Another fantastic lecture from Hillsdale. The progressive is a socialist and a collectivist. The war is with individualism--the individual. This is the basis of the "greater good" argument--collectivism and not individual rights and protections as the Founders intended.
Sure, private property should be distributed and shared, until it comes to the person who says that. Then it's hands off. Sure the rights of the community are more important than the rights of the individual, until it comes to the rights of the person that said that. Then his individual rights are untouchable. That's the problem with these social scientists. It's always about rules for thee but not for me.
How about nobody gives up their house, and even if you've got a summer home, fine, keep that too. But when you have 3 or more properties, yeah, there needs to be some redistribution.
@@socialanarchy081, no one should ever give up their legally obtained property no matter how much they own. Not that anyone needs to give a reason for how many properties they own; many people own multiple properties as a source of income such as rentals or farming. The owner of properties also pays more taxes, adds money/jobs into economy when buying items for said properties or for repairs/upkeep. Redistribution of wealth is theft.
The very reason that the United States of America was founded specifically as a Free Constitutional Republic is because: "There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide" Samuel Adams
I'll just point out that the presenter from Hillsdale College doesn't actually quote any real socialists. He quotes Woodrow Wilson saying what he believed socialism is (was). In any case, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt and his Nationalism speech. In that speech Roosevelt quoted Abraham Lincoln, saying, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear...." Roosevelt was right about that.
@user-ub1gm6jk7b Maybe YOU don't need someone to point a thing out to all those capable of listening observation but you don't get to delegate to a mass. Who is this "we" you speak of?
@user-ub1gm6jk7b Firstly, I also apologize, as I let myself react because I've heard others in similar discussions say that and it always sounds as though they're trying to delegate what they think people need. I guess I unwittingly retrieved an old memory behavior from when I was less intellectually mature. And secondly, thank you for the reply!
All these terms that we use are jumbled in their meanings. Conservative is not the opposite of progressive, it's the opposite of radical. Progressive is the opposite of regressive. The meanings have been twisted to such an extent as to become meaningless.
Yeah, I would LOVE to see PROGRESSIVE Taxation for the Super Rich and our miserable American Corporations who take advantage of Americans and truly believe they OWN our LABOR
@@garnetrose6162I think if anyone thinks they one others it’s liberals. They act like minorities are brainless class they want to keep down in order to use them as an easily manipulated political prop.
Another fantastic lecture from Hillsdale. The progressive is a socialist and a collectivist. The war is with individualism--the individual. This is the basis of the "greater good" argument--collectivism and not individual rights and protections as the Founders intended.
Absolute top tier content. Please continue!
Sure, private property should be distributed and shared, until it comes to the person who says that. Then it's hands off.
Sure the rights of the community are more important than the rights of the individual, until it comes to the rights of the person that said that. Then his individual rights are untouchable. That's the problem with these social scientists. It's always about rules for thee but not for me.
Excellent point!
👌
How about nobody gives up their house, and even if you've got a summer home, fine, keep that too. But when you have 3 or more properties, yeah, there needs to be some redistribution.
@@socialanarchy081, no one should ever give up their legally obtained property no matter how much they own. Not that anyone needs to give a reason for how many properties they own; many people own multiple properties as a source of income such as rentals or farming.
The owner of properties also pays more taxes, adds money/jobs into economy when buying items for said properties or for repairs/upkeep. Redistribution of wealth is theft.
@@mattdaugherty7730 tax fraud is theft, stealing the value of employees labor is theft.
What book are you using and where can I obtain a copy?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We are under Divine PROVIDENCE,Jesus is the authority over all creation.Thats Truth.
The very reason that the United States of America was founded specifically as a Free Constitutional Republic is because: "There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide" Samuel Adams
Then how do we come to happy medium.
❤
I'll just point out that the presenter from Hillsdale College doesn't actually quote any real socialists. He quotes Woodrow Wilson saying what he believed socialism is (was). In any case, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt and his Nationalism speech. In that speech Roosevelt quoted Abraham Lincoln, saying,
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear...."
Roosevelt was right about that.
You are twisting the words of Lincoln and you are a communist
@user-ub1gm6jk7b Maybe YOU don't need someone to point a thing out to all those capable of listening observation but you don't get to delegate to a mass. Who is this "we" you speak of?
@user-ub1gm6jk7b Firstly, I also apologize, as I let myself react because I've heard others in similar discussions say that and it always sounds as though they're trying to delegate what they think people need. I guess I unwittingly retrieved an old memory behavior from when I was less intellectually mature. And secondly, thank you for the reply!
@charleswoods2996 You have very good manners but shouldn't have apologized. You said nothing wrong and in fact, never spoke of "we" .
Actually, he did quote a socialist. He quoted Wilson.
I'm small, anti-intrusive stick to country's business government.
Communstic, racist Woodrow Wilson
Conservatism can be just as suffocating as liberalism..
So very true, especially when the conservatives become extreme right-wingers and try to force their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Define your terms then explain
How? Please educate us.
In what way?
Liberalism suffocates the individual (you, for instance)
while conservatism empowers the individual.
Jesus Christ, my ONLY HERO was a SOCIALIST. Please try to debate me otherwise.
I don’t think that’s true. But the Nazis we’re socialists, hence the national socialist party.
Debate Chomsky. If you can bring all the facts to a live audience as he does, then you'll begin to earn some credibility.
LOL!! You seriously believe Chomsky brings facts and is credible? What a joke.
@@kevinstaggs5048 verifiable facts, AND sources, every single speech.
@@socialanarchy081 LOL! You are delusional. Noam Chomsky wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass.
I’m not Chomsky but I can CERTAINLY Debate these Capitalists
@@garnetrose6162 Anytime you want, this free market capitalist will debate you. What are you? A socialist?
All these terms that we use are jumbled in their meanings.
Conservative is not the opposite of progressive, it's the opposite of radical. Progressive is the opposite of regressive.
The meanings have been twisted to such an extent as to become meaningless.
Organized confusion. Useful tools for
Yeah, I would LOVE to see PROGRESSIVE Taxation for the Super Rich and our miserable American Corporations who take advantage of Americans and truly believe they OWN our LABOR
@@garnetrose6162I think if anyone thinks they one others it’s liberals. They act like minorities are brainless class they want to keep down in order to use them as an easily manipulated political prop.