Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Redskunk, you make the mistake assuming that judgement is always from the underdog's point of view. That is as relative as you can get. Judgement from the "winners" point of view is not less just then the other.. It's just different.

You just got to choose between paying someone for the ammount of pity he gets, or paying someone for the ammount he/she produces. I choose the second.

Fucking Communist!

The main thing that concerns me about liberalism is the possibility of the total welfare state. It really bothers me when the government decides to stick its nose in a person's personal choice. I think the thing that bothers most libertarians is the liberal government's presumption that they know better than you what's best for you. Personally I believe that people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves and should accept the consequences for their choices. The people who deserve state assistance are the people brought low by circumstances beyond their control.

For people with limited job skills I'd feel better providing funding for them to take a vocational course to increase their ability to find a better job than just making them dependent on the government teat. If they fail, they're on their own for having squandered the taxpayers' money. If they pass the course, then a more productive member of society has been created and they can start repaying the investment made in them.

If a person gets themselves involved with drugs, that's their choice, I just don't want to be obligated to pay for his second chance to be a functioning member of society again. If a person wants to be a glutton, have unprotected sex, or kill himself; I don't want to foot the bill. I just don't feel I should be punished for someone else's mistakes and poor choices.

Two points that you and others are missing or intentionally misrepresenting in my mind. First, mindless welfare to people who choose not to work isn't part of any typical "liberal" theory. Welfare is used as a safety net for when circumstances warrant it. Also, a liberal state isn't necessarily a paternalistic one.

At 3/22/07 07:06 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Two points that you and others are missing or intentionally misrepresenting in my mind. First, mindless welfare to people who choose not to work isn't part of any typical "liberal" theory. Welfare is used as a safety net for when circumstances warrant it. Also, a liberal state isn't necessarily a paternalistic one.

I didn't mean to imply that that was the ultimate goal of liberal ideology, but the parent state is a very real possibility that stems from a form of liberal thought. The reason it bothers me is that I see the makings of a parent state in America considering how many people seem to hate the idea of taking responsibility for their actions and how willing they are to leave the decision as to how the country is run to people they more or less know nothing about.

At 3/22/07 10:39 AM, RedSkunk wrote: No, I'm pretty much advocating the status quo.

I cant say I can complain with the status quo. It has been pretty good. But then again, there are things in the future that could come and bite us hard in the ass like our defecit spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare to a lesser extent, our education (spending more but getting worse results than most countries), etc. Some things I believe could use a severe downsizing or restructuring. But like I said, the status quo really is not that bad.

I am disagreeing with those who say that smaller, minimal government would result in more liberty and and a more just society.

But there are for sure areas that could use some HUGE downsizing. Im looking straight at you, DEA.

This is unrelated but also interesting. If our political or moral convictions can't be argued for (if no one can be found "right"), then how can we even hold such convictions? How can you believe in something that you don't believe is right? Or don't believe can be proven?

Its all in our upbringing and the people we meet and the people we dont. I am starting to become very wary of declaring right or wrong or correct or incorrect when debating more philosophical ideas because EVERYTHING is so damn subjective. Everything. I may hold my unique beliefs but that is because of my unique upbringing and my unique genetics and such.

Maybe I have taken to many history or IR or Poli Sci classes but I have seen to many examples of people trying to make sweeping generalizations and formulas and systems to explain human actions. It laways has struck me as bunk, trying to explain erratic human actions and find patterns from them. Even in the names we give to historical time periods or such. "Baroque," "Renaissance," "Late Classical," "Enlightment," "Romantic," "Victorian," "Counter Reformation." It is all just ridiculous if you ask me. It may help some understand certain periods better but in the process of rationalizing it for some, we simplify those time periods and lose the specifics and uniqueness of those times. In the process of simplification, we may see shadows of patterns that were never really there, leading to false conclusions.

Maybe this is all just my ideas about the pretentiousness of scholastics and the intelligentsia. Dont know. A passage from Goethes Faust especially struck me when reading it. If anyone is reading it, it is Part 1 of Faust where Faust is talking to Wagner.

