Franklin Roosevelt v. Augustine Pinochet

[MaC]

based off a response by Phillip.  I'm undecided at this point.  Help sway my vote.

[MaC]

based off a response by Phillip.

What response?

your thread: Opinion of Franklin Roosevelt

One of the most horrible people to ever live. If only we had a man as good as Pinochet back in the 1930s.

[MaC]

But at least Pinochet wasn't a socialist...

[MaC]

Both were freedom fighters, but I'd vote for Pinochet.

Who exactly was free in the Chile of Pinochet?

Is every non-socialist a freedom fighter?

Being a non-socialist is a necessary condition for being a freedom fighter, though it within itself doesn't make you one.

[MaC]

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

[MaC]

Real freedom is spending money however you want.  By supporting government safety nets that would allow for others to have 'a bare minimum', you're only making them reliant upon others.  Nobody is free in this situation because the taxpayer isn't able to choose not to pay taxes and the recipient of the services is a slave to the welfare system.

[MaC]

To me, libertarianism means freedom to those who can afford it.

Freedom for the few, not freedom for the many.

Ah, but that's the current system.  The current 'mixed economy' doesn't let poor people accumulate wealth.  In a more pure system the poor wouldn't have nearly as much of a tax burden on them, nor would excessive regulations be hurting them as much.  Granted there will always be 'poor' people, but in a libertarian society the poor will be better off to make decisions for themselves and able to invest.

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

I don't think that is true.

Part of freedom is having enough food.
Only if you needn't worry about your and your family's survival, you are FREE to live your life, to read books, to to discuss about politics and to participate in society.
All this is necessary to call a man free!

So to me, a law that guarantees every citizen enough food to survive - which would usually be called an economically liberal law - , is a law of freedom.

There are two options in life, Max: either you are a libertarian, in which case you can't understand how anyone can not be a libertarian, or you are not a libertarian, in which you can't understand how anyone can be a libertarian.

Keep this in mind when talking to one.

How is this any different than trying to talk to a liberal, Gabu?

Real freedom is spending money however you want.  By supporting government safety nets that would allow for others to have 'a bare minimum', you're only making them reliant upon others.  Nobody is free in this situation because the taxpayer isn't able to choose not to pay taxes and the recipient of the services is a slave to the welfare system.

There is no 'choice' under your system, capitalist - the State imposes everyone's position in the social heirarchy upon him, just as in every other system.  You have money to spend in precise relation to this position in the heirarchy of power.  I'm sure it feels good and 'free' to have money to spend, but what you are doing is excersizing power - also fun, but by definition involving the subjugation of another.

The State does not impose everyone's position in the social hierarchy.  Only in historical feudal systems and socialism/communism in practice is it the state's imposition on the hierarchy.

The system is only harmful when force is involved.  Force in an economic decision is a characteristic of this system, not a capitalist one.

 

[MaC]

poors won't starve to death.  It's the high taxes that are killing them.  The stock market's a risky investment-however working poors could invest in a retirement account, bonds, other plans so they can have a safety net when they retire/get sick/ try helping kids pay some of college.  If social security never existed, people could put that money into one of the aforementioned plans could retire comfortably.

[MaC]

The Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho are far too free-spirited to support a brutal dictator.

Chances are they'd more likely go FDR because most of the New Deal money was targeted at the western states. (They were a good deal better off, but were swing states so funding went there to get votes.  The southern states that needed the help were ignored because they were solidly democratic)