Author Topic: The Road to Serfdom (Read 843 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:00:55 AM »

I support free enterprise yes. I support his right to make all the money he can legally make.

I even support his right to have an opinion and to support any cause he wants.

I think that he is a disgusting hypocrite tho. I think that he is one of the elite liberals who wants socialism for everyone else but wants to run the show himself. I believe he fears guns because he wants tyranny and socialism.

I believe that when he was 14 he discovered that good people suffer but those who lie and survive get ahead and he has not changed a bit. He is a very dishonest man with a disgusting past, present and... most likely... future.

lazs

ravells · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2007, 02:03:00 PM »

Lasz: I can't believe that someone with that much money wants socialism - he'd have to give it all away! As for gun control, I think it's a bit far fetched to think that the reason he wants gun control is because he's afraid he'll get shot. I found this comment curious, Lasz:

Quote

He is a socialist of the highest order in that he thinks that a everyone but a few should be equal in poverty. He of course is too important to live by the rules he would impose on the new socialists. He can be trusted with billions because his heart is in the right place. The rest of us are evil if we have one penny more than the poorest amoung us.

I'd have thought you would have loved the guy in that (apart from his view on gun control) he stands as a success story of a libertine political state. He sees what he wants and he takes it. A socialist? Hardly...this from wikipedia:

Quote

His support for the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, as well as the Czechoslovakian human rights organization Charter 77, contributed to ending Soviet Union political dominance in those countries.[1] His funding and organization of Georgia's Rose Revolution was considered by Russian and Western observers to have been crucial to its success, although Soros said his role has been "greatly exaggerated."

Toad: I'm not saying I like the guy form the sound of that interview he's a sociopath and a total a-hole (at least from that perspective) although he has done some laudable things if the wiki entry is right. His lack of feelings of guilt make him eminently well qualified to thrive and survive in a libertine world where there is little legal restriction and the strongest and most callous can use their money and powers to make yet more money. But people are complicated creatures - perhaps he's now had a Paulian moment.

Hap: Thanks, I'll take another look at the site. I confess I only browsed very briefly through it but the title put me off.

Ravs

john9001 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2007, 06:10:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
I can't believe that someone with that much money wants socialism - he'd have to give it all away!

under socialism everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

in the USSR the party elite rode in limos and had vacation homes on the black sea and shopped in stores reserved for them.

in Cuba the party elite has new mercedes limos and the people have 1955 chevys and donkeys.

DYNAMITE · « **Reply #18 on:** March 26, 2007, 06:23:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
under socialism everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

in the USSR the party elite rode in limos and had vacation homes on the black sea and shopped in stores reserved for them.

in Cuba the party elite has new mercedes limos and the people have 1955 chevys and donkeys.

I think you're mistaking communism with socialism... USSR/Cuba/China = Communist while the UK/DDR/Denmark/Sweden/Norway/Holland etc are predominantly socialist. Essentially capitalism with a sense of social responsibility... and not the great looming threat that many would pretend it to be. But with all things, vigilance is key

But hey, that's just my opinion. *shrugs*

Excel1 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:05:17 PM »

The UN wants a prohibition on the transfer of firearms to "non state actors", which just means that those only entitled to firearms would be governments, or those approved by governments. If this were adopted it would be a violation of international law to supply arms to any, and every people resisting tyranny and genocide.

It's an apparent contradiction that Soros, raving capitalist that he is, wants the same thing. But I think his motives, as lazs already pointed out are purely self interest. It would be a hell of a lot easier for western interests that have commercial deals with despotic and corrupt third world governments if they didn't have the problem of the downtrodden, dirt poor, armed locals, screwing up their sweet deals.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #20 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:50:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
I think you're mistaking communism with socialism... USSR/Cuba/China = Communist while the UK/DDR/Denmark/Sweden/Norway/Holland etc are predominantly socialist.

wasn't the DDR East Germany? BRD was West... still BRD now...

FastFwd · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:59:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
...an ex soviet who has been so seduced by capitalism that he tends to extremism in the opposite direction. Free markets for everybody! YAY!

I think it's Grunherz!

lazs2 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 27, 2007, 08:39:32 AM »

ravs.. you are kidding right? The man is a socialist of the highest order. Stalin got more wealth and.... Power... the top men would be more powerful than ever. Power and money are the same to them.

He is a socialist so far as everyone else is concerned. He would not have to give up a thing and he knows it. The top socialists in a society are more powerful and, in real terms, more wealthy than any capitalist. I can't believe you don't know that.

sorros is scum.. he funds some of the worst machines out there. Ones like move on dot org. He has no scruples.