Your history, why its a joke:
Bygone times are a seven-sealed book.
The thing you call the spirit of the past,
What is it? Nothing bur your own poor spirit
With the past reflected in it.
And it's pathetic, whats to be seen in your mirror!
One look and I have to beat a quick retreat-
A trash can strewn attic, junk filled cellar,
At best it is a blood-and-thunder thriller
Improved with the most high-minded sentiments
Exactly suited for mouthing by marionettes.

The main problem I have is that asserting that liberalism believes in free markets and isn't a paternalistic form of governing.

One need only look at the standard laundry list of liberal ideas to see the opposite:
Anti-smoking laws.
Trans-fat bans.
Hate Speech laws.
Minimum Wage and Overtime laws.
Social Security
Universal Medical Care
Regulation of the (Insert Name Here) Industry
Sexual Harassment Laws (Started as a Good Thing and Have gotten out of hand)

The list goes on, but the basic point of liberalism is that the populous cannot be trusted with their own affairs, and must be taken care of by the government. In some cases I can actually agree with the goal being sought after, but in the end it's still teh government trying to be paternalistic.

At 3/23/07 01:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The main problem I have is that asserting that liberalism believes in free markets and isn't a paternalistic form of governing.

I think you're mistaking liberalISM with liberALS. Not everyone who slants left is for all of the things you accuse liberalISM of advocating. F'rinstance:

One need only look at the standard laundry list of liberal ideas to see the opposite:
Anti-smoking laws.

Bullshit no matter what side you're on.

Trans-fat bans.

Ditto.

Hate Speech laws.

Double ditto with a cherry on top. See: first amendment.

Minimum Wage and Overtime laws.

On a national scale, maybe, but even on a State level, the Unions would be pushing for these rights, and would eventually get it as high as the State constitution/law books. Thus a federal minimum that is (FAR) below the actual lower end of income (I made more than minimum wage as a high schooler working at MickeyDee's one summer) isn't nearly as detrimental as you make it seem. The market already has its bottom end marked out, and at around $6-7.00/hr, that's still enormously above the federal minimum wage.

Social Security

It needs reform, yes, but the idea is sound. Don't forget that it almost single handedly pulled the elderly out of poverty... I'd be sorely disappointed if they didn't have the same protections... especially in 50 years or so when I might need it.

Universal Medical Care

Eh, I'm on the fence about that... but I've done the math, we pay 1.45% of our income on Medicare to cover 16% of the population... to cover the other 84% would increase our percentage to 36.25%. That's a hefty chunk, yes, but it would be mitigated by the fact that the elderly (the 16% it covers) are the most costly age group to cover...

Anyway, is it really so bad an idea to provide adequate medical care to everyone who needs it? I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems, but it is something to strive for.

Regulation of the (Insert Name Here) Industry

Only the Feds have enough oomph to do the kind of bullying that will get a huge corporation like the Telecoms, Oil, Automotive, Microsoft, to play fair. Without them, it would take an IMMENSE amount of personal cost and sacrifice in even the broadest of class action suits to make any company with that much influence change anything.

Does it get out of hand? Of course, but that's not the fault of liberalism itself, but rather the retards in charge... and that's more of a case of public ignorance and apathy, but that's a whole other thread... (2 or 3, in fact, if my count of the front page is correct)

Sexual Harassment Laws (Started as a Good Thing and Have gotten out of hand)

Agreed. My mother was a victim of sexual harassment, back when you basically needed a class-action suit to get it heard. She sued, along with nearly every other female employee and won. However, a coworker and friend of mine recently got let go from a job because someone accused him of sexual harassment for, get this, telling her that a see-through top was inappropriate for work.

But again, I don't think this is a problem OF liberalism, but rather the people associated with it.

I could do the same with the Right, talking about how the neo-con republican agenda includes a big-brother like militaristic society answerable to no one but themselves. It wouldn't be fair to paint conservatism with that brush, only those who do the bitchery themselves.

Liberalism (socialism 'round here) fails by making the assumption nobody can care for him-/herselves. Libertarism fails by assuming everyone can.

