Legislation in my opinion is a form (or tool for/of)  planning the economy (which is a catalyst used as legislative incentives to get the economy to go in the direction of the planners). Please remember the study of economics merely relies on very basic human instincts. It is less a study of finance and more a study of human behavior, when faced with various decisions. (Example Congress wants the economy to fulfill a void in blue collar labor, so to make this happen within the economy there is various legislation, that will illicit a response from citizens, to help move the economy in this direction). Let’s not complicate ourselves and keep it simple. I have found it is much easier to explain to the masses by showing them of how they do this in their own lives. Those with children want to steer the children in a certain direction perhaps ready them for college. There is collusion at the parenting level, sibling level, and a use of propaganda to influence the direction of the innocent child. This is how our government works as well. Legislation is the key tool to influence the behavior of individual citizens. The legislators must make it profitable to “rationally” engage in the direction they wish to move the economy, just like a parent must make it profitable for their child to “rationally” engage and see the benefits of a college education. Okay moving along.

Legislation is used in business, colleges, primary schools, and etc to move the economy in the direction the planners would like to go.

Beyond Legislation control of the money supply is the other added measure that needs to be fulfilled by an agency working with the central government to control growth.

Now, for a lot of people it is extremely tough to crunch a lot of statistical information, but for me i find it enjoyable and fruitful to solve a puzzle. My goal through this blog to rely all the statistical information I’ve crunched over my life and try to explain it to the masses, so you can see what has always been going on. Okay, i digress, moving forward.

We don’t have capitalism here at all. We are not even remotely close and we will never be remotely close.

To run a planned economy you need control of the following (and really all of this comes down to supply and demand at its most basic core and i keen understanding how “most” “rational” people will respond to legislative incentives and propaganda.) – I know perhaps i should be working with the government on the planning . Instead of telling you how it is all done. Although I’d be happy with a degree from Harvard Law .

The three tools to controlling a planned economy

1. Control of Legislation to (influence division and create barriers to entry to different occupations. Legislation is the most effective way to maintain a perceived supply and demand. Legislation helps to either increase the competition or keep the competition out in the three listed below tools for use in a planned economy.) When i refer to competition i mean any and all competition.

2. Control of the Education System and collusion at all levels of government (meaning the state and local government need to be involved. To create high paying and low paying jobs, there needs to be differences in the level of human capital each individual receives. In plain speech not everyone can go to harvard. Access to equal quality education for all individuals in a planned economy can never ever happen.)

3. Control of Propaganda (Media, History, Books, and etc). All decisions are made with the use of anecdotal evidence presented as fact, such as the concept of scarcity, global warming, shortages of oil, an anecdotal belief shared by the masses with no empirical evidence of these findings. The burden of proof rest on all of the have nots (Bill Gates is a Have not sorry to tell you. This is done on a global scale.)

With control of these three areas of the economy any government can effective legislate any outcome it so desires, with almost precise and extreme accuracy. They have in many respects a mastery of human behavior when certain legislation passes, which they use as incentives to get the economy where they desire. These guys are brilliant.

Now, this is where labeling becomes beneficial for a planned economy. It helps those planning the economy figure out where to create high paying and low paying jobs, who to offer quality education and health too, and how to maintain a perfect balance. Just for review to control a planned economy you need to control legislation, control human capital production, and Control Propaganda.

This all hit me when i was thinking of creating an online video game revolving around this concept of creating a nation and i realized it needs to have a structure and a plan. Also to make the economy function at various rates you need to have a scarce supply of natural resources and not an abundance. You can have an abundance, but no one would get rich. The markets would all be perfectly competitive. It can still have the appearance and allure of “free-market” capitalism, but in reality, those individuals running their country would be in charge of planning their economies. This is what happens today and has been going on for a long time in real-life.

Dorock99

In a libertarian society there are no special legislative advantages given to citizens. In a libertarian society the concept of the Corporation would most likely not even exist. There is no incentive to engage in creating a Corporation vs creating a sole proprietorship. There is no legislative advantage given at all.

The large Corporations we have today are not products of the “free market” they are government legislative industrial giants, that were created with the stroke of a pen, not through the free-market innovation of their owners. This is the common lie perpetrated throughout our society.

In a libertarian society that does not legislate advantages or attempt to produce societal outcomes the most common type of business would be the sole proprietorships. The competition in a libertarian society would be perfectly competitive. Corporations in our current society enjoy an extreme amount of unfair/unjust legislation,which gives rise to discrimination and makes it profitable to fictitiously create this entity.

