There are a number of countries that are freer than this one, and that are not on the path to totalitarianism.
Australia, Ireland, Britain, Denmark, and South Korea come to mind. They all have their flaws, but they aren’t decaying as fast as this country.
I would be surprised if she won. She is the most divisive figure in American politics today…even moreso than Bush. McCain and Giuliani, on the other hand, are almost universally respected among Americans.
Of course both McCain and Giuliani will have a very difficult and expensive time winning the Republican pres. primary. Hillary, on the other hand, is a shoe-in for the Dem. nominee. She is also quite good at raising $$. I expect her to have almost unlimited cash on hand for this race. On top of that, the popular media have been paving the way for her candidacy for years. You combine these factors with the way she refuses to take a real position on controversial issues (Iraq for example) so as to avoid offending parts of the electorate, and it’s not too hard to see her winning.
At that point, look out. She is a hard core leftist with a vindictive streak a mile wide.
The one thing that Hillary has against her is that she can probably galvanised the GOP base better than any GOP candidate. Therefore, her candidacy for the Democrats strengthens the position of someone like McCain who can’t turn out the GOP base on his own.
Of course both McCain and Giuliani will have a very difficult and expensive time winning the Republican pres. primary. Hillary, on the other hand, is a shoe-in for the Dem. nominee.
But one of them will win. I don’t see a 3rd viable Republican. Whoever wins will have a big advantage over Hillary.
However, I think Hillary would be very likely to be the liberal Richard Nixon. If she is elected, don’t be surprised to see her use the CIA and the IRS to go after her political enemies.
What are you basing this on Moose?
The fact that her husband used to do it and that she shows every sign of being a far shrewder politician and a more vicious, despicable person than her husband. I’m not saying that she will do it. I’m just saying that I will not be surprised one bit if she does.
The fact that her husband used to do it
Can you please provide some examples of President Clinton doing this?
With regards to Republican nominees, I always suspected that Virginia Senator George Allen would get the 2008 nomination since he would have the support of people who vote Republican for three major issues: foreign policy, christian morality and compassionate conservative Republican spending (massive government expansion especially with funds appropriated to religious initiatives, hefty deficit spending with large tax cuts and pretend privatization of major welfare programs.)
Senator George Allen got himself into some trouble with his ignorant “welcome to America” and “macaca” comments. However, this seems to have blown over with little lasting damage to his reputation though.
Rudy Giuliani might face some difficulty securing the Republican nomination because there are pictures of him dressed as a woman on the internet. Of course, I think he can neutralize this with a campaign slogan of “SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH! SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH! SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH!” which he can repeatedly shout to make his approval rating go through the roof.
Hillary Clinton probably already has the Democratic nomination, but I would not entirely rule out former Virginia Governor Mark Warner or former Senator John Edwards yet, both of whom have been surprisingly quiet.
For those of you who have not yet read it, I highly recommend this article in the Objective Standard that characterizes both Neoconservatives and Compassionate Conservatives.
There are a number of countries that are freer than this one, and that are not on the path to totalitarianism.
Australia, Ireland, Britain, Denmark, and South Korea come to mind. They all have their flaws, but they aren’t decaying as fast as this country.
Australia? Didn’t they recently ban all forms of firearms and force the citizens to turn them in under penalty of imprisonment? That doesn’t sound like a country that I would have anything to do with.
Britain? The seat of Socialism, controlled by a monarchy? The nation that is even more uptight about ‘security’ than even the US, in which an innocent traveler at a train station can be arrested for having a heavier jacket on than the season calls for?
I don’t know about Ireland, but they seem too entrenched in Catholicism over there.
Denmark I can’t comment on.
South Korea does actually look like a country I could live in.
But for those of us with property here and very little money, the option of moving is unpleasant. But I may be forced to move soon, just because the taxes collected exceed my annual income. 
Can you please provide some examples of President Clinton doing this?
Taken from http://reason.com/9812/ed.vp.shtml.
But there is at least some evidence, to which the Judiciary Committee should turn serious attention, that Clinton the president has used more than esoteric legal tactics to serve Clinton the man. The most Nixonian allegations involve using the IRS to harass political enemies, including various conservative think tanks and Billy Dale, the career employee fired from the White House Travel Office.
Australia? Didn’t they recently ban all forms of firearms and force the citizens to turn them in under penalty of imprisonment? That doesn’t sound like a country that I would have anything to do with.
I haven’t heard anything about this. I do know that Australia is economically freer than the US, but that isn’t the main reason I’d make that my first choice if I were to leave the US. The reason I choose Australia is that the Aussies are the only Westerners willing to stand up to the Muslims in their midst and say, “No, we will not adjust to your sensibilites and traditions. You chose to live in our country. If anyone adjusts, it will be you. Do things our way or leave.”
