ochimo444

How long did it take them to send it to you?

Classical liberalism-(also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

Social liberalism-is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.[1] This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights.

Liberal sure doesn't mean what it used too!

At most, I will tell how many are in my house hold. The rest of the questions are more intrusive than I would like to answer. Especially now that the White House is over the Census Bureau.

and each state could make their own laws, system of government, etc. Would you move to another state that best represented your view points or stay where you are in spite of the philosophical differences? If this system began tomorrow, how would you react?

If our presidents (both conservative and liberal) did not pander to lobbyists, do you think the voice of the people would be heard much louder?

sorry, communism. I knew it was one of those isms.

Does that put him in the "wealthy elite" club?

So the conservative argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I get that, they are speaking from a religious perspective. So from a legal perspective, the whole civil union thing, what's the conservative issue with civil unions? It's not a religious ceremony, its a legal ceremony. Doesn't a church have the right to deny marriage to someone? The catholic church does it all the time, you can't get married in a catholic church unless you are catholic.

So if the problem is a religious one, then what would conservatives care if the "marriage" was only made recognizable by the state? Does two people of the same sex getting married infringe on your rights as an American? You don't have to be the one to marry them, so why do republicans care what they do?

party politics aside (don't care if your democrat or republican, not the point here).

A. Capitalist Utopia where each American has the opportunity to make as much money as they want and live how ever they see fit. This would allow more opportunity for corruption, but allow each citizen the same opportunities as the other (pretend that in this world racial, sexual, and gender bias does not exist and everyone truly does have the same opportunity). Citizens would have to "fend for themselves" in regards to this corruption by deciding what people and corporations they did business with. This world would allow those that worked hard to pursue their happiness according to their merit. The scope of the citizens would range from very poor to very rich.

B. Socialist Utopia where the government pays for all your basic living needs. Your house, your car, your health care, your food; everything you need to survive. Everyone makes the same amount of money, regardless of your profession and everyone has the exact same house, car, etc. that the government has chosen for you. There would be no poverty nor would their be any rich among the citizens. Our leaders, however, would be extraordinarily wealthy and given the right to make all our decisions for us. The government owns everything, from the local grocery store to the mega national banks. Our pay is taxed 50% in order to pay for all our needs.

Tell me which type of government you would rather live under and why. You can't pick an option other than what is listed, pretend there are no other options besides what you see here.

Since many Americans seem to be at odds with the wealthy, and feel that many of them did not earn their money but was able to cheat and steal it from those less fortunate than themselves; would you decline the opportunity to become rich? And if not, how would you change the way people feel about the rich? If you were the CEO of Wal-Mart, how would you change business practices?

Obama's plan to make the rich ($250,000+) pay a higher share, or to tax everyone equally without all the bull crap tax code. If everyone paid 20% of their income, period, no loop holes and all that other crap; then the rich would, in fact pay more based on percentage.

I'm sick of people saying that just because someone has more money they should have to pay a higher percentage of the tax burden. A doctor that went to school for 8 or more years and spent $100,000 dollars for their degrees should NOT have to foot the bill for the entire country, that's ridiculous!!

For the record, I'm not a republican or a democrat but I highly disagree with this concept. Can someone cite a benefit from this that does not involve taking something from someone else that they have earned?

Seriously, why do christians or any other religion bother asking questions of atheists? Why is their validation so important to you? And why are atheists even browsing questions in R&S? If you don't believe, why do you care?

I am agnostic, i dont have an opinion on a supreme being one way or another, but I really don't understand why the two groups have to burn so much energy trying to prove the other wrong.

If there are no gods in which to direct and control humanity, how did man learn the concept of morality? Who set the standard and how did they arrive at their conclusions?