Frontpage’s 2014 Person of the Year: The American Police Officer

[IIFFOFRDB]

Fabian Socialism vs. Radical Liberalism... http://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/76

In the late 19th century the classical liberal, free market orthodoxy was beginning to be challenged by socialists like George Bernard Shaw, who put together a collection of essays iin 1889 advocating greater intervention by the state in the economy. Unlike the Marxists, who desired revolutionary change, the “Fabian socialists” advocated incremental change through the parliamentary system. This volume provoked a reply by supporters of private property and laissez-faire economics led by Thomas Mackay.

For additional information about Socialism and the Classical Liberal Critique see the following:

in the Forum: Timeline on the Critique of Fabian Socialism
in the Library: Debate on Fabian Socialism vs. Radical Liberalism
4 Titles

Fabian Essays in Socialism (George Bernard Shaw)
A Plea for Liberty: An Argument against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation (LF ed.) (Thomas Mackay)
A Plea for Liberty: An Argument against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation (1891 ed.) (Thomas Mackay)
A Policy of Free Exchange (Thomas Mackay)
All Groups

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Its kind of like Bill Clinton. He is known as one of the most favorable presidents when it comes to women's rights but his personal life was something completely different. He and his wife went out of their way to destroy any woman who tried to come forward and accuse him of what we all know that he did.

when it comes to bill Clinton im always reminded of the time he lied to his cabinet and had them line up behind him on the steps the white house, after he assured them of his innocence, to present some sort of united front.

lying to his cabinet, he attempted, by some sort of osmotic process, to claim the cabinet's integrity as a bolster of his lies to the American people

[Yssup Rider]

Wow. another topic in the shitter.

As sure as the sun rises in the East, SLOBBRRIN will hijack any thread he touches...especially his own.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Since probably 90+% of the "control" over persons' lives comes from government, it occurs to me that at the present time in U.S. history those who desire less government would be the group desiring "less control" over "their own lives" from government, and desiring to exercise control over their own lives.

It seems that currently the traditional meaning of "Liberalism" as is customarily expressed are those who seek more government and therefore more external control over people's lives (except over their own lives, of course).

I was asking about the "progressive" label, because it has a "tone" to it that generates the impression that they are more positive and productive in their focus of behavior and "forward looking" than others .. who they view as being "backward," negative, and nonproductive.

Both "progressives" (as you describe and the literature) and "liberals" seem to base their philosophy on the spurious premise that they know better about how people should live their daily lives than "the people," and therefore they have some "God Given" right or privilege to direct "those people" in their daily lives, which by the way carries with it the "right" of the "know-it-alls" to investigate and query "those people" to assure they are doing as directed.

Whether actually designed to do so or not is immaterial, but "entitlement programs" develop dependency and the inability to make decisions for oneself, and therefore facilitate the "progressive-liberal" premise by "demonstrating' the necessity for their continued "guidance" of "those people," who repeatedly return the "progressive-liberals" to positions of control, to assure their continued "fix" from the "entitlement programs."

On the surface they present themselves to be "doing good," when in reality all they are doing is guarantying their continued position of authority and power, and the long run simply passing the baton to the next "heir apparent in line."

To be "on point" .... years ago this country separated law enforcement from the politics ... and it has only been recently that politicians have started meddling in the law enforcement affairs trying to influence the decision making to fit their agenda ... and no one has been more obvious about it than the current narcissitic excuse in the White House ...

You are sooo spot on in saying, "On the surface they present themselves to be "doing good," when in reality all they are doing is guarantying their continued position of authority and power, and the long run simply passing the baton to the next "heir apparent in line." It is all about dumbing down the nation, thru the facade of "we are doing this for the people" umm hmm, when in actuality no body questions them because they are "the intelligencia" (that being ideas, like Gruber, in fact, I think instead of calling them Progressives, we say Gruberized) and they know more than the sheeple, when in true actuality they really only know their own given field. Maybe they need to take a lesson from a man who lived some 2300 years ago, Aristotle, who said "We are what we repeatedly do, therefore excellence is not an act but a habit".

