PDA

View Full Version : The Importance of Social Conservatism



Boris The Animal
06-28-2015, 12:05 PM
http://dailysignal.com/2012/03/14/why-america-needs-social-conservatism/

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 12:07 PM
Limited government is impossible when self proclaimed "conservatives" fight against it.

Boris The Animal
06-28-2015, 12:08 PM
Limited government is impossible when self proclaimed "conservatives" fight against it.Limited government has a basis on Biblical foundation. And that includes protecting the family and those most innocent among us, the unborn child.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 12:14 PM
https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3 Fid%3DJN.qXiJSk3e8jdLj0p3NRhDHA%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3 D1&sp=9c327424eb575511563b06848d99c271

Boris The Animal
06-28-2015, 12:15 PM
https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3 Fid%3DJN.qXiJSk3e8jdLj0p3NRhDHA%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3 D1&sp=9c327424eb575511563b06848d99c271Strawman, thy name is Peter

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 12:17 PM
Neg.

Social conservatives are fascists by nature. Just as many on the Left in America.

Boris The Animal
06-28-2015, 12:20 PM
Neg.

Social conservatives are fascists by nature. Just as many on the Left in America.
How? By establishing standards that are totally reasonable? My goodness. You want to do away with all criminal and civil law as well.

Chris
06-28-2015, 12:27 PM
Back in the mid 50s the New Conservative movement was split between the more libertarian faction of Bill Buckley and the more, well, liberal faction of Russel Kirk. Both were deeply social conservative in the sense of preserving traditional values. Buckley, otoh, sought to promote social conservative values by example, iow, by leading a virtuous life. Kirk, otoh, sought to promote them by government action, by legislating morality. Buckley, I think, had the right means to achieve the same ends as Kirk. You cannot force morality, virtue, values on people, they must be free to choose.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 12:30 PM
How? By establishing standards that are totally reasonable? My goodness. You want to do away with all criminal and civil law as well.

What possibly put that idea into your head? Could it be the desire for total power?

What is wrong with the limited government that our Founders gave us?

Keep your social issues at the state level.

PolWatch
06-28-2015, 12:34 PM
What possibly put that idea into your head? Could it be the desire for total power?

What is wrong with the limited government that our Founders gave us?

Keep your social issues at the state level.

state mandated morality is wonderful....if they agree with the definition of morality....otherwise, its sinful and not to be tolerated! foot stampers inhabit both sides

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 12:35 PM
These are issues that should not be entrusted to government to legislate.

The Xl
06-28-2015, 12:38 PM
Social conservatives, by nature, cannot be small government politicians or constituents.

Chris
06-28-2015, 12:52 PM
Bush was a big government social con.

domer76
06-28-2015, 01:00 PM
Limited government has a basis on Biblical foundation. And that includes protecting the family and those most innocent among us, the unborn child.

Not much if a god, Boris, that can't take care of that himself.

Chris
06-28-2015, 01:05 PM
How? By establishing standards that are totally reasonable? My goodness. You want to do away with all criminal and civil law as well.


In recent days I have heard the exact same argument from a number of liberals.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 01:08 PM
Bush was a big government social con.

I am not so sure that Bush was. He did pander to the social cons. Rumor was that the administration mocked them in private.

Basically used them the same way that the Dems use blacks and Hispanics.

domer76
06-28-2015, 01:13 PM
Back in the mid 50s the New Conservative movement was split between the more libertarian faction of Bill Buckley and the more, well, liberal faction of Russel Kirk. Both were deeply social conservative in the sense of preserving traditional values. Buckley, otoh, sought to promote social conservative values by example, iow, by leading a virtuous life. Kirk, otoh, sought to promote them by government action, by legislating morality. Buckley, I think, had the right means to achieve the same ends as Kirk. You cannot force morality, virtue, values on people, they must be free to choose.

