107
108

This is sad... (imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]factor8_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

government military is socialism. let the free market decide how big our military should be

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

government military is socialism

People always try to do this shit, and it's always laughably wrong. The military is one of the scant few things the govt has an obligation and responsibility to provide to the people. For protection against foregin invaders.

Because if you don't have a "govt" military...........you soon will be conquered BY another govt's military that isn't full of ideological naive morons.

let the free market decide how big our military should be

lol yeah, lets let a bunch of fucking CEOs and bankers decide how large our military will be. I'm sure that will go over great with the ChiComs.

[–]factor8_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

so the government is allowed to provide safety from outside invaders, but not from illness?

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights

3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money (IE --- abolishing the FED in all it's forms and taking steps to prevent ANYTHING like it from rearing it's head again)

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures

Simply put --- The intent of the original role of the Federal Govt as outlined in original 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) should have been sufficient, as the 10th Amendment states that ALL powers not SPECIFICALLY designated to the Federal Govt shall remain in the realm of the individual states.

However, over the course of over 240+ years, the incremental march of govt has invariably led it down gobbling up more and more power for itself --- all drawn from the rights of the people.

As I've stated above, simply erasing the slate and removing all laws, departments, regulations, etc implemented after 1800 would remove this and start everything over again. However, typical usual liberal shitlibs are trying to parse this out and insinuate I'm favoring the return of fucking slavery, of all things. Par for the course for the intellectual dishonestly they display at nearly every turn.

Return to the original state of the republic, and plug the holes and weak points that have been exploited by the Federal govt --- such as that fucking interstate commerce clause that has been just absolutely raped and abused to the point that it no longer represents anything that it was originally supposed to be, for example.

[–]factor8_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

im a lefty, so i disagree with your list of government functions. however i do agree with your general premise that our current government is raping and abusing with its power. just curious, who do you plan to vote for?

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Cruz

[–]factor8_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

one last question. if a pharmaceutical company finds a cure for cancer, should they be allowed to charge as much as they want until another company is able to find the cure as well?

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

one last question. if a pharmaceutical company finds a cure for cancer, should they be allowed to charge as much as they want until another company is able to find the cure as well?

If you're asking if it should be the govt's role to step in a FORCE them to charge XXXXX dollars for it, then no. Absolutely not. For a few reasons:

  1. The govt wouldn't stop at JUST that one company. That one time. They would use it as precedent to establish a wedge and leverage additional tyrannical powers. This is govt tactics 101.

  2. Companies wouldn't even pretend to look for cures if the govt started doing this. I'd rather there be an expensive cure for cancer than a cheap non-existent cure for cancer.

  3. Any company that hypothetically found the cure for cancer isn't going to charge something that no one can pay. There's no profit in selling something no one can buy. You might as well try to sell Ferraris in the Congo. They would find the supply/demand equilibrium point.

[–]factor8_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

okay, how much money do you think your mom would spend to cure your cancer? 100k? 1 million? what if its more profitable for a company to charge 1 mill for a cure that only a handful of people can afford? is there some system in place in your vision of our future that could deal with that sort of issue? or is it something that would not be addressed?

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorpSupporter 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

okay, how much money do you think your mom would spend to cure your cancer? 100k? 1 million? what if its more profitable for a company to charge 1 mill for a cure that only a handful of people can afford? is there some system in place in your vision of our future that could deal with that sort of issue? or is it something that would not be addressed?

Why does it have to be addressed by govt? I've already said what I think. And the answer is still NO.

You do not give up liberty for some hypothetical situation that WILL be exploited once precedence has been established. This is the quintessential concept in the "governing via crisis" mentality that has been plaguing our entire societal mentality for the better part of the last century.

Regardless, didn't we just have some company that tried to do something similar to this? And didn't it get resolved without having the govt jackboots involved?