An comment from the leftees
liberty
Professor Kors said that over the years, he has frequently asked
students how many deaths were caused by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tsetung
and their successors. Routinely, they gave numbers in the thousands.
Kors says that's equivalent to saying the Nazis are responsible for
the deaths of just a few hundred Jews. But here's the record: Nazis
were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and
those in nations they conquered.
Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were
otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own
people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were
responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
Professor Kors asks why are the horrors of Nazism so well known and
widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? For
decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought
punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking
punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers? In Europe, especially
Germany, hoisting the swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. It's
acceptable to hoist and march under a flag emblazoned with the former
USSR's hammer and sickle.
vitw
> Nazis were
> responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and those
> in nations they conquered.
> Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were
> otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people.
> Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible
> for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
Those figures, while totally abhorrent, would be a bit more meaningful if
they were calculated and reported as deaths per 100,000 population, or
some other per capita measure.
Me
century estimates:
WW1 15 million
Russian Civil War 9 million
Russia (Stalin) 20 million
WWII 55 million
China civil war 2.5 million
China (Mao) 40 million
Given the time span involved, Hitler really was /the/ #1 star performer.
How come right wingers with small brains - like you - always seem to get
drawn in, albeit via the back door, to being apologists for fascism?
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
To many it is not, but beleive that if you want to "liberty"
The international scope of the conflict, and the family links of
Germans to many citizens in the restof Europ and the USA marks out
WWII as different from the essentially internal conflicts in other
countries. Bosnia and Rwanda couldbe added to your list, but I am sure
there are others where a greater proportion of the population died
that in even these - I recall something about a part of France, and
Armenia - both centuries ago.
bubba ray
Well there you go. Three replies so far and all of them completely
miss the point.
hellicopter
Australia once was home to a million until the arrival of Europeans.
In context, Hitler was no match for the Christian priests taking
disease into native communities across the world, like the priest
were not told by the all knowing all good God they worshiped!
But really its not about how few they killed, its about how
many they didn't. How many didn't die. How many live full lives.
The right wing extremist wants to deal in negative measures
because they can't win with positive ones.
The allies won, Russia-US-British Empire-China, the humanism
societies against the religious worshipers. Hitler divine
right from God to rule, the Japanese God Emperor.
Peace, the stopping of the holocaust, Hitler would have continued
had he won Europe! We know this yet some still think Hitler
wasn't so bad. Please! Hitler was a disaster.
hellicopter
That USSR and China were ruled by despots that didn't start
wars with the whole world and were forcible removed from power
because they were egotistical manically tyrants who could not
check themselves like Hitler! Even the Emperor of Japan accepted
the war was up. Hitler ordered his own body be burned after
killing himself like the coward he was. Of course we should not
want to reward those who would follow in the footsteps of the
stupid cowardly and unable to check themselves and their greed
for power. Hitler said Germans fight to the death! Anyone who
follows the teachings of Hitler is a western jihadist.
whoisthis
<b4b17e2c-8ae4-4c64...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
Which conveniently ignores all the people allowed to die because they
can not afford medical insurance every year in the USA. It is estimated
that 22,000 people in the USA die each year simply because of lack of
insurance.
John Cawston
Ooh.. pretty bad.
Why, in just 4550 years that will equal the numbers
killed/murdered by Communism.
Incidentally, on a population basis that 22,000 would be about
314 people dying whilst on the waiting list in NZ.
JC
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> Those figures, while totally abhorrent, would be a bit more meaningful if
> they were calculated and reported as deaths per 100,000 population, or
> some other per capita measure.
Would they? Is not a death a death, all life equal?
Is a measure of despotedness(?) a relative measure, where
exterminating part of a race (ie 40 out of every 100) is less of an
outrage than exterminating a whole villiage (ie 100 out of 100).
Enkidu
truly socialist and were a long way from communism. They were a lot
closer to right wing fascism.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
WorkHard
You idiot. Fascism is left-wing.
Any philosophy that denies individual rights is left-wing.
Communism, socialism, fascism are all left-wing.
Brian Dooley
And I'm sure that time should come into it. How about deaths per
100K per year per dictator.