Since I have no intention of buying a gun in the near future, these 2 factors are enough to outweigh the ban on guns, if its even true.
Britain? The seat of Socialism, controlled by a monarchy? The nation that is even more uptight about ‘security’ than even the US, in which an innocent traveler at a train station can be arrested for having a heavier jacket on than the season calls for?
This is a misconception. Britain is not socialist anymore than the US is. It is a welfare state with policies similar to those of the US, but it is ranked higher on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. And if Hillary is elected, along with a Democratic Congress, you can expect us to lose even more ground compared to the Brits.
And how do you figure that Britain is controlled by a monarchy? On paper, yes, in reality, no. Did you know that, on paper, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and CALIFORNIA are also subordinate to the monarch of England? But watch what happens if Queen Elizbath were to try to exert any control over those places. It’s been ages since the last time a British monarch refused to sign an act of Parliament. If the monarchy were to ever start showing signs of wanting control, Parliament would dissolve it.
And that guy was not arrested…he was shot to death, as well he should have been. I believe firmly in racial profiling. When you look as though you could be Middle Eastern, you are walking through a subway station while wearing a heavy coat in the middle of July immediately after an Islamic terrorist attack, and you RUN FROM THE COPS after being ordered to halt, you deserve whatever comes to you. If the police are not vigilant, the next one might not turn out to be a false alarm.
I don’t know about Ireland, but they seem too entrenched in Catholicism over there.
Certainly no more entrenched in Catholocism than this country is entrenched in Pat Robertson-ism. I’d much rather live in a Catholic society than a Protestant one. At least Catholics recognize the need for reason and evidence in their religion. The Protestant churches are the closest thing the Christian world has to tribes of savages.
Denmark I can’t comment on.
Actually, scratch that. It’s too much of a welfare state. I included it because its social policies are the most libertarian of any Western nation.
South Korea does actually look like a country I could live in.
South Korea’s got Seoul. That says it all.
But for those of us with property here and very little money, the option of moving is unpleasant. But I may be forced to move soon, just because the taxes collected exceed my annual income.
I don’t have that much money either, but I would be able to move someday, if I felt the urge. I don’t see how you can pay taxes that exceed your income.
Did you know that, on paper, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and CALIFORNIA are also subordinate to the monarch of England?
No way California is subordinate to the British Monarchy! Unless if this is some sort of joke that I am just not getting.
In terms of countries that extraordinarily more capitalistic, possibly more than the United States, I would add Taiwan and Hong Kong to the list. The (prodigious) main thing that is hold them back of course is that they are still part of China.
I would consider adding Japan to the list too, but I need to do some more research. The Japanese government recently denationalized their postal system.
South Korea may have Seoul but many of its citizens believe in fan death.
I have a book that documents how California is, on paper, a possession of the United Kingdom, but that they have never challenged America’s claim to it and have never attempted to exert any control over it. I don’t have the book at my apartment, but I’ll try and remember to get it next time I go to my parents’ house.
I wouldn’t live in Taiwan or Hong Kong for the simple fact that they are controlled by China.
Japan is a pretty good capitalistic country, but they just elected a nationalist prime minister. I wouldn’t be surprised if they went back down the road of militarism.
I don’t see how you can pay taxes that exceed your income.
It’s the blasted property taxes. Unfortunately you don’t own real estate in this country, you just rent it from your state and local government. Don’t pay the rent for a while and they take it away from you. What a system. 
I haven’t heard anything about this. I do know that Australia is economically freer than the US, but that isn’t the main reason I’d make that my first choice if I were to leave the US. The reason I choose Australia is that the Aussies are the only Westerners willing to stand up to the Muslims in their midst and say, “No, we will not adjust to your sensibilites and traditions. You chose to live in our country. If anyone adjusts, it will be you. Do things our way or leave.”
Since I have no intention of buying a gun in the near future, these 2 factors are enough to outweigh the ban on guns, if its even true.
There are a lot of good things about Australia (not the least being they speak the same language as we do), however, the recent forays into more Socialistic governance have dissuaded me from considering that country. And the right to own self-protection is essential to protecting human life–both against criminals in the wild and organized criminals in government. Without arms, the citizen is but a sitting duck, in more ways than one. I could not sleep at night without my firearms close by.
This is a misconception. Britain is not socialist anymore than the US is. It is a welfare state with policies similar to those of the US, but it is ranked higher on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. And if Hillary is elected, along with a Democratic Congress, you can expect us to lose even more ground compared to the Brits.
