"When I use the word harm, I speak of protecting the guarantee of a certain baseline level of the quality of life that EVERY human being is ENTITLED to. If something threatens this guarantee, that something MUST be dealt with. Whether the tool is discussion, politics, technology, medicine, etc... Some examples of threats to the individual: war, famine, greed (corporate gain at the expense of those who will never attain the wealth of the owners), corruption (the collusion of conservative politicians with big business), racism and nationalism."
I am certain that most things that liberals and conservatives believe in an debate on can be boiled down to simple fundamental concepts. This statement from Trolling4Dollars starts with the concept of entitlement. Entitlement for all is a very left/liberal concept. Entitlement based on merit is a very right/conservative concept. I am not going to say either belief is right or wrong, but I can speak to what I subscribe to and why.
I do not now, nor have I ever believed in the concept of entitlement to a quality of life. Maybe that sounds harsh, but the concept that a government has the right to take from one and give to another is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. The constitution of the United States guarantees certain rights. Education is one of these rights, and education is the great equalizer. People failing to make the most of their education, or becoming crack addicts, alcoholics, school drop-outs, drug dealers, or career welfare moms are not my problem, and I should not be forced to pay to provide them healthcare or foodstamps. They had a choice to make, and made the wrong one. I believe that there should be personal responsibility for these choices.
In my view, no government has the right to take things away from private citizens or organizations, especially in disproportionate amounts. I do not favor the redistrobution of wealth. Money is made and lost every day in this country. Companies thrive, but many more go out of business. Those who succeed should be allowed to reap the benefits of that success, for they took all the risks.
Should we have a universal healthcare program in the U.S.? I don't know is the true answer. I can say that based on our current system we have the best medical doctors and facilities in the world. Should we change that? Should Congress change it? I say no. They do not have the right. Would I vote for it if a referendum were called? Perhaps. I would certainly respect it if it were approved in such a manner, even if I didn't agree with the concept.
Should everyone in the country be entitled to eat? Hell no. Go and get a job and stop putting your hand out. McDonald's is hiring and you probably qualify to work the mayo gun. They'll even feed you. Join the military. They are ALWAYS hiring, pay pretty well, and will help you learn valuable skills.
As for clothes, housing, and anything else you can think of, see the above paragraph.
On to threats to the individual. The statement that discussion that could threaten someone's quality of life, that I do not believe they are entitled to in the first place, should be dealt with is ludicrous in my eyes. This is exactly what the free speech amendment protects, and if you would threaten free speech I think you would find yourself standing quite alone.
You mention corporate greed as a threat to the individual. I would argue, and ask any to cogently present an opposing view, that businesses are in business to make money. They are not in business to cater to individuals unless those individuals are paying customers. If a business were unethical in it's practices, customers would stop paying and the business would become no more. Lest ye forget, businesses are the reason that most of us have jobs and can afford to eat, wear clothes, and post on Slashdot. Without them, we would have no model under which to survive. What would be our basis for trade?
You mention corruption and collusion. I can't even give this the time of day. I am not saying it doesn't happen or that it is good or right, but did you pay attention to just how corrupt the Clinton Administration was? Clinton could have been tried just over his dealings with the Chinese. Corruption in politics is a plague to all and needs to be eradicated. Do not fool yourself into believing it exists only on one side of the spectrum.
Now here's the funny part. The racist, special interest party is accusing the other side of racism. Racism is defined in 2 ways. Firstly it is defined as a belief in racial superiority, and secondly it is defined as racial prejudice or discrimination. The democrat party of the United States has been the largest practitioner of racism in the country over the last 30+ years. Every policy that has been advocated by the left regarding racial preferences and quotas regarding state jobs or practice in private institutions is pure, basic racism. Giving someone 10 points on a civil service exam because of their race or gender is discrimination in its purest form. Top qualified candidates get overlooked because someone else is given preference based on characteristics that have nothing to do with the qualifications for the job. Conservative views have held that people should be hired and awarded based on merit alone. Discrimination occurs when any other factor is taken into account.
Lastly on nationalism, it is my belief that we in the U.S. suffer from a lack of nationalism. There are too many people in this country that are not here to be Americans. Perhaps someone doesn't like that concept, but I believe that any society is better off if it's members are focused on making a positive contribution towards the success of that society. Nationalism occurs when the members of a country are given or make something to be proud of. People in America don't even claim to be Americans. They are Italian or Irish or African-American, or whatever they are. Fooey. Be an American, drop the border that you put between yourself and someone else by claiming you are something else and come contribute to the betterment of the society.
Trolling4Dollars statements regardin Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy are too much to handle today. I will only say that even if a Socialist society could work and be economically viable, it will never become so unless everyone in that society wants to contribute solely to make the society a better place. That requires Nationalism, so special preference for anyone based on race, gender, religion, or anything else, no corruption in politics, no greed, and that everyone accept personal responsibility for themselves. Hell could freeze over first.