When it comes to Politics, I always start from the Principle of Freedom; I have the Right to Life.

I have the Right to Live as I see fit, and Receive the Rewards or Suffer the Consiquences of my Choices.

I have the Right to My Property, to Enter Contracts, To Exchange Goods and/or Services for Other Goods and/or Services.

A Good Number of People will as a matter of Practice, Vote against These Rights, Limit My Choices for what they Think is Best. They will Vote for People to Pass Laws to make me Conform to What they think is good for me.

I Never Got a License to Marry the Father of my Children, I Still Call Him My Husband, and he Calls me His Wife; Some would say that because we Never got a Piece of Paper from the State, we're not Married; Well, Who is the State to Decide for Us What Our Relationship is?

There are Those Who Say that I Must Provide for the Poor Through Taxes in a System that keeps the Poor in Poverty in a Form of Slavery Called Welfare So They Vote to Take Money that I Earn to Keep the Poor Enslaved to the State for Their Daily Needs. Just as Frederick Douglass Observed that Many Slaves were so Brainwashed into Believing that it was Only Master Who Could Provide, Many Who are Trapped into Welfare Believe that Only the State Can Provide.

There are Those Who Say That I Have to Contract With the Government for My Healthcare, though the Government has a History of Sub-Standard Care; But they Vote for it.

There are Those who Vote for a Mandated Minimum Wage, for what People Can Eat, Drink, Drive, Enjoy, and a Great Many other things. Can I not Decide for Myself the Terms of a Contract between Myself and Another? Can I Not Decide How to Tend to My Own Well Being & Enjoyment?

Are We Free Citizens or Subjects to the State?

when you share resources in a home, a community, or a culture

there is no absolute freedom,, our actions and inactions affect others, sometimes not in an immediate or obvious way,, but when we are connnected

our 'consequences' tend to connect too,, and in a republic, we vote with a majority of what we want those connections and potential 'consequences' to consist of,,,

I think some people vote against freedom,, but many others vote against a 'chaos' where everyone does whatever they want that doesnt cause 'immediate' and obvious harm to another individual,,

When you think about it, involving church and state in the marriage makes it a four-party contract! When you think a little more, you realize that neither church nor state has any business whatsoever sticking their noses into what should be a 2-party contract between 2 loving people. As a Prime Minister of Canada once said "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." (I note however that he didn't outlaw marriage licences.)

Asking permission from the state to get married is the greatest absurdity of all, unless you consider yourself a child of the state who must ask for "Daddy's" permission to marry.

Far too many people accept and believe absurdities because "everybody else does", which is a shame, because as Voltaire said: "Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities."

Truer words were never spoken. I used to be amazed at man's inhumanity to man and wondered where it came from...Then I looked at the absurdities people believe and found out.

Case in point:



In a republic, the connections are freely determined and the "consequences" are determined by law, not by majority vote.

republic = rule of law ... democracy = rule of the majority ... representational government = fascist dictatorship by the bank

as far as marriage goes, I agree

you can be married and leave the government out of it, but only if you truly want to leave the government out of it (meaning the government isnt required to aknowledge it)

you can involve the government (request the government sanction it)

either way, its up to the parties involved which way they prefer,,,and what they want to define their relationship as

you'd fit in very well in the Socialist EU!

lol, yeah,
I do fit in well with the society minded cultures, more than the ego driven ones,,,

Good for you!
Collectivism is such a wonderful Thing!

Adam Smith, who Published the Book "Wealth of Nations" (Published 1776) That in a Free Economy, Though People are Working Purely Out of Self Interests, They are in Fact Providing for the Common Good as the Market Sets the Prices on Goods, Services, and Labor.

Smith Compared the Economies Across Europe, and Throughout the Colonies of the Britsh Empire Across the Various Industries that were Employed at the Time; He Found that the People Who had the Greatest Freedoms to Pursue Their Own Interests, had the Stronger Economies With Greater Real Wealth and the Communities had Lower Poverty Rates with Greater Charities.

I Could List a Number of Examples of Economic Freedom, Where the Market Sets the Price of Goods, Services, and Labor leads to Greater Wealth, Redused Poverty, and More Charity as People are Free to Pursue Their Own Interests; but for Space & Time, I'll Leave that for Later Posting.

Overall, I think a free market is best for the economy. Allow the market to determine prices and keep prices low. However, we need a basic level of social protection so that we have basic human needs met, as well.

your system just did away with the Free Market,and became Keynesian!
Can't talk about Free Market and at the same time proposing Government Interference!

yes, thats called BALANCE

not all about personal desire(freedom) and not all about society, but a BALANCE of both


and I totally agree

certainly its major generalizing to say people work just for self interest,,what about all the volunteer work people do? what about the jobs people take for less than what they can live on? There is plenty of reason beyond 'self interest' that people go to work

we may have had a 'stronger' economy during slavery,, that doesnt mean that was the best way to run a country though

things were different in 1776 and I dont know what standards smith used to compare economies

but now, plenty of countries with strong economies, also have laws and reguations which guide their 'free economy'

because its not all about economy or freedom or 'wealth', there is a thing called quality of life that the humane wish to continue having those strong economies with freedom and wealth, be tempered with,,,

tempered by whom?
Meddling Nobodies?

Votebuying Politicians?

Populist Demagogues?

I agree with this. The gov't provisions usually serve to provide the minmums in cases like welfare and the minimum wage. There was not an intention for welfare to become multi generational or a way of life and I agree that somethng must be done about that while still maintaining supoort for families in a true crisis.

I do agree totally with the OP about healthcare. Gov't protections traditionally provide the minimum necessary becasue the expense is being paid by others. That is why I have always yelled long and loud that Obamacare is illegal and should not "mandatory"

it needs to be flexible enough to allow us to opt out completely or except partial coverage in combination with our private insurer

the state is us. those who fail to realize that we are the government simply do not have a grasp on the history of this nation. In my lifetime I have seen many abuses correct by governemnt action that if left to chance the victimization would have continued. 'nuff said. except that, may you never have to learn this the hard way.

the obama borgs...lol

Based on What do you Claim that America's Economy was Stronger During Slavery? It Wasn't Until the 1870's Started to Take Off like a Rocket, areas that had Jim Crow remained Flat Line Up Until Those Laws Were Done Away With.

Frederick Douglass, Talking of His Days as a Slave, Would Talk of How He and Others Would Slow Work During the Day; Look as if Busy When Master or Overseer Was Near, Rest When Master or Overseer Was Away. When He Started to Work for Himself, He'd Do More Work in a Day, Then He Did as a Slave in Three.

But Who is to Provde Such Protection? The Government By Taking Throuh Force From the Unwilling? Or Private Charities From Those Who Give With an Open Hand?

A Private Charity Would Move Someone into Independent Living; To Be Self Relient. A Government, Which is Always Hungry for Power, Would Enslave the Poor; You Can Check That Out In Any Government Housing of Your Choice, Just Visit One for an Hour a Day for a Month.

the first year we went above a million debt was the year lincoln gave the emancipation proclamation,, a little research

before the threat of slaves actually being free, our debt was never more than a billion,,,,


slavery was a VERY LUCRATIVE industry, and brought alot of income to the states,,,,,when it was cut off, so was that income,,and the debt grew....

we were not as 'economically strong' after slavery ended, until the times changed and technology made cotton decrease in value,,,