I am aware that Britain’s taxes are out in the open, while ours are so concealed that we officially pay about 28%, but in reality, when you add all the taxes up, it comes to about 92% of the average American’s income, mostly from hidden taxes, taxes passed on by business, inflation (the most insidious tax), state and local taxes, etc. But I would be very surprised if the average citizen enjoys a higher standard of living than a US citizen.
And how do you figure that Britain is controlled by a monarchy? On paper, yes, in reality, no. Did you know that, on paper, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and CALIFORNIA are also subordinate to the monarch of England? But watch what happens if Queen Elizbath were to try to exert any control over those places. It’s been ages since the last time a British monarch refused to sign an act of Parliament. If the monarchy were to ever start showing signs of wanting control, Parliament would dissolve it.
And that guy was not arrested…he was shot to death, as well he should have been. I believe firmly in racial profiling. When you look as though you could be Middle Eastern, you are walking through a subway station while wearing a heavy coat in the middle of July immediately after an Islamic terrorist attack, and you RUN FROM THE COPS after being ordered to halt, you deserve whatever comes to you. If the police are not vigilant, the next one might not turn out to be a false alarm.
I wasn’t referring to that incident, but that was also another good example of why it’s not safe to live in Britain. I was referring to a journalist who was falsely arrested and held for 48 hours for no reason other than he was wearing a jacket a little too heavy for the season and did not make eye contact with security guards at the entrance to the Tubes. If I have to worry about how I dress, lest I be arrested, forget it. That is a country I will not even visit as a tourist.
Certainly no more entrenched in Catholocism than this country is entrenched in Pat Robertson-ism. I’d much rather live in a Catholic society than a Protestant one. At least Catholics recognize the need for reason and evidence in their religion. The Protestant churches are the closest thing the Christian world has to tribes of savages.
Why go from one religious zealot country to another?
Actually, scratch that. It’s too much of a welfare state. I included it because its social policies are the most libertarian of any Western nation.
South Korea’s got Seoul. That says it all.
I don’t have that much money either, but I would be able to move someday, if I felt the urge. I don’t see how you can pay taxes that exceed your income.
Yes, I’d probably go with Korea myself, as Japan is too expensive to live in. But a lot of these countries do not permit foreigners to own land. I would be a man without a country were I to move there. Living in a youth hostile for my remaining years does not fit with my life as a lover of loud music.
I don’t have that much money either, but I would be able to move someday, if I felt the urge. I don’t see how you can pay taxes that exceed your income.
I can’t. Soon the sheriff will come to take us away. I’ve been losing ground steadily over the past 5 years. Taxes have quadrupled since 2000. We’ve tried applying to the state for homestead protection, but that law was repealed in 1976. I’m working on trying to increase my income, but that’s turning out to be extremely difficult and costly. My life goes like a suspense novel: “Will he avoid a firey and deadly clash with police as he stands his ground for the protection of the right to private property, or will he get rich and pay the bastards off? Tune in for the next chapter of…”
It’s the blasted property taxes. Unfortunately you don’t own real estate in this country, you just rent it from your state and local government. Don’t pay the rent for a while and they take it away from you. What a system.
Ain’t that the truth! This fact makes me angry enough to become a Jihadist. If it weren’t for the fact that I have a family to protect.
The trouble is people mostly want handouts and are willing to pay even higher taxes. Well of course they are! The average income around here is $150K. My neighbors are millionaires several times over.
There is no safe harbour. We moved here 40 years ago to escape rising property taxes in another town. Here was a desolate mountain town, far from cities and cheap to live in. And then 20 years later, the New Yorkers came and started to turn this into another Westchester. It’s disgusting how you can’t even choose a place and expect it to remain within your means over your lifespan.
As part of my new career on a path to earning a good living, I was out prospecting for people to recruit and join my team, and one of the methods we use is a survey about the local economy. We spend all day at gas stations and car washes, and we do these surveys. One of the questions is “do you feel you pay too much in taxes?” A shocking number of persons answered in the negative! And this was NY state.
Having failed at three of my own business ventures, I’m now working with a large company, but the position is 100% commission only. I had to pay my way to get my licenses and education. I’m broke as can be right now, but hopefully in three years I’ll be earning obscene amounts of money. In the meantime, I have to do all sorts of legal maneuvers to keep the town from auctioning my home for back taxes.
Without arms, the citizen is but a sitting duck, in more ways than one. I could not sleep at night without my firearms close by.
I don’t know where you live, but I’m glad I’m not there. I feel perfectly safe at night, and the closest thing to a weapon that I possess is a declawed cat.
