Socialism

[brewster]

Proclaiming a goal of freedom from fear meant that government should fill the role in daily life previously filled by God and religion.

While most of the article is simply a manifesto of a conservative vision of small government with no safety nets at all, the above is simply nonsense. The fear FDR meant is fear of violence, both foreign and domestic.

No - he meant fear in a very general term...as in, the government should take care of you like a fucking child.

Simply untrue give that another freedom was from want, which can be argued to mean what you say, of a parental state. I don't understand why put words in his mouth when there's plenty of explicitly outlined red meat for you to tear apart in his administration.

[Montegriffo]

Exchanging a *cartridge* for a shot of whiskey, not a bullet.

When offering a bullet in trade, the customer would hope to receive as much whiskey as he could carry away and all the gold and silver in the drawer, and not the typical counter-offer of a bullet in return.

With a Silver Bullet, you can buy enough whisky to kill a vampire.

[DBTrek]

Would trade whiskey for that motorcycle.

[Montegriffo]

I think they are one of the prettiest bikes ever made.
Can still buy a new Bullet in India for £4 grand but nowhere near as nice.

[The Conservative]

Proclaiming a goal of freedom from fear meant that government should fill the role in daily life previously filled by God and religion.

While most of the article is simply a manifesto of a conservative vision of small government with no safety nets at all, the above is simply nonsense. The fear FDR meant is fear of violence, both foreign and domestic.

Are you serious? a Conservative vision is exactly opposite of what you are stating. The whole point of government is to be there when and if you fall the government will be there to pick you up and help you out, it is also meant to protect from enemies with and without.

What the government is not meant to be is to be controlling your life when you don't need help, such as the government is today.

[brewster]

Are you serious? a Conservative vision is exactly opposite of what you are stating.

Slow down and read what I actually said. All I was saying is "freedom from fear" is freedom from violence rather than freedom from anything bad, which would be "freedom from want". Most conservatives I'm familiar with agree that defending our nation and law & order are conservative values.

You're actually fulfilling what nuke describes in my sig, creating a straw man of something FDR didnt imply. You can't concede that the man was right about one thing, that the US government should protect its people.

This is actually what's driven our government to its knees, the believe that if someone's wrong about one thing they're wrong about everything. when that's the case you can't negotiate or ally with them, because they're completely wrong, right? You guys despise Wall Street bankers and corporate tycoons as much as anybody, yet when Elizabeth Warren talks about antitrust laws and banking regulation you have to be against that because.... look who's saying it. Once upon a time things like that would get bipartisan sponsors in Congress, but when government is winner-take-all you can't let the opposition take half a win even if you get the other half.

[Speaker to Animals]

It is basically Hell's counteroffer to God's salvation. God offers us a life raft from the death and decay that is our fallen world, with a promise of new lives free from sin, death, and suffering at some point in the future when he creates the next universe that has no evil. Hell encourages you to not think about that, to disbelieve it, and focus on creating a heaven on Earth, made by man. Freedom from fear, from want, from suffering is what we all strive for. There are two paths to take, and the "let's create Heaven here on Earth by our own hands" camp has a poor record.

FDR was not really that far off from a Mao in intent. He was merely restrained by a constitutional government and, critically, an Army loyal to that constitution rather than to utopia.

This is a pivotal shibboleth separating Western men. One camp believes they can get it right this time, fashion their own morality, and create a perfect society if only they have the power. The other camp recognizes, however they wish to frame it, that mankind is fundamentally fallen, no utopia is possible in this life, and government ought to exist taking this fact into account.

[Martin Hash]

FDR lived during a time that Marxism was fashionable. 3 of his cabinet members were rumored to be closet Marxists, so certainly he was getting pressure from that direction. Big Labor was entirely Marxist. Don't blame FDR for the times in which he lived. It wasn't until after WWII that a concerted effort was made by Libertyists in America to push back against Marxist ideology, culminating with McCarthy, who wasn't wrong about all the Marxists in Hollywood & government, but his remedy violated their liberty. Now there's a complete flip: the Marxists are black-listing and deplatforming the Libertyists.

[The Conservative]

Are you serious? a Conservative vision is exactly opposite of what you are stating.

Slow down and read what I actually said. All I was saying is "freedom from fear" is freedom from violence rather than freedom from anything bad, which would be "freedom from want". Most conservatives I'm familiar with agree that defending our nation and law & order are conservative values.

You're actually fulfilling what nuke describes in my sig, creating a straw man of something FDR didnt imply. You can't concede that the man was right about one thing, that the US government should protect its people.

This is actually what's driven our government to its knees, the believe that if someone's wrong about one thing they're wrong about everything. when that's the case you can't negotiate or ally with them, because they're completely wrong, right? You guys despise Wall Street bankers and corporate tycoons as much as anybody, yet when Elizabeth Warren talks about antitrust laws and banking regulation you have to be against that because.... look who's saying it. Once upon a time things like that would get bipartisan sponsors in Congress, but when government is winner-take-all you can't let the opposition take half a win even if you get the other half.

Freedom from fear is only possible with an educated population, and a strong military.

You need to have an educated population to have freedoms, because an educated population will realize that freedoms are only free if the government is not involved with every day life.

You need a strong military to protect from enemies within an without.

If you have both, social services and state dependency reduces.

Which is not the Democrats want, as proof of the ACA and welfare increases during the Obama Administration.

Government should only get involved in emergency situations, nothing more, nothing less.

[brewster]

Government should only get involved in emergency situations, nothing more, nothing less.

So no police forces, regulators, or even border protection involved in preventing emergencies whatsoever, eh? That's pretty hardcore even for a Libertarian.