Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


A few days ago I was debating someone who considers themselves a "conservative libertarian", while debating things like social issues, economic issues this person after hearing that I was a proponent of investing heavy in education and a big advocate for either some type of universal health care system, which is my first choice, or hearing a real plan on how to stop the current 150K Americans who die every year due to a lack of medical coverage … in the early 90s 45K Americans died due to a lack of medical coverage which is when you saw the Republicans of the 90s put forth several individual healthcare mandates…   Now, 20 years later the number of Americans who die due to a lack of medical coverage has grown 300% to 150K …

Well after going back and forth this individual stated that I advocate for a "nanny state" and that makes me a bleeding heart leftist which makes me anti-American.

At the time I commented back with, I am not a bleeding heart, I am a pragmatist and historically, investing in education has shown a direct correlation to lower crime rates, thus lower prison populations, lower unemployment numbers, lower numbers of people dependent on welfare which would seem everything that he advocates for… They replied that getting rid of the social safety net would give them incentive to find work and health insurance… he is also a proponent of drug testing those on welfare..

Want to get people off welfare?

Sure, first pour billions of dollars into your education system that have been continuously cut under Democrat and Republican presidents. Education is key!

Invest in real life sex education classes which would cut pregnancies, which would also get more people off of the government dime which many of these new cases are teenage mothers usually.

Reinvest in your proletarians like many European countries by covering education up to a basic college level which would have the effect of a better educated society that by the end of this recession is more prepared for the work force.

If someone wish to receive welfare and do qualify for it, have them volunteer at places while their kids may be at school versus just sitting around. As well as combine several trade schools with welfare programs and basic college level entry classes [with GED classes if need be]. The goal should be to find them a job so that they do not need welfare; not say oh well you have fallen on hard times … that is all your fault now get away!

Though the usual pejorative statement about those on welfare is that the majority of them are abusing the system and thus drug testing them will cut down on abuse of the system. This only falls under the false premise that all people who cheat the system uses drugs…

Are there abusers to the system? Sure. I have seen no evidence to suggest the majority of people who receive welfare do not need it... perhaps if I could get an unbiased source I would be most appreciative. Though since most people on welfare

As per the drug testing anyone who is on welfare I am against this as it is economically unsound.

Florida tried it and a whopping 2% of people had illegal drugs in their system, but that was people receiving welfare.


Average drug test cost 42 dollars
Number of people on welfare .. just food stamps as of 2011 -47M
total cost per month to test each person: 1,974,000,000
total cost per year to test each person: 23,688,000,000


If like in Florida 2% test positive... 940K people... this only calculated if they get 1,000 a month...some get 500 some 800 ..

11,280,000,000 saved ... for the year
23,688,000,000 spent just on the tests

This DOES NOT even factor in the costs of those going to prison [of which we currently spend on average 40K per year per inmate, and does not even factor the costs of if they have children and the foster care costs, NOR does it even factor in the new people coming into the system that year]

So just with the costs of the tests, + what is being saved it will never really be economically sound.

For the record, I am all for if a case worker believes the person is on an illegal substance and wishes to test… That in the long run will save the money compared to 42 bucks spent with what the individual was getting. But testing every person on the system I do not see how it saves us money. I am all for spending a little more to get them off the system completely without in the end costing us more such as job programs, GED classes, trade schools which makes them ready for employment so they can get off the system completely.

Then you have to use the reasoning skills. The average person received in welfare per year 20K according to one conservative… not true but let us work with your numbers…if that
We spend on average 40K per year per inmate so if they get arrested we would be spending double what we have given them in welfare to imprison them not to mention if kids go in the system then that is tens of thousands more.


We went back and forth with his eventually just saying I would not listen to reason and that I hate reason…

After a few days of thinking of it I decided to write this piece, it made me wonder about a few things. To which, I thought about the reason in which in his eyes I am anti American and bleeding heart… YES, I AM ANTI-AMERICAN AND A BLEEDING HEART.. if it is Anti-American to worry about your fellow citizens, then yes, I am proudly anti-American. If it is anti-American to feel saddened at in such a rich and powerful nation you have 150K people dying every year because they do not have enough health insurance, then yes, I am proudly anti-American. If it is anti-American to wonder why in such a rich and powerful country you have 50,000,000, of your citizens living below the poverty rate and another 100,000,000 million citizens that are making just enough to break even, then yes, I am proudly Anti-American.