I am aware that Britain’s taxes are out in the open, while ours are so concealed that we officially pay about 28%, but in reality, when you add all the taxes up, it comes to about 92% of the average American’s income, mostly from hidden taxes, taxes passed on by business, inflation (the most insidious tax), state and local taxes, etc. But I would be very surprised if the average citizen enjoys a higher standard of living than a US citizen.
A person who makes $100,000/year has enough money for a very comfortable lifestyle. Assuming that all taxes were abolished and inflation screeched to a halt, he would not be able to enjoy that same lifestyle with only $8,000/year. So I find that 92% figure hard to swallow.
Once again, this is assuming that Hillary is elected and the Democrats take control of Congress. If those things happen, it won’t be long before Britain is head and shoulders above the United States, in terms of economic freedom.
I wasn’t referring to that incident, but that was also another good example of why it’s not safe to live in Britain. I was referring to a journalist who was falsely arrested and held for 48 hours for no reason other than he was wearing a jacket a little too heavy for the season and did not make eye contact with security guards at the entrance to the Tubes. If I have to worry about how I dress, lest I be arrested, forget it. That is a country I will not even visit as a tourist.
Okay, so some cops screwed up. You don’t think cops in this country screw up? It’s hardly the same thing as institutionalized oppression by the police, although I confess the new traffic cams in Britain are a bit Big Brother-y. However, I’d rather live in an economically freer country where I have to be more careful with the traffic laws than one where I can drive however I want but fork over half of my income to the government.
Why go from one religious zealot country to another?
Firstly, I feel only minimally threatened by religious nutcases, since their ideas rarely gain any appreciable support. Secondly, I already explained this. Protestants are worse than Catholics. I’d rather live in a Catholic country than a Protestant one.
I can’t. Soon the sheriff will come to take us away. I’ve been losing ground steadily over the past 5 years. Taxes have quadrupled since 2000. We’ve tried applying to the state for homestead protection, but that law was repealed in 1976. I’m working on trying to increase my income, but that’s turning out to be extremely difficult and costly. My life goes like a suspense novel: “Will he avoid a firey and deadly clash with police as he stands his ground for the protection of the right to private property, or will he get rich and pay the bastards off? Tune in for the next chapter of…”
I’m sorry to hear about your troubles. Do you not have any family/friends to go to?
As weird as it is for someone on this board to suggest such a thing, you could always temporarily go on welfare. If the government has screwed you over that bad, then I daresay that you have more than paid for the right to temporary assistance from the government, since you helped to finance the program in the first place. As long as you are working to provide for yourself, with the intention of getting out of the program as soon as possible, I see no problem there.
Heres an article from today that shows the most popular potential candidates for the presidential election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_…esidential_race
McCain and Hillary
Giuliani
Romney
Condoleezza
I have a question though. What do you need to have a chance at winning a presidential election; do you have to be rich, do you need connections? If Objectivists or other advocates of Capitalism despise nearly all the candidates who run for office, why arent there ever any who run themselves? When was the last time a candidate was an advocate of capitalism? When I say capitalism I mean laissez-faire or something near.
I have a question though. What do you need to have a chance at winning a presidential election; do you have to be rich, do you need connections? If Objectivists or other advocates of Capitalism despise nearly all the candidates who run for office, why arent there ever any who run themselves? When was the last time a candidate was an advocate of capitalism? When I say capitalism I mean laissez-faire or something near.
In our current two party system, you need to be well connected in either party and have considerable name recognition in order to even have a shot at becoming the nominee. State governors tend to fare better in presidential politics than US Senators. Of course it doesn’t hurt to be wealthy.
I’d say that a Libertarian would be the closest you’ll come to seeing a presidential candidate who advocates something approaching real Capitalism.
The last capitalist candidate was Ronald Reagan. Before him, it was Barry Goldwater. Before him, it was Thomas Jefferson.
I don’t know where you live, but I’m glad I’m not there. I feel perfectly safe at night, and the closest thing to a weapon that I possess is a declawed cat.
I live in America and, while most of the time, I never needed to use my weapon, I was sure glad to have them during the 1964 race riots. While due to the degree of built up wealth in our community, I have had less and less need to be concerned with criminals (and sometimes wild animals), I am becoming increasingly concerned about keeping an out of control government in check. You see, that was the underlying reason behind our Second Amendment: we the Citizens don’t trust government to remain uncorrupted, so we have this as a final check and balance against totalitarian dictatorship.
