Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion
"Capitalism asserts that property is privately owned and privately controlled".
" communism says property is commonly owned and government controlled."
"Fascism is an economic and social theory that property, though privately owned, is subject to government control."
This is as good of a basic explanation as I have seen.
Looks like fascism is what we have here.
Watch all the anti's get angry for earning that label. "This has nothing to do with Hitler..."
They come here dressed as conservatives, but are really nothing but authoritarians from the right. If I was a conservative, I would bash them unmercifully. (come to think of it, I do that anyway)
I know. I went to Europe, hardly the bastion of liberty, and even they didn't have this foolishness.
They come here dressed as conservatives, but are really nothing but authoritarians from the right.
They've perverted the term 'conservative', the same way socialists ruined 'liberal'.
BTW, nice saying.
They simply re-define liberty as the power of the majority to determine what people are allowed and not allowed to do.
We see it everyday here. How many times have you seen posted, "Just elect people who will get laws you want passed/repealed"? That's the statists reply to every argument. They simply see the "State" as the powertool of the majority.
If this country is so free, why can't I start an all-smoking airline if I thought I could make money doing so?
You have stated the whole argument. Private property rights. The anti's fail to see this. They act like someone forces them to go into bars and other businesses.
Why don't you see Health Bars sprouting up around the country? The fresh juices should attract loads of customers.
I have my favorite Subway sandwich shop nearby. It does a good business. Down the street is a McDonald's. They have 5 times the customers, yet Subway is the healthier place.
Maybe we should outlaw Micky D's and force everyone to eat at the healthier Subway. The owner of McDonald's be damned. People need to be forced to do what is good for them because WE know better. Right?
This one is excellent too. Great line
"All too willing to dash liberty on the rocks of their desires."
But, is it as good as this one? :-)
Isn't that the precise definition of a small d democrat?
It's amazing how many democrats one finds on a 'conservative' web site.
The incremental chipping away of the Fifth Amendment by freedom haters doesn't make private property rights any less valid.
Your consistent defense of mob rule is tiresome.
*Grin*
This thread is full of priceless quotes. I guess that's what happens when the statists scurry away, leaving the forum to the adults.
Zon: This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf. #63
SheLion: WHAAAAAAAT????? #71
Zon: What are you having trouble with? 79
SheLion: Have a problem with this? I have a BIG problem with this. We do NOT need Big Government as a NANNY protecting us "for our own good." Yes, I have a BIG problem with this! #89
Then you agree with my posting it, right?
I thought from your "WHAAAAAT?????" reply in post #71 that you either took my post 180 degrees opposite of what I meant or your "WHAAAAAT?????" reply was sarcasm. As if to say, "What!? I'm shocked. You mean to tell me there are people on this forum that want to enlist government agents to initiate force against people on their behalf. That would never happen on FreeRepublic.".
Perhaps you can help clear that up for me -- 180 degrees opposite or sarcasm.
Sometimes ya gotta fish for a compliment for a long time before they start bitin'.
And I just wrote that one too!!!!
TJ: Groups of resturant owners acting to squash competition by using government to deny rights are every bit as evil as those who would do it for other reasons. 83
VRWC_minion: Thats majority rule.
So many groups. Gender/sex, sexual preference, anti-smoking, races, religions, age groups, political parties, environmentalists... on and on the list goes.
With each group there is a common denominator that joins each individual to the group. Once that is done new common denominators are proclaimed to exist among the group members. In order for a group member to be in good standing with the group they must adhere to the common denominators affixed to them by the herd-mentality manipulators -- elites that have the most power within the group -- the leaders.
At first, each person in the group is encouraged to sacrifice a tiny bit of their individuality for the "greater good" of the group. It begins small but quickly advances to larger and larger portions of the person's individuality being sacrificed for the greater good of the group. Those that fight to not sacrifice their individuality run the risk of becoming an outcast -- being ostracized by the group.
No group can withstand for long competing ideas within their group. Thus they shun competing ideas and the people that inject them into discussion. Among the several groups, far to many to list, there are individuals that chose to leave the group. When that happens new members must be recruited to maintain the size of the group or else the greater good of the group will diminish toward irrelevance.
History shows that the number of groups in existence increase over time. Especially in the last fifty years. Each group with it's own ideology to compete among other groups with their respective ideologies.
The manipulation of the heard mentality is stretched so thin that most people choosing to leave a group today do not take up membership or alliance with any other group -- save for one. They chose to be an individual and stand among other individuals. Among that group there are no leaders or members. Just the common denominator that each person is first an individual and that no individual is worth sacrificing for any "perceived" greater good of the group.
They've been there, done that.
In a world of competing groups and group ideas/ideologies competing among one another, all sacrificing the individual for the greater good, will be out-competed by the individual. For the one common denominator of all persons is that each person's individuality is more valuable than than any supposed greater good that sacrifices individuality.
How much harm to individuals and loss of human life has occurred in the name of religion and government? How much harm to individuals and loss of human life has occurred in the name of business, science and art? History shows that government and religion have the least respect for individuality. History also shows that business, science and art have the most respect for individuality.
Damn it's pitiful what is dressing up as a conservative around here lately.
It happens with every group. Yet, the most grossly misrepresented group is that of the individualist.
Now I see why you liked it...
I'm going to use them both in a future post and take all the credit for me, me, me!
I beg to differ with you, I have been a conservative since I was a kid in high school in the 1970's, when it was distinctly un-cool. You may not like my brand of conservatism, but that does not make me a poser.
Why is a concern for health and safety incompatible with conservatism? The Republicans do not stand for allowing people to sell adulterated food or marijuana; how does this differ from tobacco? Saying 'because it's legal' is begging the question. I say it shouldn't be legal, except in one's own home, for the very same reasons that almost all conservatives believe that other drugs should be regulated.
If you deny the power of government to regulate health and safety issues in places of public accommodation, then you left the Republican party about eighty years ago and are now in the province of radical Libertarians.
-ccm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.