Around 80% percent of the world population (or even more) can't think for themselves clearly, and is easily mislead by propaganda, advertising, stromcrowing etc.
While the rest can perfectly care for themself. So the ideal goverment would be one that cares for both of them, for the 80% by giving them aid, and for the 20% by leaving them alone.

So the best option is a kind of Aristocracy that is chosen by the people. A democracy wherin only the most intelligents can deside what is good for the country.
An indirect chosen parliament is an option. Where the public chooses people that chose mp's.

Then there has to be a way to keep debates reasonable and free of emotion and free of oneliners that miss argumentation. So debates should be typed, and read out by speakers who are neutral, and only allowed to say what is written.

At 3/23/07 12:49 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: Liberalism (socialism 'round here) fails by making the assumption nobody can care for him-/herselves. Libertarism fails by assuming everyone can.

You're mispresenting both viewpoints. Both liberals and libertarians believe that people can "care" for themselves. The two positions are different ways of protecting rights.

At 3/23/07 01:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The list goes on, but the basic point of liberalism is that the populous cannot be trusted with their own affairs, and must be taken care of by the government. In some cases I can actually agree with the goal being sought after, but in the end it's still teh government trying to be paternalistic.

I agree that having a paternalistic government is something we must avoid at all times, but, everything isn't as black and white. For example, the police is just like one of those things you mentioned, yet, most people would agree that having a police close at hand is vital for a society.

At 3/23/07 02:10 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/23/07 12:49 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: Liberalism (socialism 'round here) fails by making the assumption nobody can care for him-/herselves. Libertarism fails by assuming everyone can.

You're mispresenting both viewpoints. Both liberals and libertarians believe that people can "care" for themselves. The two positions are different ways of protecting rights.

O really? So that means that people are wise enough to decide for themselves to smoke or not, but they just don't have the right to smoke as much as the gov. likes them to do, so the goverment taxes them.

At 3/23/07 03:19 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: O really? So that means that people are wise enough to decide for themselves to smoke or not, but they just don't have the right to smoke as much as the gov. likes them to do, so the goverment taxes them.

I'm not sure how taxing tobacco use is a uniquely liberal idea. As far as I see it, the reasons for higher taxes on tobacco are for public health concerns, and not the protection of rights (which I've been focusing on).

I've never understood why Americans allways use the word 'liberal' as something that is associated with left-wing political statements. I'm, myself, from Holland and here the word is mostly related to right-wing politics. The reason for this is that 'right-wing' means, in short, less policital influence on one's life, for example lower taxes, privatication, etc. These point are the very essence of 'liberal', the liberty to do whatever an induvidual wants with his or her life.

I've allways considered myself a liberal, but whenever I look ouside European politics it is mostly associated with Hippies and what not. This ofcourse doesn't have to be a negative thing, but it is quite the opposite of what liberalism is (i.e. more political control to secure cleaner industries, a point quite contrair right-wing statements).

At 3/23/07 08:29 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/23/07 03:19 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: O really? So that means that people are wise enough to decide for themselves to smoke or not, but they just don't have the right to smoke as much as the gov. likes them to do, so the goverment taxes them.

I'm not sure how taxing tobacco use is a uniquely liberal idea. As far as I see it, the reasons for higher taxes on tobacco are for public health concerns, and not the protection of rights (which I've been focusing on).

Yes, that is exactly what i mean; it doesn't have a shit to do with rights, it has everything to do with personal freedom and trust. And it indeed isn't just a liberal idea to raise taxes on cigs, but it is a libertarian idea to stop the special taxes. (And you said all of it fails)

Ofcourse this was just an example. If someone has the right to get healthcare, or the right to study, it doesn't HAVE to mean the goverment provides it, it means that the goverment has no right to legally deny someone that service.

At 3/23/07 10:37 PM, scr4ppy wrote: I've never understood why Americans allways use the word 'liberal' as something that is associated with left-wing political statements. I'm, myself, from Holland and here the word is mostly related to right-wing politics. The reason for this is that 'right-wing' means, in short, less policital influence on one's life, for example lower taxes, privatication, etc. These point are the very essence of 'liberal', the liberty to do whatever an induvidual wants with his or her life.