A few years ago, the fact that I was armed served as a deterrence to the police who visited my home on a tax matter. They left with the understanding that if town policy continued to threaten my existence in a certain matter, that they would have a no-win situation in which a lot of casualties would occur. I won a rare concession that prevented another doubling of my taxes that year. I don’t know what happened internally, but my rejected and ignored appeal was suddenly appealed, as the revaluation notice confirmed. I hate to say it, but I suspect the threat of a civil war on my land was real enough for them to decide to give me what I reasonably wanted and keep the peace. Guns in the hands of citizens are essential to liberty.
A person who makes $100,000/year has enough money for a very comfortable lifestyle. Assuming that all taxes were abolished and inflation screeched to a halt, he would not be able to enjoy that same lifestyle with only $8,000/year. So I find that 92% figure hard to swallow.
That is where credit comes into the picture. It is the generous offer of credit by the nation’s banking institutions that covers up this big con job of the US government. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from moving into a new career in financial management it’s how severe the American consumer debt crisis is. The average American owes over $60,000 in credit card bills and car loans, plust another $180,000 in mortgage debt. People enjoy the trappings of wealth, but those SUVs, boats and homes are not theirs–they’re the banks’ property. I’m starting to work with families who coming to our parent company for financial planning help and these numbers are taken from the FNAs we do. We get all their facts and figures down on an input form and go back to the office and input them to company software to work out the best debt reduction plan. The debts people have is staggering!! If I hadn’t been hearing these numbers from clients myself, I would not believe them if I read them as statistics.
What’s ever more clear to me now is that the appearance of wealth and prosperity of the middle class is an illusion created by debt. Americans’ lives are mortgaged to the hilt. Do you know that the average family’s credit card debt won’t be paid off until 2086? Plus many people have 30-year mortgages, and an alarming number have A.R.M.s which are resetting this year, with devastating doubling of monthly minimum payments. We are on the cusp of a financial crisis of a magnitude this nation has not seen since 1929.
If you take away the ability to borrow money, it would rapidly become apparent just how LITTLE money that $100,000 gross income earner really has available.
Once again, this is assuming that Hillary is elected and the Democrats take control of Congress. If those things happen, it won’t be long before Britain is head and shoulders above the United States, in terms of economic freedom.
If you could cite some real-world figures, on a personal level, between Brits and Americans economic well-being, I might be more apt to consider the point, however, what I do understand is that the Brits pay a lot of taxes and few live in better housing than modest flats.
Okay, so some cops screwed up. You don’t think cops in this country screw up? It’s hardly the same thing as institutionalized oppression by the police, although I confess the new traffic cams in Britain are a bit Big Brother-y. However, I’d rather live in an economically freer country where I have to be more careful with the traffic laws than one where I can drive however I want but fork over half of my income to the government.
Cops screw up in every country, but this incident was just everyday business for Britain’s Finest as a matter of policy. They’re running so scared over there now that they are unable to think straight. When that happens, they panic, and this incident was a case of government panic policymaking. I seriously doubt that this journalist was an isolated case. But that he was a journalist with connections probably got him off easy. There are probably many ordinary people who were run through the mill a lot longer and harder.
I do agree with your sentence about traffic laws vs forking over half of your income. However, I doubt that Britain is any better than the US in that regard.
Firstly, I feel only minimally threatened by religious nutcases, since their ideas rarely gain any appreciable support. Secondly, I already explained this. Protestants are worse than Catholics. I’d rather live in a Catholic country than a Protestant one.
As a person who finds religion of any sort repugnant, I would not want to live in a nation like Ireland, where such religion is still a dominant factor. Much the same with living in the south of the US, the so-called “Bible Belt.”
I’m sorry to hear about your troubles. Do you not have any family/friends to go to?
No. All deceased. Regardless of what happens, I’m a material person. If I were to lose the things which are part of my obscession in life, those things which keep me grounded in reality and sane, I would not wish to live any longer. Life, deprived of those tangible results of my lifetime of efforts, would not be worth living.
As weird as it is for someone on this board to suggest such a thing, you could always temporarily go on welfare. If the government has screwed you over that bad, then I daresay that you have more than paid for the right to temporary assistance from the government, since you helped to finance the program in the first place. As long as you are working to provide for yourself, with the intention of getting out of the program as soon as possible, I see no problem there.
No, I will not go down that slippery path. For one thing, you kiss your privacy goodbye–the reporting requirements for Title 19 are onerous. They want to know everything about your private life and finances. The psychological impact of welfare is even worse. It is s tremendously destructive force upon one’s self-esteem. And accepting it is an admission of failure, as an income provider for a family. I will struggle, even if I have to walk up to 90 strangers a day and try to sell them life insurance, I will struggle to make a living on my own ability.