For instance legislation has done the following for Corporations

1. Shielded the owners from risk, payment of debt, and penalty of law(which greatly reduced the overall level of risk associated with creating a business.)

2. Legislation has also given the corporation an extreme amount of help in giving what amounts to huge tax breaks (via accounting regulations for depreciation, amortization, goodwill, impairment charges (write down of assets), pure-tax break for providing employee medical plans, green tax breaks, deferred tax breaks in which the company is allowed to pay less or more in taxes during a given year, ability to carry losses forward to reduce taxes, interest expenses are tax deductible, and a host of others.

3. Legislation has also given corporations extreme amounts of advantages in keeping competition out of their industries. This has been done via price controls, anti-free trade laws, subsidies, grants, tariffs, licensing, and a host of other anti-competitive measures

Main point in a libertarian society while individuals are free to attempt to create a large corporation, they most likely would not attempt to create something of this size, because they would enjoy no legislative advantage in creating this sort of business. The main reason it is extremely unlikely has more to do with economics and the fact, that in a true free market most industries would be perfectly competitive. The likely hood of a huge global or even national chain of restaurants would be highly unlikely, because of the massive amount of competition, that is on an equal level due to the creation of fair/just laws.

Quick note I made reference to the industry being “perfectly competitive”

Basically all that means is

1. A lot of competition
2. A lot of substitutes

Which makes it much harder for a company to raise prices or lower prices in an attempt to control the market or gain market share

1. Lower prices (they risk going out of business because they operate at cost)

2. Raise prices (they risk going out of business because they lose customers)

In general competitive markets are extremely efficient and offer consumers a lot of choice. Companies enter the market when demand goes up and companies quickly leave the market when demand decreases. There is no way to secure long term profits….

This is the other problem with legislating advantages for one group over another. The main problem is WE ARE ALL NOT EQUAL! (If you are 70 i could compare you to every last 70 year old man in the United States of America and the one fact would be they are all not equal in ability, skill, characteristic, and intelligence. Knowing this fact how could i make legislation that gives preferential treatment to a group with so many varying differences? )

For every 70 year old men that cannot compete with a 30 year old men, there’s 5 others that could and do. Vice versa for every 30 year old man, that can out due a 70 year old there are some 70 year olds a 30 year old man cannot out do.

However, there is not set standard for all “70″ year old men and there is not set standard for all “30″ year old men. WE ARE ALL NOT EQUAL, so attempting to make legislation, that adapts to this is inherently flawed, because it allows the law to treat us as a group of separate individuals, which is wrong!

The law should never treat anyone (in most cases) individually different then it would treat someone else, because of some physical difference. (this applies to adults).

If we were all equal and you could predict with 100% certainty that every 70 year old man could not compete with every 30 year old man, then applying an individual law to people that are equal would not hurt the outcomes, because you could predict them with 100% certainty. However, that is not reality and we can never predict outcomes with 100% certainty, so we should always strive to make all legislation applicable to all individuals equally. Thus any outcomes that arise are all fair/just outcomes, that happened in a real “free market.” We should avoid attempting to advantage groups because of “differences” that have no basis in fact.

If this was done from the very beginning then perhaps older individuals would not feel as if they are “entitled” to being useless and people wouldn’t feel entitled to treat them as such. Thus limiting them from making silly emotional arguments as to why they deserve different treatment from the rest of us. Their value to society hasn’t been dictated by market forces, but it has been legislated into law. In a true free-market maybe the skills of a 70 year old man outweighs that of a 30 year old. Who knows, because we’ve never had a real free-market to determine that sort of outcome. What we do know is that if we legislate a segment of our population useless then the outcome is they are treated as if they are useless and in fact they act as if they are useless. I’m certain if we treated all of our population equally under law you’d see a lot of change.

My challenge to you is to think outside of what some person in congress legislated into law. A legislated outcome is not fact nor should it be taken as fact. People should really start to question a lot of this stuff. When you become old you are no more disadvantage then when you were young. The only reason you believe such is because someone told you and wrote a law supporting this belief. Worse is the general population supports this belief as well, which like you said limits your access to work and etc…..All of this is done under a guise to make it acceptable to coerce individuals into paying for the retirement of the elderly.