As one of my favorite Senators, Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont, who himself is a democratic socialist said.. [linked below in artist comments] to which politifacts has already rated his statement as completely true.

"in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income...1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

If it is anti-American of me to discuss that in the past forty years the lower and middle classes have seen their wages stagnate, yet are also fighting for smaller and smaller pieces of the pie and my refusal to smear them as anti-American because address the economic inequality is a real problem that will not be solved with your talking points.

I wondered, if from his position I am anti-American for not agreeing with his views then that makes me feel great. Since even on my worse day I would be in direct opposition to all of his ideological positions. So, yes, I am proud to be anti-American from his perspective. From his perspective a "true American Patriot" is one who seems not to worry nor wish to even acknowledge the woes of his fellow citizens.

Yes, you oppose my position with passion.. yet if my wishing for universal health care system and heavy investment in education system means I am anti-American and wish for a "nanny state" even though heavy investments in education and modernization of the school system has been shown to directly link to less people dependent on governmental programs, less prison population, less STD rates, abortion rates, and everything that I generally hear the conservative fringe of this country claim they are so worried about… then yes Mr. Conservative Libertarian, please paint this unapologetic liberal, progressive, democratic socialist with that big red paint of anti-Americanism, bleeding hearted leftists. I shall buy the paint for you to mark me with your views to show that caring for your fellow citizens is anti-American….

I am not Anti-American, I am anti-irrationality. I am anti-doing what is clear is not working yet keep advocating for it because it is a nice talking point. Such as the continuous advocating of the failed economic policies of Reagan, if increasing the debt and deficit more by percentage than any president in United States history is where you wish to take the country, then by all means please keep harping on your fiscal conservatism; I am not nor have I ever considered myself to be a fiscal conservative, I am fiscally pragmatic. For the ideas and views espoused by modern conservative seems from an outside perspective at least; to focus, solely on profits and not enough on people nor focus much on the elevation of the nation as a whole not just a few wealthy individuals.

I am anti-placing profits before the people because we can sell it better if we place it under the guise of liberty. Liberty which lacks humanity lacks everything. If your idea of freedom is not addressing the 50M people living below the poverty level then I am quite pleased to be against your idea of liberty...

I was called anti-liberty by another individual just earlier for similar circumstances, who considers himself a being who believes in absolute liberty regardless the cost. Well sir, "absolute liberty" is not liberty, it is anarchy. You must be granted the freedom to do as you choose, but you are not granted the absolute freedom to do as you choose without consequence…. He said, if I believed in liberty as I claim then I am really a libertarian because they are the only ones who believe in the maximizing of liberties. No, the style of libertarianism he advocated for seemed to maximize the anarchy and while anarchy has its place I would not consider that a stable liberty based society. Anarchy is revolutionary; anarchy without revolution is just useless destruction. In reply to his comment I said plainly…

I am no libertarian!

I could never be a libertarian for I live in a country where 100-150K people die each year because of a lack of medical insurance. I live in a nation where the majority of the bankruptcies are due to medical bills. I live in a nation where 1/6 of the citizens live below the poverty level... while a stoic man on most issues, the ideals that used to be the American dream does not sit well with the liberal, progressive, nor the democratic socialist in me. While our leaders bicker over term limits and their precious special interest groups gain the ear to the elected.... the proletarians die waiting for the dream to finally come true to them.