IT's because Americans used to be scared of communism, and socialism is closely linked to it, so that's why leftists chose the name Liberals. Atleast, that would sound like a good explanation to me.

At 3/23/07 10:37 PM, scr4ppy wrote: I've never understood why Americans allways use the word 'liberal' as something that is associated with left-wing political statements. I'm, myself, from Holland and here the word is mostly related to right-wing politics. The reason for this is that 'right-wing' means, in short, less policital influence on one's life, for example lower taxes, privatication, etc. These point are the very essence of 'liberal', the liberty to do whatever an induvidual wants with his or her life. I've allways considered myself a liberal, but whenever I look ouside European politics it is mostly associated with Hippies and what not. This ofcourse doesn't have to be a negative thing, but it is quite the opposite of what liberalism is (i.e. more political control to secure cleaner industries, a point quite contrair right-wing statements).

I generally understand a liberal to be one who advocates personal freedom, even if that necessitates state intervention. This is true in both economic and social matters. A conservative, on the other hand, is one who disavows government entry into economic matters but supports stringent laws regulating social interaction.

The question of how to expand an individual's rights, in an economic sense, can be answered in several ways. A conservative would be likely to state that low taxation and privatization are the key, as an individual would be uninhibited by governmental regulations and could pursue whatever course of action he wished. A liberal, on the other hand, might advocate higher taxation and nationalization of industry (although American liberals don't generally argue for this, liberals and socialists in most other countries do). Their logic would be that the "free" market is inherently coercive and restricts individual rights, whereas government intervention in the market can ensure that nobody has to make the choice between starving and working in a sweatshop, paying the gas bill or paying for food, etc. The instruments for ensuring that no one would be subjected to such dire circumstances would be higher taxation and nationalization. Medicine, food, gas, etc., could be provided to those who cannot afford at no cost in order to ensure that their most basic human rights are not being infringed upon.

Liberalism generally assumes that an individual has a right to the most fundamental necessities, even if he is unable to provide them for himself; conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die.

It is patently clear that government entrance into the business sector is essential for preventing exploitation and protecting the rights of the people; liberals recognize this. As you put it, an individual cannot "do what he wants to do with his life" if he works in deplorable conditions for exiguous wages on which he can barely survive. He only has two options: either to continue working at that despicable job or to die. That's not freedom.

At 3/24/07 12:54 PM, Begoner wrote: conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die.

I just love how you stretched that.

Besides the part about conservatives wanting people who can't take care of themselves to die, that was actually a pretty well-thought out, sensible post, Begoner. You get an "A" for effort :D

Now, about those swastikas....

At 3/24/07 01:03 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Besides the part about conservatives wanting people who can't take care of themselves to die

Hey, I didn't say that. I simply stated that conservatism, as an ideology, is apathetic to the plight of those who cannot provide for themselves. It asserts that the government should not aid those who are in such a condition; thus, the logical extension of this stance is that those who cannot provide for themselves will die while the government idly stands by but does not intervene.

That said, there are many conservatives who believe this yet nonetheless donate to private charities to help out the less fortunate. They certainly don't want such people to die. However, the ideology that they advocate does take such a position.

At 3/21/07 05:14 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 05:12 PM, Heritage wrote: So what do you propose?

The liberal method of moderate government intervention, the protection of "positive" rights.

Blegh, is that a devil's advocate post? Becuase I don't see the angle where a liberal mentality will make the government run more efficiantly. Even just in the scope of Libs V. Lbtns.

Pledging more tax money, more comittees, and more government intrusion at this point to fix problems is just bloating up an already fat-kid kind of government to move even slower and take less accountablity for it's actions. I mean that's what big-government does now, why would huge-government be any different?

I know you said liberals with a moderate intervention attitude, but seriously, there's no such thing as a liberal with a mindset of "moderate" intervention and government action. It's the whole nine yards. The modern-liberals dominate what it means to be a liberal; common-sense libs are far and too few between these days.

At 3/24/07 01:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/24/07 12:54 PM, Begoner wrote: conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die.

I just love how you stretched that.

Are you implying that Begoner is a radicalized left-wing oriented political fanatic who is incappable of offering any opinion ever that's not loaded with manipulative personal bias?

