There are Two basic political ideologies: 'Individualism' & 'Collectivism'

The Sage of Main Street said:
Who Also Preached About "The Withering Away of the State"?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to claim Karl Marx was a libertarian?

You've clearly never read Marx.

I don't know where you got your perverse view of libertarianism - but if you want a factual presentation, this is the best book - AND you can read it free of charge.

https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market

Dr. Rothbard founded the Libertarian party and is the foundation for the basic principles of the Libertarian movement. He was also one of the greatest economists in history.
 
BidenPresident said:
Uncensored2008 said:
You fucking liar.
Click to expand...
Your ignorances is not an argument.
Click to expand...

His violence and anger is probably a combination of genetics and Aussie ignorance.

7fhtb6.jpg
 
Libhater said:
Since the far right favors individual liberty and limited government, the minimum value logically belongs on the right side of the political spectrum. And since the left favors collective rights and virtually unlimited government power and control (which is an understatement), the maximum value logically belongs to the left.
Click to expand...

How the fuck you come up with this bullshit is anyones guess. If the right favored individual liberty they would not be passing laws taking womens liberties away or passing laws on what can be taught in schools or banning books. Who told you the left favors unlimited government?

no sense in addressing anything else in your post when your initial basic premise is a load of shit.
 
Libhater said:
Since the far right favors individual liberty and limited government, the minimum value logically belongs on the right side of the political spectrum. And since the left favors collective rights and virtually unlimited government power and control (which is an understatement), the maximum value logically belongs to the left.

One side favors individual rights and freedoms, starting with anarchism, and liberalism (in moving from right to left). The other (the Left) favors collective "rights" and "freedom," possessed only by groups of people nonexistent for the individual. These are the leftist ideologies of totalitarianism, communism, fascism, and socialism.

These basic facts don't look good for the far left, so they have to constantly work to confuse the issue. This is why the co-opted deceptive words like "liberal" and "progressive: because the people won't support them if they knew the truth.

In the Federalist, Eleanor Bartow made the case that we should not call the "left-liberal-progressives" liberals any longer, but we should call them leftists for "They are Intolerant, Divisive, and Anti-Liberty. She makes the point that authoritarians of the far-left are only trying to confuse the issue with their false "liberal" label.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/stop_conflating_leftists_with_liberals.html


As I've mentioned many times before on these forums, 'Classical Liberalism' is the exact opposite of today's left wing version of that 'liberal' term. There's nothing liberating about being a leftist. Absolutely NOTHING, and thus, my anti leftist liberalism moniker is a great sign for those who want to know the truth about the sad state of affairs that the leftist political party is doing to we freedom loving Americans and to America itself.
Click to expand...

The premise is inherently wrong.
Individualism and collectivism have always existed in parallel with the difference being where the lines were drawn.

Civilized nations believe in as much individualism as possible AFTER social responsibilities have been met.
 
Port Tack said:
How the fuck you come up with this bullshit is anyones guess. If the right favored individual liberty they would not be passing laws taking womens liberties away or passing laws on what can be taught in schools or banning books. Who told you the left favors unlimited government?

no sense in addressing anything else in your post when your initial basic premise is a load of shit.
Click to expand...

What law is taking women's liberties away? If you're referring to abortion then you're either oblivious to or just plain ignorant of the fact that killing one's baby is indeed a crime, let alone being immoral ,and that no one should be in favor of giving a woman the liberty to kill her unborn. No surprise that you support the publishing of adult porn and sleazy tranny books and shows that are currently placed in schools and libraries that cater to and are available to--if not being taught by school teachers in grades K-6.
 
Bigdog said:
Once again, in a child like manner, you are trying to conflate TWO separate and distinct definiens of collectivism.

Public schools do NOT fit the political definition of collectivism. That is a fact you keep denying.
2. the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
Click to expand...

Who owns the land for public schools? - the state (The local government would be considered the state under the definition you provided.)
who pays the workers in the public schools? - the state
Who controls which books are used in public schools? - the state
Who pays for all the books used in public schools? - the state
Who sets the curriculum in public schools? - the state
Who set the standards for production when they set the standards for graduation? - the state
Who controls the means of producing educated students? - the state
Unless you are arguing that public schools produce nothing it would appear that public schools fit nicely into your definition of collectivism.
 
Bigdog said:
Public schools are NOT a means of production owned by the State. They are educational institutions. In most States you have the individual freedom to choose to home school, use private school, or use public schools.
Click to expand...

but education is still compulsory, which is based on collectivism
 
Port Tack said:
You have been proven to be a fucking moron countless times and everyone here already knows it. You can't prove anything to a dipshit who denies fact continuously
Click to expand...

So in other words you can't prove anything. That's what I figured but it's always good to get confirmation. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top