Those who wave the constitution around and say we should do nothing for the 150K Americans that die each year because of a lack of medical coverage are in no moral, nor any constitutional position to preach anything to me on the false patriotic position of apathy. . Those who say we should not address the fact that a majority of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills cannot claim to be economically sound. Those who dare to say that we must continue to beat up on teachers who for the past 30 years have had their budgets continuously cut cannot therefore act surprised that in those 30 years America has went from being in the top 10 of all academic subjects worldwide to now being in the late 20s and early 30s of most academic subjects worldwide. It does no good to wave a constitution when you clearly know nothing of the ideals. This is America, we are supposed to take care of our own... not say well you are on your own ... I got mine so who cares that my fellow citizens are dying and starving... that is not the American way; at least it was not the American way that I was brought up. Where your fellow citizens are not to be looked down upon with such disdain for needing a bit of help; where they are not called useless, and anti-American for speaking of the flaws in our system… . It was not at the time of our founders, nor is it today. To preach anything other than that shows a constitutional ignorance and lacking any claim of economic, moral, or liberal/liberty superiority."

You needn't take my leftist word for it, look at our history. When we invested heavily in education, America was in the top ten of all academic subjects worldwide, we had a strong middle class, we had less people dependent on government programs; we had literally a smaller government because the need for it was not there. You do not decrease the size of government by taking away things like education which has been shown to make people more independent and as such less dependent on the government. You decrease the size of government by making it unnecessary to exist. If you invested heavily in education, as well as put in place some simple economic reforms and you saw a more intelligent populace that would mean more people starting businesses, more people employed, more positions available, more people employed, more people who will therefore [with the exception of the sick and elderly] not need help from the government which is when you will see a decrease in these departments and as such a decrease in governmental power/size.

Yet claiming to hate governmental powers and then doing the very things that would make it necessary for government to grow as you cut education and as such breed a nation of people that would be more dependent on social programs for their survival that seems rather counterproductive from where I look at it. Whereas my route, has historical, national and global precedence.. when you invest in your population, with a strong education system you therefore do not need many of the social programs… but this idea of .. doing nothing under the guise of liberty and the faux position of equality.

Yes, I am a liberal, progressive and democratic socialist, to the untrained mind the first thing that comes to mind, and yes many untrained minds have thrown this at me.. OH, SOCIALIST, SO YOU ARE A COLLECTIVIST. No, democratic socialism does not advocate for collectivism, and I, myself am an opponent of collectivism aka libertarian socialism. I advocate for equal opportunity, not equal share.

Let us look at education, personally for me I would cover education up until four years of college for every American that wished to go. Now I know you may say, but we do not have the money for that and that it is too expensive. If you look at it from a purely tax based argument you would see this not exactly true. If you look at how much debt the average student incurs from their years in college and then look at overtime, in a better market how much they will pay in taxes you will see that what was "invested" in their college education will be more than paid back over their years of paying taxes. It would be pretty "cheap" to pay for students to go to college which then mean that they will be starting businesses, employing people, or simply going into higher paying positions for themselves.

To my libertarian friends, apathy is not a social policy. Saying oh let the market handle it… the market has been handling it. In the early 90s we had 45K Americans dying each year from a lack of health care, since then our nation's population has grown by 16% yet the number of Americans that die each year has increased nearly 335% to a whopping on average 150K Americans that die each and every year because of a lack of medical coverage. This number does not include the other 100,000 that die each year from medical malpractice.

I expect to get quite a few responses since when I let my friend, who considers himself a fiscal libertarian and social liberal. He said it is not apathy and that I simply do not understand what it is. Yet it seemed everything I asked him, how would you handle the failing economic system.. government should have no place in education.. okay… how would you deal with the 50M Americans that are currently below the poverty levels? … you get the government out of it and let the private sector take over and things will work out..  I mean this with the utmost respect but these are not policies they are political talking point that may sound nice … they also do not actually answers the question.

Okay I understand your disdain for the government and if you have an idea I am willing to listen but if your general idea is to "do nothing and just let the market handle it, then I find no use in that idea.. you may consider that liberty but I see it as nothing more than masked apathy.