Those are strong words, Memorize. I can't believe you said them...

At 3/24/07 01:57 PM, Nylo wrote: The modern-liberals dominate what it means to be a liberal; common-sense libs are far and too few between these days.

I think you're straw-manning the opposition so that you don't need to make a coherent argument..

Actually, Begoner, what you said was pretty informative (past some of the rhetoric).

"conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die."

That's a pretty far stretch. What is necessary is a mix between business's rights and consumer rights. Either ideology by itself is too restrictive. Nationalizing all businesses is going way too far, since people lose their right to sell their own property. Allowing businesses to do whatever they want is also going too far, since consumers will get ripped off/stolen from/misled and such.

Therefore, government should create programs to help people come out of poverty while simultaneously allowing businesses their rights to provide goods to consumers in a free market while preventing them from stealing.

Government has to get money to fund programs from taxation. Too much taxation causes people to plummet too far into poverty, too little and the government cannot function.

At 3/24/07 05:30 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/24/07 01:57 PM, Nylo wrote: The modern-liberals dominate what it means to be a liberal; common-sense libs are far and too few between these days.

I think you're straw-manning the opposition so that you don't need to make a coherent argument..

It's pretty coherant, RS. You're politically savvy, so you know exactly what I mean. The liberal method of moderate government intervention doesn't exist, because to a liberal line of thinking government intervention IS the answer. And the more government gets involved, the less freedom and accountability a society has. You know that, so that's why I assumed this was a devil's advocate post.

I don't know where you got the idea that human dignity is respected in the liberal model, it has just as much damage-potential as libertarianism. You say it doesn't, but that's your own personal opinion; not fact. You laid it out in your defense of progressive (i.e. another name for socialism/communism) taxation.

I'm not saying that libertarianism is the best choice of political ideology, I'm saying that the liberal method of "moderate" intervention is worse.

At 3/24/07 01:08 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 3/24/07 01:03 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

That said, there are many conservatives who believe this yet nonetheless donate to private charities to help out the less fortunate. They certainly don't want such people to die. However, the ideology that they advocate does take such a position.

Actually, according to recent studies, Conservatives give more in general to private charities because they feel it isn't the responsibility of the government.

At 3/24/07 11:20 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
Actually, according to recent studies, Conservatives give more in general to private charities because they feel it isn't the responsibility of the government.

That's all well and good, and yet those charitable folk weren't able to do what Social Security, Welfare and Medicare were able to... and yet those very people think that such charity WOULD do that now, if we removed those systems.

Isn't one definition of insanity repeating an action and expecting a different outcome?

At 3/24/07 01:08 PM, Begoner wrote: It asserts that the government should not aid those who are in such a condition; thus, the logical extension of this stance is that those who cannot provide for themselves will die while the government idly stands by but does not intervene.

There is not a single government in the world that would advocate such a position (from the most homicidal dictator to the most lasiez faire country). One reason. Hungry desperate people who think they are getting fucked over have a tendency to cause problems for government. Maybe you are familiar with the world "revolution," tends to make governments antsy.

The statement in your post implys that without government intervention there are people inside the USA who would die. Conservatives, in the political context of the United States (I do not give a flying fuck about the worlds definition or conditions, this is the USA), understand that there is not a single person who would die if welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, whatever, was completly cut off. Not ONE SINGLE PERSON. Even at minimum wage it is more than possible to provide for yourself the basic necessities of life in America. And there are always churches and private organizations in America that have more than are more than willing to lend a helping hand. That said, it would make life supremely harder for those off those services, maybe leading to more social stratification. Either way, I dont fucking know.

But hey, Begoner. Keep debating that phantom reality you observe to be conservativism and keep accepting that fake reality you understand is called Earth. Makes for a grand fucking show of egomania at work.

At 3/24/07 12:54 PM, Begoner wrote: A conservative, on the other hand, is one who disavows government entry into economic matters but supports stringent laws regulating social interaction.

Only the way you read it. But then again, this is you. Your entire argument style consists of pigenholing people and views into catagories that better fit your stratified view of the wold.

conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die.