I believe that all laws should apply equally to all citizens. Therefore no group of citizens small or big would be “entitled” to advantage themselves over another group of citizens.

Basically all legislation created would apply equally to each and every citizen equally. Citizens in my opinion are politicians, older individuals, younger individuals, parents, married, non married, heterosexual, homosexual, white, black, Asian, Mexican, brasilian, construction worker, investment banker, CEO, police officer, and etc

In my opinion the application of all legislation applying equally to all citizens is the only true way to generate outcomes that are fair/just. If no person obtains an unfair advantage, then no person obtains an unfair/unjust outcome (benefit that they derive by singling out someone else)

In this case the unfair advantage is obtained once a person reaches 59-62-65 over a younger worker. If this advantage was never legislated then this problem would not exist.

I have yet to see anyone on this board give me a logical reason why one group of citizens deserves an advantage over another group of citizens.

However, i constantly hear hypocritical arguments made towards CEO’s (pay), Bankers, Corporations, Elderly, Manufacturing Workers, and the list could go on.

The point is everyone seems to want to advantage whatever group they belong to at the expense of another group, but when i call their particular group out. I tend to get the responses above, which illogically tries to reason why they should be entitled to the advantage.

If what people paid in was exactly what they got out of the program i would not have a problem with it, but the law mandates an unequal outcome from the start, so the following;

1. coercion to pay into the system
2. does not stop payments once you’ve reached your pay in point with interest (as long as you live you continue to reap a huge bonus that you are not entitled too, nor did you work for it)

Which makes the program morally wrong! There’s no justification you could ever find for a program that is morally wrong!

Magistrate

You want the younger Vote?

There simple steps

1. Start to address and support many of the issues Senator Paul has raised

2. Stop attacking the only person in your party that has consistently stood for Freedom.

3. Recognize quickly the party needs to return to the core principles of “conservatism” as defined by individuals like Barry Goldwater and other libertarians.

I cannot speak for other younger voters, but each and everyday on issues that deal with individual freedom you’re losing the fight and it will eventually cost you another election. I’m not completely set on voting for democrats, but if they continually present themselves as the party that will most support individual freedom, i may have to accept the lesser of the two evils.

1. Peace (No Wars, No policing the World, No more entangling alliances, that further jeopardize the safety of US Citizens)

2. Get Rid of the Religious Right and this “Family Values” bs. Get it through your head most individuals do not support these wackos, because they have no right imposing their belief of morality on individuals, that pose no threat to their individual freedoms!

The concept of “Family Values” and maintaining a nuclear family is a great idea and most younger individuals do not disagree with this goal, but to continually attempt to legislate and reduce citizens freedoms behind this concept is going to further alienate and distance younger voters. (Don’t listen to the religious right anymore they do not have a monopoly on morality!)

3. Abortion is also a losing cause its controversial and may garner a few younger votes, but the majority of younger individuals believe the government needs to stay the heck away from deciding what they do to their bodies.

4. Also supporting US Military Personal that continually advocate for more troops and more war is not going to win votes (this goes for both parties)

5. Start letting the American Public know your position on issues that will greatly affect future generations. WE ARE SICK OF PEOPLE CONTINUALLY PUSHING THE DEBT BURDEN ON OUR GENERATION! I want to know what the Republicans plan to do about Social Security? How do you plan on either eliminating or fixing the program? Start to advocate an option that allows individuals to opt out!

6. As a bonus find a true leader that intelligent younger conservatives can respect! (Sarah Palin is just not good for the party. She has caused more harm than good. Mit Romney may be a Moron, but im interested in the issues not his religion, he’d be a much better person to promote than Palin. If the Christians cannot accept or tolerate those with different religious views then purge them from the party.)

These are just 6 things off the top of my head. The republicans and your talk show arm are just going about this in the wrong way!!

To be honest I’m going to side with Michael Savage and say, “The Republicans need a Barrack Obama type younger candidate to promote individual freedom and inspire the younger conservative base”

Soilders

Yes, social programs that coerce individuals to do good with other peoples money would go away. However, it is my strong belief, that through the creation of fair/just laws, most individuals in society will not have any reason to divide themselves along party, racial, gender, occupation, class, and other social lines. The unfair/unjust laws we create give power to discrimination, which in my opinion make it profitable for individuals to divide themselves. For instance who says a doctor is a more valuable member of society then a plumber? Well, for one you had to be told by someone and for them to make this outcome possible they had to legislate and advantage being a doctor over a plumber. (I’ll explain further at the bottom)

Freedom

Personally i think given the option of holding more of your money and having more say of where it goes would give individuals even more incentive to help their follow man. If their fellow man is truly in need.