In closing…
My values are those of Thomas Jefferson saying every citizen should have the right to an education and according to Jefferson the government would provide this [Since he tried, yet failed, for years to implement a Public School system in Virginia]. My values are Thomas Paine who spoke of the use of tax dollars to take care of the elderly and infirmed. My ideals are Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, who spoke of a national health care service, who spoke of a livable wage, who spoke of the people electing their senators, who spoke of limiting lobbyist in Washington, who spoke of limits on political campaign donations, who spoke of recording ALL congressional committee meetings, who spoke of true government transparency.  My ideals are that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a democrat, who also spoke of a livable wage, who spoke against business democracies that root out the local businesses, who spoke of housing, medical care and education being human rights to the people. My ideals are that of Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who warned us against spreading our military too thin, my ideals are that of Barry Goldwater, a Republican, who warned us against the religiosity in our politics. My ideals are that of Martin Luther King Jr, Eugene V. Debs, Bayard Rustin. A. Philip Randolph who were prominent supporters of the unions that gave America a middle class, that fought their lives, and in some cases gave their lives for an ideal of something greater than the self, from Thomas Paine to Bernie Sanders, there is an ideal of something greater than the self and it is all predicated on a very simple premise of not what is better for just me but what will elevate the country as a whole and if power being to the people, if businesses prospering, if middle class flourishing, if education being important, if not having 1.5 million of your citizens dying every decade due to a lack of health insurance makes one anti American because they wish to better the country then I am proud to be anti-American from the conservative stand point which is not founded on any principles of liberty nor is it grounded on any truths of pragmatism and it has truly lost all sense of empathy, thus its humanity.

Good day to you sirs and madams.
Emanon Eranatos
I shall take my leave of you now, going back to that big evil, liberal, progressive, democratic socialist, anti-American [from your perspective] dwelling in my mind…
Credits and Additions:
Bernie Sanders economic Inequality politifact rating:
[link]


Songs listened to while typing
Check out my hippie playlist [link]

Tracy Chapman: Talking about a revolution: [link]
Lisa Gerrard: Now we are free: [link]
Yusuf Islam: Peace Train: [link]
Five Heartbeats: We haven't finished yet: [link]
Stevie Wonder: Someday at Christmas: [link]
Nina Simone: I wish I knew how it would feel to be free: [link]
Lyle Lovett: If I had a boat: [link]
Bernice Johnson Reagan: Ella's song [track 7 on the playlist] [link]

Other pieces to check out:
Not fiscally conservative, fiscally pragmatic [link]
Leftist Pragmatism vs. Rightist Idealism [link]
My political ideologies: [link]
Liberals and gun ownership: [link]
Why socialism? [link]
Pure socialism vs democratic socialism [link]
The Conservative Colossus atheosemanon.deviantart.com/art/The-Conservative-Colossus-292705059
A letter to my comrades [link]
I judge your protests by the arrests [link]


Gay Rights:
Gay rights in America I: [link]
Gay rights in America II: [link]
Debate with an “ex gay” Christian convert: [link]

Influence map: [link]
An atheist on theism & atheism: [link]
Declaration of truth: [link]
What it means to be an atheist: [link]
Atheist leftist answers your questions...:
[link]
An atheist debates an atheist on theism: [link]

Abortion pieces:
[main piece] Abortion: [link]
Abortion stamp 1: [link]
Abortion stamp 2: [link]

Check my gallery for other pieces.

As always comrades,
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
-Emanon
:icondestroyplz:
Add a Comment:
 
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
It all looks good on paper, but in the long run, the politicians and government are too stuck up to change. Plus they won't relenquish their positions.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thus the piece, spoke of citizens remaining consistently active.

No kind of political system, in my opinion, will work if you have people whose only engagement with politics is voting every few years.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Yeah, now the things I want to say here could get me in trouble. Freaking NSA... X(
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
As long as it is not a detailed plan to seriously attempt mass murder, and/or overthrowing of the government then you should be okay..
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Oh, I forgot that I don't live in China. XD
But seriously, when it comes to government, they make money off of almost anything. Even drug busters make money, through TAXES, they get paid because of the government paying them, through mandatory tax pay on people! Everybody wins, except you, the citizen. (Referring to all US citizens.) They only watch out for each other, but at least give the people the best rights any country could offer. That includes welfare, agriculture, police, etc.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Which is why I believe the most important thing in any system is an active electorate. What policy decisions would a politician take if 60-70% of his or her district or state suddenly said they wanted marijuana decriminalized. they would see it would be political suicide to vote against such - so either for self preservation or sheer doing what those he or she elects want them to do - it gets done. The grand issue in America is that people in general are ot active in politics outside of the voting every few years... if that.