'liberty'?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
Which is what?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<b4b17e2c-8ae4-4c64...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, liberty
wrote:
> Professor Kors asks why are the horrors of Nazism so well known and
> widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism?
Perhaps because the Communists and Stalinists only killed their own people.
Nobody really raised much of an objection to Hitler as long as he was only
slaughtering Germans. It was when he started invading other countries that
the fuss began.
Allistar
No - they die because of a discompassionate population which is caused by a
socialist system.
--
A.
whoisthis
<e3895a6d-5b2b-45ab...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
misanthropic_curmudgeon <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com>
wrote:
so how many people starved in the world last year ??
On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000
every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58�% of all
deaths (2001-2004 estimates).
but of course ALLOWING people to starve is not the same as actually
killing them, just so long as peoples "primary freedoms" are protected...
BlokeDownThePub
"Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:4b047551$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
(Excuse me, Cliff. I don't receive posts from "liberty" so am replying
through yours.)
> liberty wrote:
>> http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/091117-williams-excused-horrors.php
>> Professor Kors said that over the years, he has frequently asked
>> students how many deaths were caused by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tsetung
>> and their successors.
How frequently does this Professor ask his students how many deaths were
caused by European Empires?
How many North American Indian deaths were caused by European economic
interests?
(More than 5 million.)
How many deaths were caused by European interests in the Congo in the last
10 years? (More than 6 million.)
> Routinely, they gave numbers in the thousands.
>> Kors says that's equivalent to saying the Nazis are responsible for
>> the deaths of just a few hundred Jews. But here's the record: Nazis
>> were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and
>> those in nations they conquered.
The main victims of Nazism were 27 million Russians, 8 million Germans and 5
million Poles. For propaganda purposes, WW2, Christian Hitler, Nazis, etc
are associated with the murder of innocent sweet peace-loving Jews. It is
not politically correct to label any of these Jews as Russian communists or
Polish communists. It is in the interests of Jewish/Israeli propaganda to
define WW2 in terms of death camps and to never mention the possibility that
even one of the claimed 6 million Jews murdered was anything other than an
innocent victim and definitely never a terrorist.
>> Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were
>> otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own
>> people.
But those murdered were mainly Christians and those responsible were mainly
Jews so there is no propaganda benefit in remembering.
> > Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were
>> responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
>> Professor Kors asks why are the horrors of Nazism so well known and
>> widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism?
Hollywood and all major Western media are controlled by Jewish/Israeli
interests who define history for the general populace whose education is
mainly derived from comic books, films and television.
(Idi Amin came to power through the wealth he accumulated as Israel's
conduit for weaponry supplied to Southern Sudanese terrorists,
Jewish-controlled South Africa was given nuclear weaponry to further
European/Jewish interests in Africa. Pol Pot was supported by Merka at the
UN. France slaughtered over a million to regain control of Algeria after
WW2, US caused the death of about 4 million Vietnamese after France lost
control. Don't mention Rwanda!)
> > For
>> decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought
>> punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking
>> punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers? In Europe, especially
>> Germany, hoisting the swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. It's
>> acceptable to hoist and march under a flag emblazoned with the former
>> USSR's hammer and sickle.
Hints: An eye for an eye. Turn the other cheek. Israel began as a nation of
communes.
> Neither of those regimes, in spite of the labels applied to them, were
> truly socialist and were a long way from communism. They were a lot closer
> to right wing fascism.
Exactly.
Stalin and Mao have gone. Since the French Revolution, those that control
the Western world's purse strings have been clever enough to hide behind
figureheads such as Shrub and Oblahblah.
Now, "liberty", how many deaths has "democratic capitalism" caused?
WorkHard
> Now, "liberty", how many deaths has "democratic capitalism"
> caused?
There's no such thing. Capitalism is based on individual/property
rights. With every human being having the exact same inalienable
rights.
liberty
>
> Now, "liberty", how many deaths has "democratic capitalism" caused?
First of all find me a Capitalist country?
The world quite rightly condemns the Nazi atrocities.
So why are not Stalin and Mao given the same treatment?
Mainly because the evil socialist philosophy of Stalin and his
minions is now engrained in the so called free countries.