The goal of a libertarian society would be to make sure all legislation pertaining to citizens is equal across the board. The extension of freedom would not destroy the ability to do good. You’ve been indoctrinated to think, the only way individuals will do good for others is through force and coercion, but there is no evidence to make this empirically true.

Our country is coerced into giving to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment to the tune of trillions of dollars. However, our society also willingly gives more than 300-400 billion dollars a year to charities. Could you imagine how much money could be given to charities each year without the threat of government coercion?

Do you know how many people would rather do good with their own money than use other citizens money to do good with?

A libertarian society would allow the freedom to pursue whatever made you happy as long as you did not impose, impede, and trample upon the individual rights of others.

Business stand point it would align the interest of both the Corporation and the Worker through the creation of fair and just laws, which do not seek to give the corporation an unjust advantage over the common citizen. If the owner is fully responsible for all debt and assumes all risk he is certainly given more of an incentive to spread this risk across his employees! Thus enabling the employees, owners, investors, to all reap the fruits of their labor. It would actually give more power to both employees and employers.

You don’t need regulatory agencies and other such government interference if you have applied fair/just laws to all facets of society. If there is no legal framework with which to derive unfair/unjust outcomes, how the heck would they happen?

I’m a strong believer that the natural moral order of the human being is to promote freedom and the biggest enemy of freedom is the creation of legislation that seeks to advantage one group over another, which leads to divide and pits human beings, who would not be against one another against each other.

The focus of a libertarians society would be the understanding that we can all collectively live peacefully amongst one another. We could all express our own views, thoughts, and opinions, without the threat of legislation disadvantaging anyone that follows the simple rule of not violating another citizens inalienable right to pursue liberty, happiness, and the utmost freedom.

Most of the laws we have on the books are not there because of a moral position, but because they were unfair and unjustly designed to advantage some citizens at the disadvantage of others, which is morally wrong and i’ll repeat creates division.

Capitalism could work, but as long as we legislate the outcomes and attempt to pick winners/losers and continue down the path of creating societal outcomes, the free market will always be flawed.

Fact (as an example)

In a real free market a doctor wouldn’t be highly paid

Why – Well we’ve legislated or picked their outcome by requiring licensing and eliminating competition, thus enabling them to command higher salaries then a real free-market would allow. Remember the plumber i mentioned earlier, so let’s say we legislated plumbers to licensing that requires 200k for 8-12 years of education and we kept the competition out of plumbing. The natural forces in this “free market” would favor the plumber and he’d command a much higher salary then the doctor. However, it is not because the free-market made it so, but because we legislated the outcome. There’s nothing free-market about legislative outcomes.

The same can be said for lawyers and a number of highly paid occupations.

Is this right or wrong? Well, since it’s been legislated into existence and did not occur on its own who knows? My position is it is morally wrong (yes, we are all for the most part allowed to take advantage of this legislative outcome, but perhaps most of us do not want to become investment bankers, doctors, or lawyers, so why should someone legislate what your salary should be in the free-market. Wouldn’t you rather have citizens extremely knowledgeable about their own production and entering into voluntary contracts, that are not legislated to one side or the other, but are automatically entering into fair/just voluntary contracts where no side has an advantage???

I think the second time around i was too completely drunk with the concepts the party promoted in public, but like most i disregarded the fact their actions never truly supported the ideals and goals of “conservatism.”

The Republicans definition of individual “freedom” and “conservatism,” was not in line with any of the books i read to make myself a better conservative. None of their actions ever really related to or supported true conservatism.

The more i listened to the rhetoric the more i kept finding myself at odds with their position on many issues pertaining to the promotion of individual freedom.

Human beings have natural and moral rights, which Thomas Jefferson (John Locke) defined as inalienable rights to freedom, that no government or citizen could take away. The natural right to peaceful coexistence, liberty for all, and the pursuit of happiness. All of these natural rights are automatically bestowed upon humanity at birth, so no person is more or less deserving of receiving these natural (inalienable rights), because they are given to all of us equally. No government/citizen has any right attempting to influence or advantage another human beings natural rights at the expense of other human beings natural rights. The sole purpose of government is to protect its citizens from the coercion of others (both foreign and domestic), promote peace through free trade (not through war), provide for the critical infrastructure of society, and above all else promote laws that only seek to advance freedom for the individual.