Well taxation in of itself I have no issue with, now what that percentage should be, and what tax write-offs and to what degree we allow loop holes, if any, is always a matter for debate and is a healthy discussion.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Politicians here in Florida seem to not care nor step down. Plus nobody new has come forward.

My issue with taxes is that they go straight down into their pockets while they build a military. We're not even at war.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The people must forge ahead, even if the same person is elected, the people must remain active. I am in New York, so our state is not a swing state like your state is. It is fairly certain that the Democrat will win New York.

Well, military size if you look over a century overall have decreased as technological advances no longer require as many soldiers to do certain jobs. Some people have an issue with having a standing military, I do not, I like the fact that we have a "professional military" I would much rather have a standing military then when conflict arises try to draft people  and train them quickly for whatever the issue may be. Now, I agree with you  on the surface that we can and should better allocate our Defense spending to ensure that A- we do not rush into senseless conflicts without weighing the Pros and Cons [aka the Powell Doctrine] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_D…; 2- in relation to 1 of the doctrine -  -is the action in the best interest of the country and not just a few corporations?  [Iran would be a secular, much better country if the US and the UK had not overthrown its Prime Minister in 1953  - a secular Muslim and once we did that - the country became very unstable and in a few decades the revolution happen which brought to power the religious leaders]
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconarrayofstars:
ArrayOfStars Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012
The Libertarians do truly scare me. I hope they never do get a power hold in this country.

I cannot really understand why Libertarians hate the poor, though. Being poor is not really a choice but circumstance. It's like they blame you for been poor -- that if you just wanted to, that you can become middle-class if you just want to or you can simply just become rich.

I follow a guy's blog and the contempt for the poor he has is astounding -- he views the poor as lazy no-do-gooders and he says he's a 'libertarian.' And I hear this same anti-poor philosophy with a lot of other Libertarians. Go figure.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I agree, I am not apathetic enough to be a libertarian. Apathy disguised as freedom is still apathy.

They want to cut all social programs, defund education, defund EPA, get rid of ATF, etc etc .. yet they have no real plan as far as I can see for actual crime.. oh yes, it is liberty, government should not be in this... I have not heard an indepth plan with them that I agree with on a large scale. Some of the stuff I agree with but not enough to make me vote for them.

... that is what I hear from them often.
Reply
:iconscholarwarrior-lad:
scholarwarrior-lad Featured By Owner May 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
drug testing costs money. tax money. :nuu: lol
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Well it is not drug testing per se that I have an issue with, it is the drug testing everyone who happens to be on a type of assistance because it is counter-productive, as well as counterintuitive to the stated aims of spending less money.
Reply
:iconscholarwarrior-lad:
scholarwarrior-lad Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I was pointing out an irony, you see. Money used for programs to help people is viewed as bad. Money used for things to harm people and/or scrutinize is viewed as good. also chances are this libertarian person had to use a public road to get home to or from work. :chew:
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
The funny thing is, .. I have debated him since this conversation and he is for oil subsidies which then makes me wonder how libertarian is he if he thinks government should subsidies companies who collectively pull in over a trillion dollars a year.. but... spending billions to ensure every American has health insurance is evil commie stuff *face palms*
Reply
:iconscholarwarrior-lad:
scholarwarrior-lad Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
corporate welfare ... they don't :nod: see it as things simply changing hands a few more times or name labels swapping. If it's a gov't agency that's "evil statism", but if it's the state funding private companies to do stuff then the whining dies down.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Lmao, sadly that is true. I was like WTF REALLY!! When the Republicans voted heavily against ending the subsidies and thus the oil companies still get the subsidies because there was not enough votes to end it.. I am like and this is the party of wasteful spending? where a few billion are given to companies who make a few billion in a day
Reply
:iconscholarwarrior-lad:
scholarwarrior-lad Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
They're hand over fist outsourcing as much as they can anyway. First it was manufacturing. Now it's skilled work for R&D. Where is the money going to come from for people to invest if nobody does the "invest it back" I keep hearing so much about?
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
... it will never come but those in power will still make more and more money. As Bernier Sanders said which politifact said it was true
"In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent. ....in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income,""

