worse than socialists or theocrats.

Fortunately, most pay no attention to them.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Burke

For those who dont know, Rand despised govt haters, that is, many libertarians.

Blaming "government" for bad governments is a way of blaming victims for being victims.

If people didn't organize into groups and form govts for self-defense, there would be bliss, no crimes, etc.

Many Objectivists regard them as worse than socialists or theocrats.

Fortunately, most pay no attention to them.

It's enough for me to know that Rand despised people who loved freedom.

[Burke]

Libertarians would surrender the world to the Jihadists.

It's all our fault because we won't go along with the Islamics who want to die and take us with them.

[rpmGator]

If you have to have a "common" defense in the "United" States, you might be in for a letdown when you find no nation on earth is for individuals only.

You are protected by others, yet don't want to say thanks.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

If you have to have a "common" defense in the "United" States, you might be in for a letdown when you find no nation on earth is for individuals only.

You are protected by others, yet don't want to say thanks.

And no thanks to government by acting as to produce enemies of the state that it now has to protect me from.

[rpmGator]

So no thanks to those who died for your freedom because you hate the government...

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

So no thanks to those who died for your freedom because you hate the government...

Well, for starters, they didn't die for my freedoms. And in fact, they almost always played a role in the diminution of my freedoms. Now, does that mean you worship them in vain ? I'll leave it to you to decide.

[Burke]

It's no accident that the greatest political system in history was founded during the most rational period of human history: the 18th Century Enlightenment. Men wanted to be free to think and act upon their rational thoughts, as opposed to the religious mysticism that had been forced upon them preciously.

The Founders were Enlightenment intellectuals, men who sat down together and rationally chose to found a govt upon an idea:

The idea of individual rights developed by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke.

This is why Rand wrote that the United States is "the nation of the Enlightenment."

We became the greatest nation in history because of our Enlightenment heritage of reason and rights.

As opposed to the rule of faith and force that succeeded the Founders' creation, has been undermining it from its inception, and is collapsing against collectivism and the rule of an even more primitive and violent religion, Islam.

Political systems are products of cultures, which are products of prevailing moralities, which are in turn products of underlying philosophies.

The US is going to hell because of the prevalence of some very bad ideas.

[Dreamliner]

Your so-called 'rule of faith and force' was subsidizing the American colonists. They were the welfare queens of the British Empire.

[Burke]

Libertarians like to pretend that they are the ones who are the champions of liberty.

But in order to sell that idea, they find it necessary to attack the real champions of liberty.

With ridiculous claims to the effect that subjects of the British monarchy were freer than the people who fled it.

That we are responsible for 9/11 and brought it on ourselves, etc.

What libertarians want is not freedom from tyranny, but freedom from reality, from the fact that liberty must be fought for.

Freedom from the fact there are bad people who must be dealt with.

Like pacifists who not only thrive while others are dying for their freedom, but who actively undermine them with claims that they are the problem.

There should be a special place in hell for true Libertarians.

[wgbgator]

Anyone with an ideology thinks they are the "real" champions of liberty.

[Burke]

I doubt that, but even if true, so what?

There is a right and a wrong and consequences to be had for making bad choices.