I truly wanted to believe the republicans would actually follow through on their party mission, but 8 years later it has yet happen.

Fiscally no party has ever been budget conscience or fiscally conservative, especially when it involved the coercion and spending of other peoples money.

I think both parties are running into something they’ve never encountered before. A younger group of individuals who are morally astute and do not go along with things, because you say we should or produce propaganda, that attempts to incorrectly influence our judgment. (I may be being overly presumptuous for the masses of younger voters, as i’ll state for the record I only speak for myself)

I think the previous success of both parties has been largely derived from creating unfair/unjust laws that only seek to advantage small groups of citizens at the expense of the many and purposely distorting historical evidence and factual information to fit their personal agendas. This behavior has ultimately always resulted in a divided nation, but most importantly a divided human being who fights to the death against himself for the bread crumbs left by the selected few elitist of both parties.

Throughout time this strategy has worked well and consistently left the many out of the scope of power of the “chosen few.” They have been called Chieftains, Kings, Queens, Dukes, Pharaohs, Member of Parliament, and Member of Congress to name a few. Their strategy to limit freedom has worked extremely well, encouraging more political capital to further conquer, divide, and control the masses. They have polluted the very existence of what it truly means to be a human being. They tell us we are white, black, asian, blue collar, white collar, gay, straight, and whatever noun they can come up with to make us forget we are first and only human beings! Human beings with inalienable rights to freedom.

However, many younger individuals have played by the rules set by both parties and are quickly finding out we are not being rewarded for sticking to their societal design. In fact both parties seem to only be interested in penalizing us with massive amounts of debt.

The party that advocates true freedom and equal treatment for all, will be the party, that ultimately gets my vote. The first party to recognize us all as human beings and not these chopped up divided amalgamations of humanity, which they have created for their own advantage will get my vote!

I think with each new generation you get more people that are exposed to a lot of different kinds of people. They are more exposed and accepting of these hypothetical “man created” differences/labels then the generation before them. The fear of others who may have different thoughts, different beliefs, different religion, or may look different then you do becomes less scary. I think my generation actually starts to see themselves and their own personal humanity within all the various walks of life in this country and the world. How long could they possible make the human being forget he was first human before he was any other label?

This new awakening begins to rise and flourish and propels individuals to a new and higher state of conscientiousness. The human being starts to question the current treatment of himself and how he should treat his fellow man. The only true fair/just treatment is equality for all, thus ensuring freedom for all. Anything else is uncivilized and at war with natural moral order of humanity.

I believe the libertarian concept of equality for all is paramount to the success of establishing a truly free nation. This new conscientiousness that questions the very idea of who should decide morality within a collective society should be applauded not met with disdain and contempt for freedom. I’m in no way advocating or remotely proposing a lawless society, but if we all can agree to “live and let live,” then we can certainly come much closer to a free society. Who dictates who should control and divide law abiding citizens?

Thus a new era questions the status quo and promotes a new sort of “reform” centered around the age old battle of releasing the control of the many from the authoritarian hands of the few. The concept of power in the hands of few only further corrupts and further divides humanity, creating an impenetrable web of hate and distrust from one human being to another human being. It is our job as citizens to accept the role of “watchmen” to make sure this power is kept in check. It has been our failure as citizens over the past 200 years, that has allowed the many to remain enslaved by the selected few.

I’m advocating for an intellectual battle that seeks to question their morality and suggest steps to promote freedom. I think the intellectual battle to rightfully restore the human beings humanity and inalienable rights will decide future generations political activism. Revolutions are never violent or bloody, but they are full of younger individuals who question the hypocrisy and tyrannical society of their day. The human experience (or project) goes on attempting to push further toward a collective Utopian society. The human project has no start and no finish only the element of thought and challenging the status quo to reach greater heights for humanity. Notice each intellectual revolution inches society closer to freedom, building on the ideas, the mistakes, the hypocrisy, and ideals of previous enlightenment.

This new thirst for knowledge won’t be quenched with more lies and distortions of the truth. For me personally the tipping point in most of this has to do with the overall hypocrisy with which we conduct our lives. (no one is perfect therefore no one retains moral supremacy and the right to limit other law abiding citizens freedom.) I think the new enlightenment period of libertarianism is upon us and many younger individuals with thoughts similar to mine will spring up and challenge the status quo. They will write books and challenge individual thought. They will be the modern day Voltaire’s, Locke’s, Jefferson’s, Kant’s,Rousseau, De Tocquvilles, Hobbs, and Burke’s.