So they get more and more of the money , pay less and less taxes... and then we say we should give them more
[link]
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconangrypufferfish:
AngryPufferfish Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2012
Unfortunately I think the reason that education is beaten down and battered by political officials at the moment is precisely because of some of the things you mentioned. Nothing is quite as frightening as a group of people who are intelligent enough to understand what their leaders are saying and make critical judgments about their policies. Educated people are a threat to Politicians who rely on scare tactics and manipulation to get by because they usually don't tolerate poor treatment, aren't as easy to trick, and are more likely to question things that are said to them.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I completely agree with your premise that the reason we no longer invests in our education system because there is nothing more dangerous to the status quo than a populace that is not only aware, but are very intelligent. Who have the mental tools to stand up and actually change the ways things are done in this country.

As I always said, politics is a very simple thing, it is the politicians that make it seem complex to try to turn the average person away from it. It is that same old battle of the mind, boredom vs apathy.

I agree agree with your last premise that educated people are more likely to question them on their bullshit, as well the more educated one is the less likely they are to be unemployed. We can look at the numbers of those who dropped out of HS or even only have an HS diploma compared to those who have college degrees or even some college education.
Reply
:iconilikecustard:
ilikecustard Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012
As always, a pleasure to read your work.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you! Am quite glad you enjoyed the piece
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The guy you argued with is not a libertarian conservative, he's an asshole. Now, when I was a kid, being generous was a virtue and Ebenezer scrooge being a miserable miser was not.

Guys like that want the United States to become Ebenezer scrooge, who wants the surplus population to die.

Libertarians are pretty much a joke. They're all about personal freedom, unless you're black, gay or minority then you're fucked by the suddenly very intrusive and powerful police state. It's a joke.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I was unaware that those things were not mutually exclusive :P

But yes I agree with your core premise that being kind and generous to people is a good thing but now when you show the littlest ounce of helping your fellow people ..LEFTIST!! ANTI AMERICAN!! NANNY STATE!!!..

I pretty much consider libertarianism to be the political ideology in which apathy dwells.... no matter, WE NEED LESS LAWS, LET THE MARKET HANDLE IT..IT WILL WORK OUT. blah
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Well sure, it's one thing to admit that bureaucracy was a bad and ineffecient thing. It's another to deny that there are worse things than bureuacracy.

Beurocrats are ineffecient at providing a service. Businessmen are effeceint at fleecing you like a sheep.

And we all know there's such a thing as too much state involvement, but there has to be a point where we have to stop and say, "Yes, we need the state. It can provide some benefits!"

Back two hundred years ago, libertarians were pushing for more freedom in a time of social conservatism. Now, libertarians are calling for the right to discriminate at will against those who can't defend themselves. Like Rand Paul, who says that the civil rights movment was unconstitutional. If that' a libertarian . . . then no thank you
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes, Apathy is worse than bureaucracy, as I ask any time I debate a conservative or libertarian. Okay, you want to get rid of the social safety nets, okay..sure.. what is your alternative? They never have one other than LET THE MARKET HANDLE IT.. the market has been handling it and after 20 years the number of people who die from a lack of medical coverage has grown 300% from 45K to 150K ... what are they waiting for? For 500K to die each year, which would be 25% of our yearly annual population growth.

Which is why one of the things I did agree with the president is combining several federal agencies that basically do the same thing and eventually when you go to one.. they would HAVE to send you to this one and so on...so why not just combine them which would save time and money.