Buckley also advised that you nominate the most ELECTABLE conservative person, not necessarily the most conservative candidate. Conservatives have yet to figure that one out.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 01:14 PM
Buckley also advised that you nominate the most ELECTABLE conservative person, not necessarily the most conservative candidate. Conservatives have yet to figure that one out.

The GOP has not nominated a conservative since Reagan.

Chris
06-28-2015, 01:16 PM
Buckley also advised that you nominate the most ELECTABLE conservative person, not necessarily the most conservative candidate. Conservatives have yet to figure that one out.

He also said "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."


Not sure what either has to do with my point.

domer76
06-28-2015, 01:25 PM
The GOP has not nominated a conservative since Reagan.

They aren't looking for anyone electable, either.

domer76
06-28-2015, 01:27 PM
He also said "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."


Not sure what either has to do with my point.

I'm not sure what any of your points have to do with anything

Chris
06-28-2015, 01:33 PM
I'm not sure what any of your points have to do with anything

I appreciate you sharing your ignorance.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 01:43 PM
They aren't looking for anyone electable, either.

I am not arguing with that.

Dems are nominating liberals. The GOP is being redundant.

domer76
06-28-2015, 02:02 PM
I appreciate you sharing your ignorance.

I understand your posts perfectly, Chris. You're a one trick pony

Chris
06-28-2015, 02:08 PM
I understand your posts perfectly, Chris. You're a one trick pony

Make up your mind, you understand or you don't. And if you understand what I was saying about promoting virtue by example vs legislature, then what has your comment on voting to do with that?

Green Arrow
06-28-2015, 02:35 PM
Limited government has a basis on Biblical foundation. And that includes protecting the family and those most innocent among us, the unborn child.

Every government ordained by G-d in the Bible was absolute and autocratic, far from limited government.

domer76
06-28-2015, 02:52 PM
Make up your mind, you understand or you don't. And if you understand what I was saying about promoting virtue by example vs legislature, then what has your comment on voting to do with that?

We've been down the same path with you, Chris, innumerable times about your "legislating social virtue" mantra. We all get it. Find another pony to ride, Chris. You've worn out that mount.

donttread
06-28-2015, 03:04 PM
http://dailysignal.com/2012/03/14/why-america-needs-social-conservatism/

I thik fiscal conservatism is far more important

Mister D
06-28-2015, 03:06 PM
Every government ordained by G-d in the Bible was absolute and autocratic, far from limited government.

The prophet Samuel heeds the demand of the Jewish people to anoint a king but the overall impression of the creation of monarchy In Israel is negative.

Chris
06-28-2015, 03:08 PM
We've been down the same path with you, Chris, innumerable times about your "legislating social virtue" mantra. We all get it. Find another pony to ride, Chris. You've worn out that mount.

So now you use the elitist royal we when you speak only for yourself. BTW, since you understand my point, what did your reply about voting have to do with it? Nothing, right.

Green Arrow
06-28-2015, 03:38 PM
The prophet Samuel heeds the demand of the Jewish people to anoint a king but the overall impression of the creation of monarchy In Israel is negative.

Even Moses and the Judges weren't exactly democratic, and the kingdom of Heaven isn't going to be a democracy either.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 03:40 PM
Every government ordained by G-d in the Bible was absolute and autocratic, far from limited government.

People are not suited for limited government. The American experiment proved that.

They must be under tight central control.

Chris
06-28-2015, 03:41 PM
I think we need to restart the experiment. Jefferson thought every 20 years or so would be good.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 04:11 PM
I think that a restart with the current crop of Americans would lead to greater powers for the central government and much less freedom.

Chris
06-28-2015, 04:16 PM
I think that a restart with the current crop of Americans would lead to greater powers for the central government and much less freedom.

At least then we'd know what the law of the land was and some of us could leave for Canada or some other place still free.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 04:21 PM
Even Moses and the Judges weren't exactly democratic, and the kingdom of Heaven isn't going to be a democracy either.