I believe New Orleans showed a lot of how the government has taken control of the people so that they can't even pull themselves out of calamitous situations they should have never been in in the first place, had they gotten out of dodge before Katrina hit, who in their right mind are going to stay "in a bowl" when "the big storm" hits, its not like they hadn't been warned. Then after the storm and the rapes that took place in the coliseum, they EXPECTED the government to come in and bail them out, the poor victims that they are. I don't mean to sound callous, but had they not been career welfare recipients all their lives, there is much better chance they could have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and moved forward, but for them it was much easier to blame someone or something, which at that time was the government.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I believe New Orleans showed a lot of how the government has taken control of the people so that they can't even pull themselves out of calamitous situations they should have never been in in the first place, had they gotten out of dodge before Katrina hit, who in their right mind are going to stay "in a bowl" when "the big storm" hits, its not like they hadn't been warned.

A "conceptual" difficulty with the New Orleans example is two fold: One: There were many people there who could not prove "title" to their residence prior to the storm, so they believed that had to remain in their residence to protect their "possessory interest" in the "ownership" of the residence, so they did not want to leave and break the "chain of possession" and thereby defeat their right to "ownership" of the property. Two: Many simply did not have the resources to escape and/or a place to which to escape, because what they had in where they were living is all they "owned."

The above was "aggravated" by the pompous, narcissistic foolish crook installed as the "Mayor," who was helpless and a Governor who choked on politics, in the same manner as the most recent soon-to-be former U.S. Senator. With all those circumstances as an "OVERLAY" the "emergency management" arm of the Federal Government had not been adequately "schooled" on negotiating the local political scene in the Country of Louisiana.

Had Texas, and particularly the Houston metro area, not opened their wallets and hearts for those who were able to escape the nightmare, the disaster would have been far more devastating and tragic than it was.

Actually, Katrina should be an example of why it is imperative that people be "educated" and "trained" to look out for themselves and not rely upon governments to do it for them. If one creates a dependent society the members will be at a loss until the "leaders" appear to "provide" for them.

Here's what "leaders' end up doing:



If one looks closely, one can actually see the oil slick forming from the vehicles.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Wow. another topic in the shitter.

I thought you would feel more "at home" there ... "in the shitter."

[Yssup Rider]

cherie ... With all due respect afforded a fine young flower of America womanhood such as yourself ... You're utterly full of shit.

[Cherie]

Actually, Katrina should be an example of why it is imperative that people be "educated" and "trained" to look out for themselves and not rely upon governments to do it for them. If one creates a dependent society the members will be at a loss until the "leaders" appear to "provide" for them.

Case in point, Thanks LL

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

cherie ... With all due respect afforded a fine young flower of America womanhood such as yourself ... You're utterly full of shit.

Please express the reason you feel this way. I am always open for opinions, if presented with a pleasant manner. The floor is all yours Yssup Rider, BTW, I know curiosity killed the cat but I still have to query, does "Yssup Rider" have meaning? Thank you

[Yssup Rider]

Your latest Katrina comment came after my comment, Madame.

I apologize for saying you were "utterly full of shit." I really do.

I should never have said that.

I should have said you're COMPLETELY full of shit.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I should have said you're COMPLETELY full of shit.

Are you related to the former Mayor or just indebted to him?

This has your fingerprints all over it ....



Even the pollution.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your latest Katrina comment came after my comment, Madame.

I apologize for saying you were "utterly full of shit." I really do.

I should never have said that.

I should have said you're COMPLETELY full of shit.

Rudeness is the scum scraped off by barely functioning brain cells in response to fresh air and bright light. You sir must live in darkness to thrive, or what you call thrive.

You know YR, I have been nothing but congenial to you, asked for your opinion and you speak like you are either uneducated or just plain insolent, honestly, I could care less at this point, and shall not respond further to any of your posts.

[Yssup Rider]

No offense intended. You really seem to be passionate about this and pondering it quite seriously. Please don't take my assessment of your position on this horribly hijacked thread personally.

But I am now positive you're utterly AND completely full of shit!

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Rudeness is the scum scraped off by barely functioning brain cells in response to fresh air and bright light. You sir must live in darkness to thrive, or what you call thrive.

You know YR, I have been nothing but congenial to you, asked for your opinion and you speak like you are either uneducated or just plain insolent, honestly, I could care less at this point, and shall not respond further to any of your posts.

Cherie, the poster you are addressing, Yssup Rider, won the poll for dipshit of the year for 2015 by beating his nearest competitor by a shocking 3 to 1 margin. His dominance is illustrated by the fact that in a field of almost fifteen people, he received the majority of the votes on the initial and only ballot.

Clearly, the inappropriate social skills he possesses make him very deserving of the award, and you were not deserving of his vicious, unprovoked attacks. However, you slapped the little bastard down quite nicely, anyway. Well done!!