If I were President of the United States the first thing I’d do is abolish any and all labels with which to define individuals beyond man, women, boy, girl and fellow human being.

This would directly expose the tyrants, separatist, and dictators that wish to use labels to legislate unfair/unjust laws, which only seek to control and divide humanity for their own personal gain.

Sorry, to make it so dramatic, but the passion in the writing is definitely meant to inspire more critical thought. I’ll repeat libertarians are peaceful, so in no way is this advocating violent overthrow of any societal government, but its a plea for more critical thinking about the laws with which we are governed and how we can move to a more free society within the confines and framework of the constitution.

Let the great debates begin, because it’s the “Dorock Way”

Conservatives (good) Republican (not sure anymore) = mutual exclusive (concepts)

Some republicans are conservatives and some conservatives are democrats. Some independents are conservatives and some moderates are conservatives, but not all conservatives are republicans.
I do not think you can remotely be a republican and be a true full blooded conservative at the same time. You can certainly be a conservative and belong to, vote, and agree with some ideologies expressed by the Republican Party, but your most treasured ideals, beliefs, and conservatism is no longer a staple of the Republican Party. If you’re like me you left the party for a smaller third party that you beliefs are more closely aligned with.

Most citizens in this country are moderates that tend to lean slightly one way or the other. However, on both sides of the isle there are wackos, lunatics, zealots, hateful, spiteful, evil, racist, sexist, idiotic, and un-patriotic individuals, that would love to destroy the political climate in favor of their far reaching views.

My teachings and things I’ve read to become a better conservative are not currently reflected by the Republican Party. The more i study history and go back, this has been a continuous problem and became much worse for conservatives in the United States when the Republican Party under Regan and Bush Sr courted the Religious Zealots in the American Bible Belt. The man who is often considered to be the “father of Modern Conservatism,” Barry Goldwater pointed this out more than 30 years ago. He pointed out how dangerous it is to court individuals/groups for political gain, that do not share a common bond and belief in true conservatism. Well, he was right! The authoritarians, racist, sexist, religious zealots, have finally ruined the party beyond repair. The current Republican party is as conservative as the sky is blue (the sky may look blue, but it has been scientifically proven it is not actually blue).

I’m sad not because this is the signal of the ultimate end of the current republican party, but the concepts of conservatism (which was largely referred to as radical liberal progressive thinking in the day’s of Thomas Jefferson. However the standard concepts of conservatism in relation to the current republican party is almost completely gone! They’re more authoritarian and focused on limiting individual freedom rather then promoting the extension of individual freedom)

The democrats have the same problem, but to a much lesser degree IMO. They certainly have some extremely far left individuals, that would like to completely break down the economic fiber and backbone of this country in favor of more centralized control. However, they seem to be far and few in between IMO (I do not view President Obama in this far left light, because of many of his extremely moderate views). If i had to take the lesser of the two evils in terms of human rights, I’d have to say their wackos at least on face value seem to have a genuine concern and care for other human beings.

Since I’ve been a member of the Republican party it has been largely associated with hate. I thought George W. Bush minus his big government tactics was doing a great job promoting the inclusion and general well being of all based on his cabinet selections (Colin Powell, Condi Rice etc) overall attitude to help end world diseases and other humanitarian causes, besides the war in Iraq etc. Anyway, i digress point of the matter conservatives stand for the following;

To me the meaning of conservative is

• Peaceful (friend to all enemy to none at least try )…Definitely never attack another nation without just provocations

• Protects the innocent from the coercion of others who may wish to do them harm (both internally and from a national defense stand point)

• Individualist who judges others strictly on their individual contributions to society (and attempts to refrain from collectively grouping individuals into larger categories, which may contribute to lessening or magnifying group accomplishments over individual accomplishments)- Example would be the forum on Chinese (group) being smarter than Americans (group). I know it is hard to get out of collective group think, but I’d much prefer to go by a case by case individual basis and celebrate the ingenuity of individual hard-work, desire, sacrifice, then give credit to an entire group of people, because of a few “superior” individuals (i use the term superior in the sense if someone works harder then you to accomplish a goal, then you should individually celebrate their accomplishment, because the effort they put forth in achieving their goal was far superior to your own. You should not ignore their individual handwork and trump their success to the collective group, which may not be individually comparable on a case by case basis)