Of course not. Democracy and limited government, as we understand those terms, are anachronisms when applied to the biblical world. I'm just saying that monarchy and autocracy are not the ideal forms of political authority in the Old Testament. The Book of Judges gives us an illustration of the preferred system which is quite different than despotism.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 04:30 PM
At least then we'd know what the law of the land was and some of us could leave for Canada or some other place still free.

Or let the current system collapse, find a block of land in the US that is economically rich and defensible, kick out all statists, and start over. I would suggest a strip of the US with the Mississippi River in the center. That would provide a trade route for the new nation and a trade link to the world.

Green Arrow
06-28-2015, 05:14 PM
Of course not. Democracy and limited government, as we understand those terms, are anachronisms when applied to the biblical world. I'm just saying that monarchy and autocracy are not the ideal forms of political authority in the Old Testament. The Book of Judges gives us an illustration of the preferred system which is quite different than despotism.

The point is Boris was arguing that limited government comes from the Bible, which is absurd.

Peter1469
06-28-2015, 05:22 PM
If you believe that god directed the hands of the Founders in the creation of America, you have to be insane to believe that god approved of the concept of limited government to let man live as he will within minimal restraints.

Evangelicals are only about punitive control.

Bob
06-28-2015, 05:28 PM
If you believe that god directed the hands of the Founders in the creation of America, you have to be insane to believe that god approved of the concept of limited government to let man live as he will within minimal restraints.

Evangelicals are only about punitive control.

If people believe God was interested in the formation of the union, let them keep saying that. I believe in their freedom. Is it what I believe? I never at any time put one second of thought that God cares. It would have been cool of God to give me that alert. That he did it for us.

I believe in GOD for some very sound and practical reasons. Not that he controls us. I see no proof of that yet.

If GOD formed this union, he also gave us 12 presidents that owned slaves. He gave us the Confederacy . He provided slaves.

Sounds sort of strange to me for those who believe.

I apologize in advance since I do not accept evangelical teaching. They really hate my church.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 06:51 PM
I'm on record stating that social conservatism has no business in government. Having said that, social liberalism has used government as a conduit.

There needs to be balance and protections afforded to both.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 07:35 PM
If people believe God was interested in the formation of the union, let them keep saying that. I believe in their freedom. Is it what I believe? I never at any time put one second of thought that God cares. It would have been cool of God to give me that alert. That he did it for us.

I believe in GOD for some very sound and practical reasons. Not that he controls us. I see no proof of that yet.

If GOD formed this union, he also gave us 12 presidents that owned slaves. He gave us the Confederacy . He provided slaves.

Sounds sort of strange to me for those who believe.

I apologize in advance since I do not accept evangelical teaching. They really hate my church.

That's not just evangelical teaching. It's the foundational myth of this country and the origin of American exceptionalism.

Bob
06-28-2015, 08:02 PM
I'm on record stating that social conservatism has no business in government. Having said that, social liberalism has used government as a conduit.

There needs to be balance and protections afforded to both.

Social liberalism does not belong in government.

They cause most of the problems this nation suffers.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:04 PM
I suspect that social conservatism and social liberalism don't actually mean anything.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:23 PM
I suspect that social conservatism and social liberalism don't actually mean anything.

What does that mean?

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:26 PM
What does that mean?

Just what it says. I don't think those terms really mean anything. They're much more likely to be applied negatively like homophobe, fascist, and racist for example.

kilgram
06-28-2015, 08:26 PM
0. None, null, nothing.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:27 PM
Just what it says. I don't think those terms really mean anything. They're much more likely to be applied negatively like homophobe, fascist, and racist for example.

I'm disappointed, I was hoping for a sexier response.

Couldn't disagree more though.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:28 PM
Captain Obvious For example, we could ask kilgram what a social conservative is and we'd get a description of the most horrible person ever.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:29 PM
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3) For example, we could ask kilgram what a social conservative is and we'd get a description of the most horrible person ever.