Fortunately shooting peasants in the head is out fashion. They don’t
need to The central committees now infiltrate Likeminded
organisations . For example The UN , The greens etc
Some misguided fools claim the communist lost the cold war. Rubbish,
they have just changed tack.
They are doing very nicely.
Number three at the UN !
Me
> On , , Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:28:47 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
> hellicopter <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Me wrote:
>>
>>> It's a bit undignified to make such comparisons, but here's some 20th
>>> century estimates:
>>> WW1 15 million
>>> Russian Civil War 9 million
>>> Russia (Stalin) 20 million
>>> WWII 55 million
>>> China civil war 2.5 million
>>> China (Mao) 40 million
>>>
>>> Given the time span involved, Hitler really was /the/ #1 star performer.
>>> How come right wingers with small brains - like you - always seem to get
>>> drawn in, albeit via the back door, to being apologists for fascism?
>> Australia once was home to a million until the arrival of Europeans.
>
> Less than 100,000 over the entire continent according to some experts.
>
But many more according to other experts.
Allistar
Damn right.
But those that are compassionate enough would voluntarily help such people.
Note the word "voluntarily". I.e. with compassion. There is no compassion if
such help is forced.
--
A.
Allistar
> On , , Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:00:50 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
> You cretin, fascism and national socialism are both right wing
> totalitarianism.
A form of socialism is right wing?
"left wing" pertains to philosophies that see the state diluting our
freedoms, "right wing" are to philosophies where the state aims to protect
our freedoms. Under that definition fascism is very much left wing.
--
A.
Me
> On , , Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:25:36 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees, Me
>
Request for challenge denied.
It doesn't matter if there were 100,000 or a million, or if they'd been
there 40,000 or 100,000 years.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On , , Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:28:47 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
>
>
>
> >Me wrote:
>
> >> It's a bit undignified to make such comparisons, but here's some 20th
> >> century estimates:
> >> WW1 15 million
> >> Russian Civil War 9 million
> >> Russia (Stalin) 20 million
> >> WWII 55 million
> >> China civil war 2.5 million
> >> China (Mao) 40 million
>
> >> Given the time span involved, Hitler really was /the/ #1 star performer.
> >> How come right wingers with small brains - like you - always seem to get
> >> drawn in, albeit via the back door, to being apologists for fascism?
>
> >Australia once was home to a million until the arrival of Europeans.
>
> Less than 100,000 over the entire continent according to some experts.
What 'experts' are these you dreamed up?
"There are no accurate estimates of the population of Australia before
European settlement. Many estimates were based on post-1788
observations of a population already reduced by introduced diseases
and other factors. In 1930 the anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown
postulated a minimum figure of 300,000. In 1980 L.R. Smith estimated
the absolute minimum pre-1788 population at 315,000. Other estimates
have put the figure at over 1 million, while recent archaeological
finds suggest that a population of 750,000 could have been sustained."
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/bfc28642d31c215cca256b350010b3f4!OpenDocument
Allistar
> On , , Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:03:44 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
> You have redefined the original definitions.
How do you define them in a way tha sees national socialism as "right wing"?
> FAIL!
> Using your method I could legitimately redefine Libertarians as fascists
> and totalitarian.
How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of liberties?
--
A.
Rich...@hotmail.com
The only libertarian political party in New Zealand is the Green
Party. They are not right wing.
WorkHard
You have to laugh. Left and right are meant to be opposites.
Yet here we have these idiots saying Communism (slavery
basically) and fascism (also slavery) represent left and right.
So slavery is the opposite of slavery.
Well death does not represent life. Wrong does not represent
right. Dark des not represent light and left does not represent
right.
In reality, left = slavery - state ownership of the people, their
wealth and their actions. This *includes* communism, socialism,
fascism et al.
The right is represented by freedom, individual and property
rights. Capitalism, libertarianism et al.
Left and right are opposites. Slavery and freedom are
diametrically opposed.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> The only libertarian political party in New Zealand is
> the Green Party.
*snort!*
Oh, thanks for that, Rich. I needed some humour to liven up a Monday
morning.
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of liberties?
Because it Freely allows people to suffer.
No money - Starve
No Money - Die
No Money - no housing
No Money - no healthcare
the slums around the world are the great example of libertarianism, you
only have what you earn, no one owes you anything and you don't owe
anyone else anything either.
Libertarianism is communism for the rich
Communism said everyone was equal... turned out some were more equal
than others
Libertarianis says everyone is free... turns out the rich will be much
freer and anyone else. They will be the ones with property rights,
access to education, healthcare, housing, law and order. Governments
will be powerless to change things, so your right to vote will be
worthless. Their children will inherit wealth, power, property, they
will not have gained these through ability, just the good luck of birth.
liberty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you mean this Green party Richbot?
liberty
There is a lot in common between the libz and a true Green party.
Unfortunately the greens have been infested with communist.
Makes Richbot claim a bit of a joke.
bubba ray
Nobody has been killed by capitalism. Zero, zilch, nada.
But millions have pulled themselves out of poverty because of it.
WorkHard
> In article <LIydnVxNn7k8G5TW...@giganews.com>,
> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of
>> liberties?
>
> Because it Freely allows people to suffer.
Nature dictates that you fucking idiot!
No one has the right or freedom to be protected from their
environment, attitude, illnesses, mysticism (which you suffer
from), or anything else except the right to own life mind and
body.
> No money - Starve
Get a job. Grow food. Barter for food. Be useful and productive
any way you can.
That's HOW you survive.
But wankers like you expect to sit on your lazy arse and have
other people work to fulfil YOUR needs! You are a selfish, greedy
slob.
> No Money - Die
Barter. Offer values in exchange for others, a meal etc.
> No Money - no housing
So? Get some money. Get off your backside and get a job.
And DON'T have kids you cannot afford to clother, feed, educate
and give shelter to. Doing so makes you the most irresponsible
arsehole on the planet.
You want kids... then YOU do the work to provide for their needs.
> No Money - no healthcare
Health care is not a right. The only right you have is to trade
yiour products/services in return for other things you want like
'health' care.
So DON'T have kids that YOU can't afford health care for or you
will suffer the consequences as dictated and dished out by Mother
Nature!
>
> the slums around the world are the great example of
> libertarianism,
The slums around the world are a great example of irresponsible
fuckwits having children they have no hope of ever caring for...
fuckwits like you, obviously.
> you only have what you earn, no one owes you anything and you
> don't
> owe anyone else anything either.
Correct. Best you wake up to it and go get a job you lazy-arse
parasite.
>
> Libertarianism is communism for the rich
Bullshit. It's protection of individual and property rights.
Most of your slum-dwellers do not have any property rights. They
are not allowed to own property. They have n place that is theirs
where they can til the soil and produce what they need for their
survival.
That's what YOU need to address and do something about... get off
your fat useless arse and help those people get property rights.
> Communism said everyone was equal... turned out some were more
> equal
> than others
People are NOT equal and never will be. ALL that is equal is that
we all have the same individual and property rights. What you do
with those rights, and therefore your liufe, is entirely up to
you.
Make bad decisions and you'll suffer the consequences. Make the
right decisions and you'll have a higher quality survival level.
> Libertarianis says everyone is free...
Bullshit. It says everyone has the same rights. And the 'freedom'
to exercise those rights.
It's still YOU that has to do the work to get the life you want.
> turns out the rich will be much
> freer and anyone else.
They are not freer. They have more options. They have the same
rights as you.,
If you want a good life, then you have to work for it. Set dreams
and goals and work for them.
But no, you, you insipid little envious hater and wrecker,will
only sit on your fat arse complaining - blainming everyone else
for your own personal lack, dishonesty and aversion to the effort
of HARD WORK!
snip insane rant
liberty
> In article <LIydnVxNn7k8G5TWnZ2dnUVZ_qxi4...@giganews.com>,
I see your knowledge on libertarianism is not your strong point.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
No, that is all about a distorted world view of some self-styled
"LibNZ" nutters. They are not a political force in New Zealand and
never likely to be.
See
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2008 for a more rational view.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Nov 23, 10:40�am, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
It seems a fair summary of the political ideology espoused by you and
Allistar, 'liberty', but you are right that your posts do not reflect
libertarianism. Look to the Green Party for a practical example.
whoisthis
<c21ba74f-b9d5-4e17...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
Its the outcomes that count, not a mythical pipe dream.
liberty
> On , , Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:34:23 -0800 (PST), Re: An comment from the leftees,
> I think not.