I believe with respect to too much government involvement I have always liked this quote
"Most liberals never lost sight of the potential for evil in big government. They have consistently opposed government power in matters of personal and political belief. Liberals are not unconcerned with economic liberty, but they have come to believe that the common good requires that social justice be given a higher priority than absolute economic freedom. Conservatives are — and always have been — on the other side of both questions. They are much more prone than liberals to limiting personal and political liberties, but they place the freedom of an individual to do as he pleases in the economic realm at the top of their concerns. Social justice has held a lower priority for conservatives, from the days of Alexander Hamilton when they favored strong government as a means of protecting their economic privileges to the days of Ronald Reagan when they see government as an instrument of social justice and therefore a threat to their economic position."
-Robert S. McElvaine


Libertarians were never much use, they CLAIM to have their roots in classical liberalism, which was about social equality and economic freedom without an overbearing market so huge that would destroy the little guy. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and several other founders have spoke against the concentration of wealth in a few hands as being the biggest threats to liberty.What good is a government if it is in the pocket of the wealthy individual.

... Yeah, I saw Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders on health care and laughed when he said universal healthcare means the doctors are slaves and Bernie Sanders asked the doctor... Are you a slave? hahahah
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Indeed, free market is a non-answer. Plus many libertarians seem to have a very distorted view of history. When I say the word "sweatshop" they plug their ears and start singing to drown me out. And the Triangle Shirtwaist fire means nothing to them.

And they never answer, if government can protect you from a foreign army or from phsyical attack from a mugger why can't they protect you from a business or a corporation? And they seem to think that private industry can do no wrong.

A friend of mine once said that the Turkish immigration service is more effecient than the Canadian one. So clearly getting rid of it is not the ideal solution. It can be improved.

Personally I believe economic freedom needs a good groundwork of personal freedom to mean anything. It's useless if anybody can discriminate against you for your skin color or religion, or if you're a cripple and you need a hand.

and even with Social Darwinism, the earning and working potential of the poor isn't zero. They're not unsalvageable. So who's going to do the scrubbing of toilets? the Rich?
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Free market system has never worked, Plus there is no such thing in the current world of a free market. There are markets where there are not as many regulations yet there are no fully free market systems they were proven to be counterintuitive and counterproductive to any idea of a true market where even the little guy has a chance, even if a small one, to succeed.

Because they are faithful people who believe corporations are people and are very nice people.. daddy Warbucks and they are waiting for their annie to make them humane...

I am for economic freedom, yet not if that freedom means apathy and just letting them run wild...

As Bernie Sanders said:
[link]

RATED 100% TRUE

"in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income,..In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

Yet all we hear from the republicans is that there is no economic inequality, just liberals starting trouble and making class warfare.

Let us see... in the 1970s... 99% of the people shared 92% of the pie.. meaning only 7% of the people needed help, if any.
In the 1980s... 99% of the people shared 86% of the pie... meaning 13% of them needed help...
1990s... 99% of the people shared 81% of the pie.. meaning 18% of them needed help...

As of 2007, 99% of the people shared 23.5% of the pie... meaning 24% of the people need help..

Which makes a bit of sense when you consider 50M Americans now live below the poverty line..
Reply
:iconxdraconiankingx:
xDraconianKingx Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:iconclapplz:

'Nuff said really :D
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
This is what happens when I have a few hours of bored and a moment of freedom :P
Thanks for the fave man, very much appreciated.
Reply
:iconxdraconiankingx:
xDraconianKingx Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Hey it works out very well for you, me, I spend my time writing fanfiction snippets. :meow: And no problem on the fave :D
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Lmao, That is cool, my mind is generally grounded in politics, history, religion and social issues.. which means I suck to hang around when bored haha
Reply
:iconcrazy-shinobi-muffin:
Crazy-Shinobi-Muffin Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
:iconclapplz: Bravo!
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I am glad you enjoyed it. I thank you very much for the fave of this piece, it was very much appreciated.
Reply
:iconcrazy-shinobi-muffin:
Crazy-Shinobi-Muffin Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
no prob
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

Featured in Collections

Literature by Mephistophilez


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
March 30, 2012
File Size
19.1 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,019
Favourites
9 (who?)
Comments
56

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×