That's true with anything though. Ask Chris what a monopoly is, just buckle your seatbelt first.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:29 PM
I'm disappointed, I was hoping for a sexier response.

Couldn't disagree more though.

Or we could ask you but I'm getting the distinct impression you could only give me a vague answer.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:32 PM
That's true with anything though. Ask Chris what a monopoly is, just buckle your seatbelt first.

I disagree. Some terms are meaningful. Some aren't either because they never had meaning (e.g. homophobe) or through overuse and accepted misapplication (e.g. racist)

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:33 PM
Or we could ask you but I'm getting the distinct impression you could only give me a vague answer.

"We"? Of course my precious, we'll give it's our opinion.

I get your point on exaggeration but simply social issues are just that (like you said, just like it says), social issues, as apposed to economic issues. Gay marriage (both sides), abortion (both sides), environmental, and so on and so forth.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:34 PM
I disagree. Some terms are meaningful. Some aren't either because they never had meaning (e.g. homophobe) or through overuse and accepted misapplication (e.g. racist)

ok, denial, cool. I just disagree, strongly. I think most candidates are measured by their social, economic, etc. attributes in popular opinion.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:36 PM
ok, denial, cool. I just disagree, strongly. I think most candidates are measured by their social, economic, etc. attributes in popular opinion.

Disagree strongly then. That's OK. If anyone is interested in defining exactly what those terms mean without any bias feel free.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:37 PM
Disagree strongly then. That's OK. If anyone is interested in defining exactly what those terms mean without any bias feel free.

lol! I just did.

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:39 PM
"We"? Of course my precious, we'll give it's our opinion.

I get your point on exaggeration but simply social issues are just that (like you said, just like it says), social issues, as apposed to economic issues. Gay marriage (both sides), abortion (both sides), environmental, and so on and so forth.

This is a definition? Um...OK

Mister D
06-28-2015, 08:42 PM
Anyone who focuses solely on social issues or solely on economic issues is an idiot but I don't think such people really exist. Granted, there are some single issue nuts out there whether they are pro-life, pro-death, or pro-pot but single issue is a much better descriptor.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:46 PM
This is a definition? Um...OK

Cool.

Simplicity is awesome. Since I opined at your request, feel free to elaborate on your opposition.

Captain Obvious
06-28-2015, 08:48 PM
Anyone who focuses solely on social issues or solely on economic issues is an idiot but I don't think such people really exist. Granted, there are some single issue nuts out there whether they are pro-life, pro-death, or pro-pot but single issue is a much better descriptor.

Of course candidates aren't black and white on everything and POTUS is from what I gather a fairly broad and elaborate venture. So it's a spectrum that we're really talking about.

Compare Ron Paul's platform to say Santorums. I know Paul isn't running (yet), but for purposes of discussion. Or instead of Paul if you want to be a purist, use the Donald's.

Green Arrow
06-28-2015, 09:07 PM
Social liberals support gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization (in theory), etc.

Social conservatives oppose all of the above.

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 04:45 PM
People are not suited for limited government. The American experiment proved that.

They must be under tight central control.Tell that to those who were under the Soviet boot.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 04:53 PM
Tell that to those who were under the Soviet boot.

I am telling it to you. Your social conservationism demands too much central government.

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 07:06 PM
I am telling it to you. Your social conservationism demands too much central government.How? The morality regarding sex and marriage seemed to work out quite fine until the 1960s when the Hippie crowd thought that marriage was antiquated. And then came the radical feminazis.

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 07:07 PM
How? The morality regarding sex and marriage seemed to work out quite fine until the 1960s when the Hippie crowd thought that marriage was antiquated. And then came the radical feminazis.

And don't forget the GOP congressmen with DC's periodic "hooker hunt" when they're in session.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 07:07 PM
lol.....


What part of limited government doesn't get past the sieg heil?

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 07:08 PM
lol.....


What part of limited government doesn't get past the sieg heil?

It's only big gubmint when democrats build it.

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 07:09 PM
lol.....


What part of limited government doesn't get past the sieg heil?
Limited government does not mean doing whatever anyone wants to. That's licenseousness, not freedom.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 07:13 PM
Limited government does not mean doing whatever anyone wants to. That's licenseousness, not freedom.

That is why I call social conservatives liberals. And the current day fascists.

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 07:40 PM
That is why I call social conservatives liberals. And the current day fascists.Then let's go all out in your social Liberalism and do away with murder, theft, rape, all criminal and civil/tort law. After all, we need all out social Liberalism. No law and order, folks.

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 07:41 PM
that is as sensible as going all out with social conservatism and enforcing Sharia Law - Christian version. Stone adulterers and other sundry sinners.

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 07:53 PM
that is as sensible as going all out with social conservatism and enforcing Sharia Law - Christian version. Stone adulterers and other sundry sinners.
How ignorant can the loony Left be?

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 07:54 PM
just as loony as the right....

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 07:56 PM
just as loony as the right....Nope. What is so wrong about law and order, waiting until marriage for sex, respect for authority, clean wholesome living? Oh yes, the destruction that was the 1960s.

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 07:59 PM
Nope. What is so wrong about law and order, waiting until marriage for sex, respect for authority, clean wholesome living? Oh yes, the destruction that was the 1960s.

Nothing wrong with it until whacks like you try forcing your "morals" down everyone's throat.

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 08:00 PM
some people don't understand hyperbole can go both directions

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 08:01 PM
some people don't understand hyperbole can go both directions

Innuendo and out the other

Boris The Animal
06-29-2015, 08:08 PM
Nothing wrong with it until whacks like you try forcing your "morals" down everyone's throat.It's not forcing MY morals, it was the way things were and they worked! Why we cannot do that today isn't mind boggling at all. Mankind is depraved, evil, wicked, and without hope.

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 08:14 PM
It's not forcing MY morals, it was the way things were and they worked! Why we cannot do that today isn't mind boggling at all. Mankind is depraved, evil, wicked, and without hope.

And thanks you for your contribution.

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 08:15 PM
I'm outta here. The next step is passing the collection plate.

Tahuyaman
06-29-2015, 08:20 PM
I dont know why the far left is so anti Republican, or so verbal in their opposition to the modern conservative movement. After all, today's so called conservatives and the Republucan party are just trying to implement socialism in a more efficient way. They aren't proposing an alternative to liberalism.

kilgram
06-29-2015, 08:51 PM
Nope. What is so wrong about law and order, waiting until marriage for sex, respect for authority, clean wholesome living? Oh yes, the destruction that was the 1960s.
You are trying to force your believes in others.

Pure authoritarism.

Chris
06-29-2015, 09:05 PM
You are trying to force your believes in others.

Pure authoritarism.

Just like you want to impose communism on the world. Ain't a bit of difference.

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 09:05 PM
I dont know why the far left is so anti Republican, or so verbal in their opposition to the modern conservative movement. After all, today's so called conservatives and the Republucan party are just trying to implement socialism in a more efficient way. They aren't proposing an alternative to liberalism.

for the same reason the far right insists it the only way. They don't admit the only difference is an 'r' or a 'd' behind their names. Welcome to year 15 of the Bush/Obama presidency

Bob
06-29-2015, 09:07 PM
for the same reason the far right insists it the only way. They don't admit the only difference is an 'r' or a 'd' behind their names. Welcome to year 15 of the Bush/Obama presidency

I hear that Clinton started this. Per your clock, that makes it 23 years.

Tahuyaman
06-29-2015, 09:17 PM
for the same reason the far right insists it the only way. They don't admit the only difference is an 'r' or a 'd' behind their names. Welcome to year 15 of the Bush/Obama presidency

Where is this "far right" you mentioned and who represents them? There certainly is no far right currently holding any national elected position.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 09:17 PM
Then let's go all out in your social Liberalism and do away with murder, theft, rape, all criminal and civil/tort law. After all, we need all out social Liberalism. No law and order, folks.

Ah, no. Thanks for playing Adolph.

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 09:22 PM
Where is this "far right" you mentioned and who represents them? There certainly is no far right currently holding any national elected position.

Don't tell Congress that, you will hurt their feelings.

Ethereal
06-29-2015, 09:24 PM
We've been down the same path with you, Chris, innumerable times about your "legislating social virtue" mantra. We all get it. Find another pony to ride, Chris. You've worn out that mount.

As opposed to the one dimensional tripe you routinely post... :rollseyes:

Ethereal
06-29-2015, 09:28 PM
How? The morality regarding sex and marriage seemed to work out quite fine until the 1960s when the Hippie crowd thought that marriage was antiquated. And then came the radical feminazis.

The assumption that the state should be involved in marriage in the first place would seem to undermine your claims to limited government.

Tahuyaman
06-29-2015, 09:31 PM
Where is this "far right" you mentioned and who represents them? There certainly is no far right currently holding any national elected position.


Don't tell Congress that, you will hurt their feelings.

so, you can't name any?

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 09:32 PM
google the Freedom Caucus if you don't know....

Captain Obvious
06-29-2015, 09:32 PM
The assumption that the state should be involved in marriage in the first place would seem to undermine your claims to limited government.

You misunderstood. By "limited" he means limited to conservative social issues.

Tahuyaman
06-29-2015, 09:32 PM
The assumption that the state should be involved in marriage in the first place would seem to undermine your claims to limited government.


I would tend to agree with that. I don't know why marriage should be an issue involving government.

Chris
06-29-2015, 09:45 PM
You misunderstood. By "limited" he means limited to conservative social issues.

Not much different the limits on protection liberals advocate:


Flags aren't a protected class. Neither are confederate-lovers.

del
06-29-2015, 09:47 PM
How ignorant can the loony Left be?

they've got a ways to go, but i have no doubt you'll be neck and neck ere long

del
06-29-2015, 09:48 PM
I'm outta here. The next step is passing the collection plate.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/snakes-620x362.jpg

Green Arrow
06-29-2015, 10:06 PM
Nope. What is so wrong about law and order, waiting until marriage for sex, respect for authority, clean wholesome living? Oh yes, the destruction that was the 1960s.

How would you enforce it?

PolWatch
06-29-2015, 10:09 PM
How would you enforce it?

If they can't swing the pillar of salt thing, its the old standby: stone everyone

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 10:18 PM
How would you enforce it?

They will get snazzy uniforms with jack boots.... :shocked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

Ethereal
06-30-2015, 12:02 AM
Why do some "conservatives" pretend like they're the only people who care about "law and order"? I can't think of a single political group in America that doesn't believe there should be some kind of "law and order". And, as far as I can tell, the Democrats are equally fervent in their enforcement of "laws" and the imposition of "order" on society as Republicans are. Even anarchists believe in "law and order", they simply don't believe that the state is a necessary or even preferable prerequisite to such. Virtually everyone believes in laws against murder, for example, so who are you even referring to, Boris?

Ethereal
06-30-2015, 12:08 AM
And where did Edmund Burke say the state should impose religious values on people? I thought he was against that?

kilgram
06-30-2015, 12:13 AM
Just like you want to impose communism on the world. Ain't a bit of difference.
When are you going to stop to lie. I don't want to impose anything.

When I am tired to say that depends to whatever wants the people and it is to them to do the things, what kind of imposition is there?

If saying that the system is incompatible with capitalism is only saying a fact. A system that operates with no money cannot operate with a system with money. Is impossible.