• Legislator of just/fair laws, that are easily understood by all citizens of the country regardless of education attainment or IQ. Laws that above all else apply a strict emphasis on protecting the inalienable freedoms of individual citizens. Conservative legislators also have a duty to make sure the central legislative body extends individual freedom and does not reduce individual freedom to those who elected and consent to be governed..(there is no reason for legislators conservative or otherwise to make laws/reforms that the common man cannot understand. This goes for legally binding contracts as well)

• Enforcement of easily understood legally binding Contracts, Property Rights, and fair/just laws - The right to ownership and having what you own protected by just/fair laws is a conservatives duty. No person has the right to take your individually owned property without you voluntarily entering into an agreement to exchange your property for something of equal or greater value (all dependent on the individuals perspective).

• Taxes to help reach the collective goals of a society (not anarchist) however, a conservative should make it a point that no individual or group should receive disproportionately more (safety, defense, money etc) than another due to collective taxation-Under the agreement that we will all live in a collective civilized society the conservative should fairly/justly create an easily understandable tax code, which only allows the coercion of a central government body (state or federal) the right to a relatively small portion of any individuals and corporations labor. The tax should be applied equally and never exceed a certain percentage (Not necessarily extreme conservatism per-se, but taxes are needed in a collective society to run and pay for collective programs, that enhance the safety and well being of its citizens)

• Live and Let Live – It is of the utmost importance and a top priority for a conservative to remember to Live and Let Live, without attempting to interfere in another citizens/individuals personal/private/public life, if it does not reduce, threaten, harm, coerce, or pose significant interference with the conservatives own individual freedom and way of life. (Example No conservative should ever create any unjust laws, imprison, attempt to negatively influence public citizens to unjustly collectively organize to limit another citizens individual inalienable rights/freedoms, because of their own personal belief outside of establish societal morals. If you are attempting to influence or interfere in the private life of another individual who does not pose a threat to the continuation of your personal freedom you should be jailed as this is an act of aggression and violates conservative doctrine and ideology)

• Never attempt to influence the masses through propaganda, distortion of useful and accurate information, for your own gain. A conservative, while attempting to influence others should never distort accurate information signals to influence individuals into their line of reasoning. This includes scare tactics, deception, blatant lies, and purposely preventing the common man from gathering accurate truthful information on relevant issues, that may harm, limit, (some cases extend) or coerce their ability to maintain a free life. Yes, the economic idea of capitalism is that we are governed by an “invisible hand” and pursuing our own self interest should benefit everyone, but improperly using mediums of information for the above listed distortion by a conservative is unlawful and an act of aggression. Examples would be some of the current political propaganda (by both sides), distortions of historical fact or significance, purposely mis-leading individuals with the intent to reduce freedom or cause harm etc

Just a few thoughts, because  it is the “THE DOROCK WAY”…..Dorock99 style!

If we lived an a collective society where people viewed others as individuals and made an effort not to impose, their religion, ideas, and influence on willing or unwilling individuals we would be a much closer society and high taxes would not be needed, because individual charity would help those in need etc (hopefully i mean isn’t that the point of a collective society, that holds the individuals above the collective?).

I rescind my offer to you, because of your blatant disrespect for my hard earned tax dollars and unwillingness to serve the greater good of American society. I look at your hate (racism) and your lack of accepting progress as my reasons for actively participating in your demise. If given the opportunity presented by both Mr. Steve Forbes and Mr. Dick Army i now unapologetically salute their appeal to eliminate both social security and medicare. I will now work with them and attempt to get all my younger friends involved to help them accomplish their mission. You have created a monster and you will reap what you sow. Your distortions of history and your ignorant rants about self sufficiency have fallen upon deaf ears. You will now be required to be self sufficient and look after your own needs. I will petition my local state senator to get rid of medicare and social security immediately. I will happily look forward to the lower taxes i will pay once these two costly programs come to an end. You were offered a concession and i was wiling to help your risk pool, but as of October 2009 i rescind that offer and i will hep press forward with your ultimate demise. I only hope that your fellow baby boomers, that extremely small 5%, that has been able to attain the ultimate success and American dream are willing to help you in your time of need, because i no longer will. Good luck and may God’s speed be with you!

Regards,
Dorock99