SilverMark
Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So the risk takers would still be successful in a country without any of that state funded schmutter like (say) Somalia, then?
Maybe the self righteously whiney apologists for the plutocracy should all bugger off over there, in that case. You won't have to pay taxes in a country with no government, after all, and the sweat of your brows will still make you rich without any of the social infrastructure that only wimpy progressive spongers need.
Do you pride yourself in your idiotic strawman bullshit arguments? Which comes first numbnuts, the tax or what the tax buys? How much social infrastructure was there in i.e. US ~1780? How about ~1600? What fucking infrastructure did George Westinghouse rely upon that allowed him to succeed, circa 1880? Ditto Henry Ford. How many of your vaunted socialist paradise workers were responsible for his ideas? Who exactly built Westinghouse since you leftists readily declare it was built by others? I want to fucking know.
Now, lets talk about risk takers in a different light. What infrastructure did the early west bound settlers depend upon? Interstate 80? Unleaded gas? How about the early colonists? I'm quite sure you'd have to agree that when the first settlers arrived there was a fully functioning government infrastructure, fire departments, police, EPA, public funded schools. and abortion clinics. Now if you take me seriously here you're more laughable than you've already exhibited. But essentially that's exactly what you're arguing -
So the risk takers would still be successful in a country without any of that state funded schmutter like (say) Somalia, then? ... a country with no government, after all, and the sweat of your brows will still make you rich without any of the social infrastructure that only wimpy progressive spongers need
They most certainly have been, except for when you liberal socialist parasites (spongers) get your greasy fingers involved.
You make a fool of yourself.
Let's talk about that, just how many of them were really just farmers at the time? Families had to be self-sufficient at the time, what they did depend on from the government: PROTECTION. Protection from the natives, protection from those who would rob and terrorize them. Most of the large landowners at the time either had land grants(FROM THE GOVERNMENT) or simply were squatters, who took claim to land they didn't own.The banned together to form governmets on a local and state level, with the ability to tax, for things like roads, law enforcement, legislative bodies, to maintain wht infrastructure there was. They weren't exactly company towns.
Care to discuss the use of Chinese labor by those who built the railroads? Slaves in the South, and how those lands were given to the Plantation owners. Let's discuss those who owned plantations in the South, and the planter class....keep going...you'll find that through the history of those who became quite wealthy at the time, inherited a great deal, expected protection from the governments, roads and streams to be open for transporting goods, even some regulation of markets.
Seems, your understanding might be incomplete, care for me to continue?
_____________________________
If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!
|
RE: The Bain of Obama - 
Profile
)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread