0 votes

Making deep short concise arguements against Big Gov't

So you are debating with a Big War Republican or a Big Welfare Liberal and you want to knock them on their butt quickly.

I will give you one and you guys post your favorite below.

Truly Free-Market Constutional Republics(Pro Rule of Law Corporations) vs Pseudo Free-Market Social Democracy (Corporationists):

In a Free-Market Constitutional Republic there are only two forms of influence/income: 1) Consumers and 2) Consumer Investors.

In a Social Democracy there are three forms of influence/income: 1) Consumer, 2) Consumer Investor, and 3) Subsidization (Lobbyist Port of Entry).

If consumers want change within a corporation they boycott his product -- the effects in both styles of gov't?

1) In Social Democracy (Pseudo Free-Markets) the consumer stops buying product, 2) the consumer investor has a mild to moderate reaction, 3) gov't steps in to bailout -- Net Effect! The change does not take place.

1) In a Free-Market Constitutional Republic the consumer stops buying product, 2) consumer investor has a moderate to strong reaction, 3) the corporation changes behavior because there is no bailout and his two sources of income have left him -- Net Effect! The change happens immediately.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You didn't mention

PRODUCERS. In a sovereign nation each individual is a producer of some value which is what makes each individual wealthy. We lost our country in direct proportion to the surrendering of our power to produce to corporations. THEN we became lowly consumers...

The old family farm was a production center. It produced everything from food and clothing to furniture and strong, educated and productive citizens. As the corporations usurped production of those items we gradually slipped into servitude, consumerism and menial labor. Those family farms disappeared and the towns they supported turned into ghost towns - all the free and productive people were forced to move into the big city (fascist) labor camps.

Unless and until the individual is regarded and treated as sacred there can be no legitimate civilization - call it by whatever fancy name you will. This is in part what Ron Paul meant when he said there is a tendency to treat "groups" or labels while ignoring the individual.

I have an easier one ...

Obey the law. It is imperative that our government institutions, elected officials, wealthy elite obey the law. For example, Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution says only GOld and silver shall be money, and only Congress has the authority to create money and regulate the value thereof. There is no Amendment creating the Federal Reserve, therefore it is in violation of the law. To argue philosophies of governance and economics is moot. First we must square with the law, which in the Fed's case is pretty cut and dried.

Needless to say here, this logic applies to many agencies and institutions of government and commerce. It is an argument that quickly leaves them speechless. Funny how the simple truth works.

One fault I have with Dr Paul (and I dearly love him), is that he works too hard to explain these things. He needs to simplify his message ... we all do. Let's face it, the average guy isn't a rocket scientist. He needs things to be simple. We'll do far better when we can quickly and clearly communicate our agenda so simply a child can understand it. I know that's a tall order sometimes, but this is the challenge to us.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams


I don't think a Big War Republican or a Big Welfare Liberal will give two hoots about what you wrote. No offense, because I agree with your assessment.

The problem is that both the Big War Republican and Big Welfare Democrat believe that their 'cause is just. However, both know that they would never lift a finger to make it right, and are too lazy to figure out what the root cause is. (most likely some other idiot's big government policy) But since it is natural to think others are just like you, then they think someone needs to FORCE people to do something about their pet problem.

For Republicans, they realize that deep down, they are just as blood lust thirsty as the nut jobs in the middle east. They want everything they can get their hands on, and they view most foreigners in 'those places' (insert unfamiliar ethnicity or people who are simply 'different' here) as subhuman animals and not worthy or life unless we God Fearing Americans allow them to have it. They don't want to sacrifice one second of their leisure time, and for those who don't exactly fit in this mold, then they are in it simply out of fear and revenge. Proof of the subhuman thoughts can be seen in their callousness toward untold Iraqi civilian casualties, or the lack of any feeling at the prospect of incinerating millions of Iranian civilians with nuclear weapons. (or the resultant rain of death on India and Pakistan)

Then you have the equally self-righteous, equally egotistical, and equally selfish Democrats who realize that they won't lift a finger to help out some poor sap who is less fortunate than they and so they demand everyone else sacrifice so they don't have to. They see themselves as filthy and disgustingly well off beyond any normal conception of 'middle class' and so they think all Americans are. (except for those 'other' people who they dare not touch, associate with, much less actually try to meet and get to know) They know people benefit 'unfairly' in economic situations because they deep down think they are on the beneficent end of that unfairness. (they are rich and they know they didn't have to work hard, or not hard enough for it)

Both are two sides of the same disease.

Each has been in control of our two major political parties for decades if not at least a century.

Common sense has left the building. And you can't argue from a position of common sense with those who have none, or who's selfishness and fear blind them to it.

Liberalism, aka Neoconism has recently been described as a psychological disorder. I tend to agree. It is rooted in childish and immature responses to the world around us. People who subscribe to it are susceptible to escapism and refuse to accept the cold hard facts of reality. As such, they want to cover up the bad they see in the world, or make it go away. If they get into positions of power to do this, they will always make matters worse, because they will suffer (along with the rest of us) from the inevitability of unforeseen consequences. They will forever attempt band-aide solutions and forsake the horse for the cart. Hands down they would get stomped in a chess match or any similar game of strategy because they cannot think past the immediate future, or a limited group they wish to effect. They are incapable in their present state of drawing logical conclusions, or seeing the causal effect of their actions on others or on their future. They shun responsibility even while pretending to embrace it, and this is manifested in a "why don't you do this?" attitude rather than "I am doing this, care to join me?" outlook.

Even after WWII and the evils of totalitarianism throughout the 20th century, they still cannot accept the proposition of "live and let live." They still do not see the err of thinking they have the authority to direct other people's lives. They do so, because they are petrified of having to be responsible for living their own. They don't trust that others can make wise decisions for themselves or their families because they know they don't or can't and they presume everyone else is just as screwed up as themselves. (but their facade is clearly one of being 'better' than everyone else - such is the plight of those who hide behind masks to avoid facing their truth)

Okay one more

You are trying to convince a Big Gov Democrat that trying to tax the wealthy or corporations is either conterproductive toward the desired goals (based on your argument or theirs) or that the taxation never attacks the rich it only attacks the middle class.

Libs push for higher corporation tax and higher wealthy tax #1

Counter Argument:
1) Corporations Never Pay Taxes
-- a) All cost increases (including taxation) is rolled into their pricing model; middle class are the largest consumers (even on per capita basis)
--b) Jobs begin outsourcing.
2) Wealthy People (avoid taxation) -- Poor People (evade) -- and Middle (pay)
-- a) The dollars that should be spent by the wealthy on Entrepreneurialism (which chiefly comes out of the middle class) will instead be spent on protectionistic investments to offset tax increases or tucked off into non-profits; both are non-job generation cash-stifling endeavors. Seek hedging in foreign markets.
-- b) Poor Evade Taxation: by not seeking advancement, working part-time (staying transitional), and working under the table or in black market.
-- c) Middle class to wealth to evade and to poor to avoid, so they pay and begin to invest no more!!

Wisdom is the anticipation of consequences!