> You've been 14 for a very long time now, I guess it is your intellectual and
> emotional age rather than your physical age.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
FO Noddy
liberty
> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Better to have aspiration for liberty
Then to be a slave to the state under socialism.
whoisthis
<5cbc5877-7b59-4996...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
No, you aspire to be a ruler, one of the wealthy elite.
liberty
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:34:23 -0800 (PST), liberty <libert...@live.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richbot unlike brain dead labour supporters. I have my own views.
I am not a number I am a free man. The same for Allister or
Workhard
All free individuals. Haven’t a clue who they are but sound like good
blokes.
Being just a minion for labours central committee you will have a
great deal of trouble
Getting your mind around the concept of liberty.
If you believe banning , GM food, smokes, Kyoto crap etc makes one a
libertarian
You really are a complete dipstick.
Incidentally Richbot what is the word from the central committee on
who is replacing Phill in Goff
After all it only two years before the election.
No word you say. Not surprised there is not a lot there to select
from.
liberty
> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another noddy whose mind is clouded with preconceived opinions.
WorkHard
No... that's what Socialism is. All workers under their thumb
while they revel in glory, wealth (yours), power and everything
fine in life - all at the workers/productive's expense.
WorkHard
Mysticism - a disease of the mind... little you can do for them.
They'll just whinge and moan, demand your money, demand you work
to keep them, all while sitting on their lazy arses doing
nothing.
They do not, and never will, understand that they have to work to
survive. And they have to work damn hard if they want a quality
survival. Most of all, they will never understand they must be
responsible and accept the consequences of their own actions or
lack of them.
They think they can avoid the dictates of nature merely by making
someone else do the work and the paying.
They are parasites and are the real cause of all the world's
woes.
Filthy little greedy communist socialist pigs.
liberty
> On , , Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:56:26 -0800 (PST), Re: An comment from the leftees,
>
> >FO Noddy
>
> And then to bring one of your childhood heroes into the equation and resort to
> obscenities shows the paucity of your opinion and beliefs.
You are boring scooter. When you join in the debate without being a
smart arse I might on a good day respond. Mean while FO . I can’t be
bothered with tiresome little people.
WD
> On , , Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:42:56 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
Nazism is not defined as right wing (or left wing). It is defined as
the totalitarian ideology of the Nazi Party.
Political spectra is a rather crude way of trying to mathematically
model political beliefs. Using one geometric axis, as is common, the
Nazi party could appear anywhere on it I suppose depending on what
your modeled variable is. Traditionally the geometric axis is defined
in terms of the 18th century French Parliament. Is this better than
defining in terms of a libertarian notion of freedom?
> >> FAIL!
> >> Using your method I could legitimately redefine Libertarians as fascists
> >> and totalitarian.
>
> >How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of liberties?
>
> At the expense of others.
> Libertarians are merely people who have managed to enrich themselves and are
> determined to stop other people doing so themselves.
Yet libertarians hold that to enrich oneself in a free market is to
benefit others. Hence if someone else is enriched, then they would
benefit.
Weihana.
whoisthis
<c3873ab8-f7b0-45d6...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:20锟絧m, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5cbc5877-7b59-4996-a8c7-1f76ca728...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 锟絣iberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 7:06锟絧m, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c21ba74f-b9d5-4e17-9104-2f7ce088c...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > 锟絣iberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 23, 10:40锟絘m, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <LIydnVxNn7k8G5TWnZ2dnUVZ_qxi4...@giganews.com>,
> >
> > > > > 锟絀 see your knowledge on libertarianism is not your strong point.
> >
> > > > Its the outcomes that count, not a mythical pipe dream.- Hide quoted
> > > > text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Better to have aspiration 锟絝or liberty
> > > Then to be a slave to the state under socialism.
> >
> > No, you aspire to be a ruler, one of the wealthy elite.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Another noddy whose mind is clouded with preconceived opinions.
WOW, that showed me huh ...
Patrick FitzGerald
wrote:
> I have my own views.
>I am not a number I am a free man.