I have nothing against him getting all the wealth he can legally accumulate. Nothing wrong with that... he is simply a very sick and twisted man tho.. It probly had something to do with his youth...more likely... his personality had something to do with how he acted as a youth.

I don't think he would have any trouble today waving at us as we were sent to the ovens.

lazs

Gunthr · « **Reply #23 on:** March 27, 2007, 10:06:28 AM »

Quote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
its disturbing, Hap. i will never understand American Jews' lack of support for Israel...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer lies in the American Jews proclivity to buy German automobiles.

Lazer, its close to the truth. Sean Penn's father, Leo Penn, was a member of the American Communist Party before WWII, and an activist. Then, when Hitler began persecuting jews in Germany and trodding on the rights of sovereign countries, Leo Penn and other hollywood jews in the communist party, who took their orders directly from the Soviets, were activists AGAINST taking action against Hitler because of the Ribbentrop Pact ( a non-aggession pact) signed by Russia and Germany. Leo Penn's party bosses in Russia didn't want the USA to fight Germany.

Of course, as soon as Hitler broke the pact by attacking Russia, Leo Penn got his marching orders from Russia to begin supporting action against Hitler, and that is exactly what occurred.

History repeats itself, and we have Sean Penn, the son of the Communist, vomiting his blame America first agenda where ever he can, with huge support among his hollywood acolytes and the Democrats, urging neutrality in the war on terror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Penn

ravells · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2007, 07:53:47 PM »

Sorry Lasz, I said that in all seriousness. Your view on 'perfect society' is just this close to socialism...that's the irony...because in your own way, you're an extremist. Your views do not attend for anyone elses, only your own and perhaps a very few other wakos (women should be at the cooker etc.) . Let's take your last post....for Stalin....say substititute ....[insert your capitalist hero here]...it's the same - what you don't appear to realise is that regardless of any perfect society built there are going to be George Sororoses.... Soros said he didn't feel guilt about what he did in WW2 when he was 14....and that is why I thought you had a bond with him. You find him vile because he sold out his people but at the same time you find it perfecty acceptable to advocate a society where half the human race arn't allowed to vote. ..and it's simply this...you both have your point of view and you both don't care what the majority think (for which read other people) think about it. That's fine, but I see more of you and George Soros in common than apart.

sorry Lasz, I respect your points of view immensely but even you have to see that you're an extremist in your own way because you're incapable of recognisisng other points of view.

Ravs

lazs2 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 31, 2007, 09:58:53 AM »

Of course I am an extremist.. I freely admit it.

I am an individualist. I believe that the sole role of government is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens.

I have no respect for anyones opinion that includes taking away my personal rights for the "good of the whole".

You can have your opinions but if you try to act on them then you are the enemy.

sorros could exist in my government.. he could rant all he wanted but he could change nothing because the things he wants could not be voted on. If he tried to force it on us then the government or militia would stop him... or you for that matter.

It goes for both sides.. I don't want anyone telling me what guns or drugs or porn I can own. I don't want anyone telling two consenting adults what they can do with each other any more than I want someone threatening me with jail or death if I don't pay taxes to support someone I don't even know.

Yes.. I am an extremist. I would be much more happy with a very small government.

lazs

ravells · « **Reply #26 on:** March 31, 2007, 02:11:38 PM »

Well...we could talk about this forever (although thank you for your honesty), but I think 'Freedom' is a state of mind rather than the purported reality any political belief happens to sell.

I'll just leave you with this: most human beings seem to have a desire to self organise and it's from that desire that authority begins. The only way I can see your perfect world ever occuring is if there were much fewer people on the planet who were widely dispersed. The closest I've seen to your vision are villiages in nothern Pakistan - free gun owenership, women not allowed to vote (although you'd have to make a concession to the religious claptrap).

Ravs

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2007, 10:04:14 AM »

obviously it is a matter of degree. If you wish to live in some crap hole large city then you would be more at the mercy of your neighbors and in a much more stressful and less free life style..

women are particularly suited to this. men are not.. The cities would be able to make laws that restricted people so far as acts that could be proven to affect others around them... you couldn't burn garbage on your property for instance. the smoke would affect others.

It is simple really and not as complex as you pretend... You could not tell me I couldn't do drugs or have a gun or that I needed to wear a helmet on a bike for instance... you could tell me that I couldn't ride drunk or drugged or... that I couldn't shoot someone down in the street for no good reason.

We are well past these simple principals. There is no example that you can give me that is a "gray" area... it is black and white... simple.. the individuals rights should always prevail and government should protect the individual.

Give me an example of a law against individualism that is just.

So in that respect... freedom is not hard to define.. freedom is the ability to be an individual and to have that right defended by your government.

Too many have complicated this simple premiss in order to gain power. They have created "gray" areas that women can relate to.

lazs