Yes, since we all are spinning our own bullshit opinions off to look like fact, Hitler was in fact a magnificent leader who was simply misunderstood. Huzzah.

exiguous

Again. Words are like colors. You dont throw extreme colors at a canvas just because you think it will look more flashy, you pick the correct one for the correct circumstance. Would the Sistine Chapel still be the masterpiece it is if the people were painted some hot pink that sort of looks like skin instead of just using flesh color?

Throwing obtuse words into your writing does in fact not make you look smarter, it makes you look like a word whore trying to sound smart instead of making an effort to be smart. Especially considering this is the fucking internet and not a paper for fucks sake. My rule of thumb is find the simplest word that means exactly what I want to say and use them. Apparently you like donning the robe of intellectualism and be damned if anyone could understand what you are saying. Hope you enjoy having an absurdely small audience that can understand your writing without having a dictionary around.

I would have used marginal or meager

At 3/25/07 04:57 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/24/07 01:08 PM, Begoner wrote:

exiguous

Again. Words are like colors. You dont throw extreme colors at a canvas just because you think it will look more flashy, you pick the correct one for the correct circumstance. Would the Sistine Chapel still be the masterpiece it is if the people were painted some hot pink that sort of looks like skin instead of just using flesh color?

Hahaha. Even though I think you're a creep Demosthenez, I thought that was an excellent analogy. I've wanted to think of something clever to say many times when I've encountered people who use big words for the purpose of using big words, when they don't really use the words appropriately.

But I'm going to remember that, and maybe I'll even quote it and contribute it to you.

I think I read something similar to that before and sort of modified and expanded it. Might have even come from Newgrounds (some reason I now think it does), cant remember. But I aim to please.

At 3/21/07 10:06 PM, RedSkunk wrote: You look at government as some sort of adversary. The US is a democracy, and whatever its problems, the government is ultimately comprised and sustained by the people. Additionally, "liberalism" does not state that "all things must go through the government." At least no definition of liberalism that I know of. You're not arguing with what I'm saying here, you're arguing with a make-believe version of me.

First, I do not view government as an adversary but a necessary evil. Government is a human institution and is just as subject to human emotions such as greed and corruption. Thus government must be constrained.

There are many definitions of liberalism. Under the classical definition I could be considered liberal. However, what I'm arguing against is the idea that your conseptualization of "positive" rights will eventually lead to: socialism.

And you present a logical fallacy here. Have you ever thought that many of these people in economically depressed areas are actually living their lives as they see fit?

There's no logical fallacy here. I'm endorsing an "equal training room" to go hand in hand with the "equal playing field." People can live as they see fit.

You dodged my point rather artfully. You assume that just because a person is poor and lacks job skills that they have not choosen this life for themselves. Furthermore, what your ultimate goal appears to be is an equalization of outcomes rather than an equalization of opportunity. And this is the moral equivalent of looting.

Now do not get me wrong. I am not an extreme or radical libertarian. Student Aid is a good thing. Emergency unemployment assistance is a good thing. But at some point you have to understand that there will people who will exist at the fringe because they do not want to do what it takes to make a better life. My point in my story about my ex-wife is that I have seen people lift themselves up, yet I've also seen people who don't want to work to get the training you're arguing for. Why then should they be deserving of being able to go out and buy a computer or XBox360, when they haven't done anything to deserve it?

The libertarian mindset you're endorsing is flawed because it ignores reality in favor of lofty notions of "individualism" and Ayn Rand hysterics. To juxtapose the US with North Korea is absurd, but this is exactly what you've done. The creation and support of positive rights does not axiomatically create a totalitarian state.

What reality? The reality that there are some people who are poor because they want to be...or rather they do not want to put forth the effort to lift themselves out of the hole they are in. You ignore the reality that this is a choice, and not always as simple as not having access to training.

I am impressed, have you actually read Atlas Shrugged or just going off a Professor's book review?

I am countering one extreme in juxtaposing the DPRK with the US. But without constraint on the government, an over-focus on "positive" rights can often lead into Totalitarianism. The DPRK, USSR & PRC all have operated under the ideal of protecting the little man and the oppressed from all sorts of types of nefarious oppressors.