Liberty #666 how many votes did the Ayn Randyers get in the last poll
Patrick
liberty
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:34:44 -0800 (PST), liberty <libert...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have my own views.
> >I am not a number I am a free man.
>
> Liberty #666 how many votes did the Ayn Randyers get in the last poll
>
> Patrick
Overtaking labour soon. With Labours dramatic drop to oblivion :)
Allistar
> In article <LIydnVxNn7k8G5TW...@giganews.com>,
> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of liberties?
>
> Because it Freely allows people to suffer.
There is no system out there, and no system possible doesn't doesn't allow
the same. But "allowing people to suffer" is not the same thing as "causing
people to suffer" as is the case with socialism.
> No money - Starve
> No Money - Die
> No Money - no housing
> No Money - no healthcare
In a compassionate system one man would help another.
> the slums around the world are the great example of libertarianism, you
> only have what you earn, no one owes you anything and you don't owe
> anyone else anything either.
Which slums are you referring to that are in libertarian systems?
> Libertarianism is communism for the rich
No, because communism is akin to slavery as it gives the state the power to
compel people.
> Communism said everyone was equal... turned out some were more equal
> than others
Sounds like socialism to me. Under libertarian everyone would have the same
primary freedoms protected.
> Libertarianis says everyone is free... turns out the rich will be much
> freer and anyone else.
No more than in any other system, unless you find some way to make everyone
as wealthy as everyone else, but while some favour apathy and some hard
work, that'll never happen.
> They will be the ones with property rights,
Everyone will have the same property rights.
> access to education, healthcare, housing,
Compassion and charity are the answer to that, not compulsory wealth
redistribution.
> law and order.
Everyone would have access to that.
> Governments
> will be powerless to change things,
Most things are not a responsibility of the government, so that's fine.
> so your right to vote will be worthless.
How so? There will be many things that can be voted on - but a system based
on the protection of freedom will see that anything that removes a basic
freedom wouldn't be allowed - as it shouldn't be.
> Their children will inherit wealth, power, property,
As they do now you mean?
> they
> will not have gained these through ability, just the good luck of birth.
How is that different to what we have today? Are you suggesting property be
confiscated from a person before they die? Are you suggesting that we
should not be free to give our property to who we see fit?
--
A.
Allistar
Exactly right. And an outcome of slavery via state compulsion is not
something an enlightened system has. The outcome of freedom and compassion
is what counts. And you cannot fully have one without the other.
--
A.
Allistar
> On , , Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:50:53 -0800 (PST), Re: An comment from the
> No preconcieved opinions, merely by observation and life experience,
> something you may pick up if you live long enough.
> If you seriously think you are publicising or telling people about
> l'tarianism, then I suggest you take another look. You four are doing more
> to show that l'tarianism is corrupt to the core by showing your lack of
> morals and that you care more for self avarice than anyone else.
How does libertarianism have "a lack of morals"?
How is libertarianism caring more for "self avarice"?
Libertarianism is about the protection of liberty for EVERYONE. It is the
least selfish philosophy out there - it's the only system where true
compassion can exist.
There is nothing compassionate about forcing Bob to give his money to Joe.
Allow Bob to give it to Joe by free choice? THAT is compassion.
--
A.
Allistar
> On , , Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:42:56 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>>Msg. Scooter wrote:
>>
>>> On , , Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:03:44 +1300, Re: An comment from the leftees,
>>> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Msg. Scooter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On , , Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:00:50 +1300, Re: An comment from the
It goes to show just how worthless the concept of "left" and "right" are.
Some people consider National to be "right" - the party that is supporting
taxing emissions! That's socialist policy - i.e. left wing. I.e. corrupt.
>>> FAIL!
>>> Using your method I could legitimately redefine Libertarians as fascists
>>> and totalitarian.
>>
>>How so considering libertarianism is about the protection of liberties?
>
> At the expense of others.
Others? There are no others - libertarianism is about the protection of
liberty for EVERYONE.
> Libertarians are merely people who have managed to enrich themselves and
> are determined to stop other people doing so themselves.
Libertarians are people that value human life so much that that seek to see
that those lives are protected from harm.
--
A.
Brian Dooley
wrote:
Fat chance.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand