Freedom

So many liberals talk about freedom. They claim that conservatives, neocons especially, want to take away freedoms. They call them fascists, totalitarians (the latter of which is not true, by the way), whatever. But liberals want to take away freedom, too. They just want to take away a different freedom; that is, economic freedom.

Conservatives want stricter social, moral standards, but support free market capitalism, or at least a less regulated market. Liberals, on the other hand, are socially progressive, but, because they know nothing about economics, believe the only way to achieve economic fairness is through lots of regulation over the market. The radicals are socialists and communists, which means no economic freedom whatsoever.

Were these liberals to take an economics course, read some Adam Smith, whatever, they would learn that the free market does quite a nice job of achieving economic fairness (loosely defined) without hindering freedoms. Take health care, for example. Most liberals support socialized medicine. I agree that health care is an urgent issue, and that it is our moral obligation to ensure that the 44 million people, roughly 1/6 of the population, living without coverage get it. However, this can be achieved without socialized medicine, a hinderance on the free market. Let's say the government gives all 44 million uninsured Americans some money, and this money is only to be used to purchase coverage. The instant that a government official comes out and says that 44 million people are about to enter the market for insurance at the same time, the insurance companies will go nuts. They'll do anything they can to get as many of those customers as possible, because it means more money for them. And once they've got those customers, competition will keep coverage for low-income families affordable, because no company wants to lose their customers to another company.

So, you can see that all it takes is a little indirect action on the part of the government, not really interfering with the market, to get healthcare insurance for the millions of uninsured Americans. This works much like how the Federal Reserve affects interest rates. A change in the FFTR/FFR by the Fed is a very unnoticeable thing, really. It is just a change in the rate that banks loan to one another on overnight loans, changed indirectly by the buying or selling of securities at the New York Fed. The Fed doesn't actually change the rates, they just affect the money supply through the buying and selling of securities in the free market, resulting in banks raising or lowering their rates. This is just like what could be done with the healthcare crisis; a small, indirect action by the federal government results in a huge change without reducing economic freedom. Now that's efficient.

>>1
Correct. May I also add that you are nothing close to the skapegoar strawman capitalist tha liberals always use in their arguments. If any liberal uses the word capitalism or capitalist in their responses to you, their argument is instantly void.

State intervention sucks as much as socialism.
In my opinion it would be better to improve the situation for the insurance companies so they can lower the costs to a level at which even the poorest families could afford proper health care.

Socially Progressive=/=more rights
it just means bullshit treat everyone equal, be nice, bullshit.
Libreals are just as fascist as Conservatives.

Right.
The right wishes to enact strict social controls on people, for whatever reason.
The left wants to enact different social controls to try an encourage the opposite effect. In the end we can forgive the left for this because they are attempting to speed up social change whilst the right attempts to slow it down, i'm not sure that it makes either right.

HOWEVER, the economic policies of the parties are very much a different matter. Whilst in theory the right is all for economic freedom and the left is for some nightmare state of constant economic supervision, it is actually and perversly under the right that economic beurocracy and hinderance has flourished, particularly in recent years, driving trade away from wall street and hampering the economy. On top of this, despite campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility and labelling the left tax & spend economic dunses they've managed to completely distort the historic precident. As a rule, under democratic rule the debt and defecit has lowered whilst under republican administration it rises. I have no idea why sucsessive republican administrations feel the need to do this as its never been necessary, it's just something about the way they view the world that makes them more willing to sink into debt and spend what they dont have ineffectively. It wouldn't bother me but they have the gall to accuse the left of being the side that does it.

laissez-faire, why should i care.

4chan is freedom

>>5
They're not speeding up social change. They think they have a monopoly on "what's right" like every other religion. Just look at the anti-racist movement, they've done nothing but abuse and derail it in their attempt to apply their neo-marxist social engineering bullshit. We have the free market and libertarians to thank for civil rights, not a bunch of whiny asshats who would suck a black panther cock if it slapped itself across their face.

>>8
Yeah, fuck Rosa Parks, that tyrannical fascist!

>>8
You'll have a hard time convincing me that the civil rights movement owes its success to the free market and libertarians.

>>9
No, he thinks anyone who tries to influence society is a statist, and he'd rather call someone a socialist as an insult, as libertarians have been cozy with fascists as a rule.

Bah. A minimalist government, like what Nozick talks about solves for this. The economy is left up to the people. The government just makes sure contracts are made and laws enforced. Some socialism can come in here but it would be a direct result of the people making a contract with the government to make roads and such. I don't feel like writing but yeah...

Freedom is such a relative concept.
This is the way I see it: To increase my own freedom I have to decrease someone else’s freedom.
What is important to be is that before I increase my own freedom everyone has the have the same freedom as me.
Freedom for me is not that I can do what ever I feel like doing, freedom is rights. For example: day care, education, work with paid vacation, social security and eldercare.
And everyone must have these rights because if they don't it is not freedom, it is something else... that I know no name for.

>day care, education, work with paid vacation, social security and eldercare.

As rights? Forgive me if I sound critical, but I do not consider these rights. I may as well come up with other, random items of human life and claim them as rights.

>To increase my own freedom I have to decrease someone else’s freedom.

Not true. To increase your freedom, you must increase the freedom of all. Otherwise, you are not increasing freedom, you are creating special freedoms or permissions limited to a select group.

Take, for example the issue of day care. A "right" for people with children and their children, but those without children can not participate in that right, now can they?

>Let's say the government gives all 44 million uninsured Americans some money, and this money is only to be used to purchase coverage.

That simply will not happen. The government attempted to do this in many ways.

1 - free "debit cards" for Katrina victims which we have learned were used fraudulently and for purposes other than their intent racking up a huge bill and public outcry for waste

2 - voluntary Social Security Privatization - the Democracts opposed this greatly arguing that it would put people's retirement livelihoods in jeopardy


in the end, it will become a government-regulated-and-funded program providing the worst of both worlds, none or very little quality control and massive waste of taxpayer dollars

>>13
Every human has the right to live, and as I said I don't think some people deserver more freedom than others. There for I consider these things to be rights. No matter who you are you will have the same chance to a life as everyone else.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't wish to increase my own freedoms at the cost of other freedom, means I don't wish to increase my freedom at all. I work to increase other people’s freedoms so I in the end can increase my own.

I went to day care, it was nice. However none of my family members are in eldercare so me or my family does not participate in that right, and to that I say: Whatever, I'll gladly return the favor to the society.
But what if I didn't go to day care and did not have a family member in elder care? I still believe it's a right to live goddamn it.
To get some you must give some.

>>15

The right to live has nothing to do with anything written here.
And you cannot delete your "This is the way I see it: To increase my own freedom I have to decrease someone else’s freedom.".
Way to go, fucktard.

>>16
While >>15 a fucktard may be, freedom and rights all derive from our most fundamental "right to our own life," that is, our right to live (as we see fit).  No single person or entity knows whats best for me and everyone else, why that person would have to be positively DIVINE to know that!

Ahem...


>>12
"And everyone must have these rights because if they don't it is not freedom, it is something else... that I know no name for."

This was the scariest thing I've heard a person say in a long time.  That you could not even conceive of someone not wanting the same things as you, and that you need to force your worldview on them as a result is horrifying.  PERSONAL LIBERTY may be a phrase worth researching.

>>17

No, everything derives from private property even the right to live.
Private property means that you are the owner of your own life and it's up to you to do what ever you want with it.
Without it you end up in a forced labour camp because in a collectivistic society a leader or a group of assholes decide what you have to do, what you have to be and what you have to think.

>>9
>>10
How can you tell what I think if I haven't even told you? Will you give me a chance to do so or continue to live in your little world? If you are not afraid of my ideas read on.

I believe Rosa Park's resistance was her exercising her liberty and the racist's attempt to stop her was an attempt at social control. All progress by the anti-racist movement has been done through objective rational unemotional arguments with a libertarian basis by American Patriots such as the honourable Luther. All mockeries of the anti-racist movement have been made by liberals attempting to implement social control by tapping into fear of racism in minority groups.

Also the statement that libertarians would support fascism is contradictory to the extreme as I shall now irrefutably prove.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

>>11
You didn't write much, but you said a lot.

>>12
That's ok until you start forcing other people to pay for it. Insurance companies do the opposite, by only charging those who use their services. Also other rights are more important.

>>18
"Private property means that you are the owner of your own life and it's up to you to do what ever you want with it."

If you want to believe that.

>>17
"No single person or entity knows whats best for me and everyone else, why that person would have to be positively DIVINE to know that!"
Neither do you. You think you do but that’s it.

"This was the scariest thing I've heard a person say in a long time.  That you could not even conceive of someone not wanting the same things as you, and that you need to force your worldview on them as a result is horrifying.  PERSONAL LIBERTY may be a phrase worth researching."
This is not what I want for me, this is what I want for everyone. It would be the most fair thing. I

I'm not forcing my world view on anyone. Are we having prejudices?

Personal liberty for me is repression of someone else’s personal liberty. Why am I entitled to more (or less) liberty than anyone else? Do I deserve more liberty because I happen to be born in a family with more money? I don’t think so. Every human should be entitled to the same freedoms or rights because no human is worth more than any other.

>>1
Don't forget that conservatives tend to support preserving the freedom to keep and bear arms, while the democrats want to take it away and treat everyone like inept children who can't take care of themselves.
(In the USA anyways.)

It sounds like Switzlerland is having to put up with similar bullshit, unfortunately.
http://www.nzz.ch/2007/03/25/eng/article7650003.html

Fucking gun grabbers can't keep their damn noses out of anyone elses' business.

>>20

Boring.
Let me speed that up:

Me: What the fuck are you talking about?
Stalin wannabe: We are slaves to the companies!
Me: Are you saying that in your socialist shithole no one has to work for his living and everybody still gets everything he wants?
In a free market economy you decide where for whom you work, where you work and for how much you work.
There's also the freedom to make your own company and to ascend from employee to employer.
Stalin wannabe: This is not true. I must take a certain job because the unemployment rate is too high.
Me: I learned that socialists don't understand how free market works, so you get the only the short version(anything else would be a waste of time):
The unemployment rate is high because some 3rd world dudes are cheaper than our high school dropouts.
You got two options to choose from: 1. Isolation. This is what the socialist morons did and we all saw how they failed.
2. Less welfare, lower taxes, less regulations etc.
Stalin wannabe: Less welfare! Never! You're a heartless capitalist bastard!
Me: There's no need for welfare if everybody has work.
Stalin wannabe: Oh, I see. Well, I'm gonna kill myself now for being such an idiot.

>>21

duh, everybody have the same rights in america, some just need to work alot harder, and be completely egocentric.

>>23
I don't like Stalin more than anyone else so calling me a Stalin wannabe is offencive.

And that you don't have the "freedom" to chose your on job in a socialist state is crazy ideas I've never even heard of. The idea with socialism is that people should be able to work with what they want without worrying about money.

Do you actually think I don't know what capitalism is and that is the reason I don't like it? I don't like free market because it is too unstable, sure is could make a state really rich, but it might aswell make a state really poor. When it comes to the state of my country I don't want to gamble. I want a safe option, slower might be but that I don't mind.

>>24
What about those who are not able to work? And why should some people have to work harder, that's not fair.

>>26

DSFARGEG

>>23

dude, your imaginary talk with a stalin wannabe was really bad. Maybe you should come up with a socialist that knew what he was talking about instead of some retard? It would certainly offer you a bit more of a counterweight in your political discussions with yourself.

>>25

>And that you don't have the "freedom" to chose your on job in a socialist state is crazy ideas I've never even heard of.

Looks like you don't hear much.
And this "socialism is that people should be able to work with what they want without worrying about money" is complete bullshit.
What if I say that the idea of the free market is to get rich without even working?
Save you "ideas" crap for the other communist idiots and talk about how it really looks like.
You don't see me talking about an utopic society, do you?
I talk about how we can improve our situation and you do is spouting propaganda: "LOLZ FREEDOMZ, IN SOVIET RUSSIA YOU GOTS ALL THE FREEDOMS YOU NEED"

>>28

It wasn't just imagination.
I had this conversation in some other politics forum that's why I wrote "Broing." in the first place.
Btw. I like how you fucktards never point out with what exactly you disagree just to get a reaction.

>>30
sure, i can tell you where i disagree:

2. Less welfare, lower taxes, less regulations etc.
Stalin wannabe: Less welfare! Never! You're a heartless capitalist bastard!
Me: There's no need for welfare if everybody has work.

this part. The solution for high unemployment isn't necessarily less welfare, lower taxes, less regulations, etc.
Before the industrialization(and during for that sake), nearly noone were unemployed, but they just led shitty lives, being used by owners of the land(the capital if you want to use that word).

These days we have a completely different situation, of course, but i don't believe a deregulated economy and a nightwatcher state is the solution to a stagnating economy / rising unemployment.

I just remembered why you never point it out.
The reason is that you have nothing to say so you provoke a reaction which you hope you can attack.
Got the book here anywhere, too.
Well, forget what I wrote and just GTFO.

>>29
Capitalism and socialism both strive for freedom. The difference is that people do not allways define freedom in the same way.

>>31

Look like you were a little bit faster so you get an answer for this one.
And the answer is the same the other one got:
Write how you want to achieve a better society and not just "LOLS I GOTS THOSE WONDERFUL IDEAS".
I wrote "less welfare, lower taxes, less regulations" and got "this part. The solution for high unemployment isn't necessarily less welfare, lower taxes, less regulations, etc.
Before the industrialization(and during for that sake), nearly noone were unemployed, but they just led shitty lives, being used by owners of the land(the capital if you want to use that word).

These days we have a completely different situation, of course, but i don't believe a deregulated economy and a nightwatcher state is the solution to a stagnating economy / rising unemployment."
Well done, retard.

>>33

Oranges? Someone?

No reaction.
Well, I guess I need some practice at this.
I translate it for you: You completely missed the point.

>Write how you want to achieve a better society and not just "LOLS I GOTS THOSE WONDERFUL IDEAS".

>>35
Yes, I would gladly purchase an orange. The oranges the government provides do not have to compete as they are paid just for meeting quotas and as a result the oranges they sell are pretty much just dried out orange husks, whereas if you attempted to do the same the orange seller down the road would get the public's funding and you would not be able to feed your children.

>>34


the reason i said that is because there is no simple solution to it. Going "less everything" is a simple way of doing it, but if we look at other places int he world as well as historical situations where such a policy had been led, it did no good.
I don't have wonderful ideas, but for an industrialized nation like the united nations to try and compete with countries like china on the labour market etc. is just retarded. Instead the US should focus some of the resources it got, and take advantage of that, improve their level of comparative competitiveness. This can be done by a) reducing regulation/taxation, which would lead to lower prices, thus more export (but less money in the government coffers). or b) improving quality, production methods, and handling of resources, be these human or material.
Now, this is where i personally thing that there are some things a state is good at handling, better than just "lol companies" of course it should be run with as little beaurocracy as possible, which is very doable with todays electronic systems etc. and therefor i think that deregulating everything and reducing taxes is a bad idea, as this would leave no money for the state to do what it should. And if we're not going to reduce taxes, at least not drastically, then what we need to focus on is option b) of improving of competitiveness.


I havn't said what i believed the state is the best at running, of course, everything is not the option, a state-run institution very easily ends up in a huge beaurocratic mess. But i think such things as education, elementary, high school, and college should be free, the police force and fire-fighters, the army, and a certain degree of social health care (possibly a negative tax system combined with aid for people who are very ill but can't afford treatment) and this should be available for all as well. Things such as which medicine to use for health care, what weapons to use for the police force, where to buy trucks for firefighters and whatever could be done by having the lowest bidder get the offer. Having systems that avoid curroption on the 'floor'-level is also important, this could be things like not paying doctors a percentage of the price of the medicine they prescribe, similar situations could arise, but i can't think up examples atm. Make sure that there is no economic incentive to not do ones best

>>38

I didn't say that reducing the governmental control is easy.
The fact that there's no country with a really free market shows that the opposite is the case.
Too many people are comfortable with having a leader above them who's telling them what to do.
I want a direct democracy and I think that this will be achieved through free market economy.

You say that it's retarded to compete with the Chinese but yet you agree that we do.
I know it would be better if we (I mean the western nations) would produce at higher quality but this requires skilled workers which aren't there.
Not even half of the people are academics.
The average worker is just as good as a Chinese or an Indian.

Why is it retarded to compete with China?

>>40

>>38 means that the Chinese do another kind of work.
You can work with your body but you can also use your mind.
The former doesn't require a high educational level and can be done by almost everybody.
Since China and India are poor countries their workers are cheap.
Western workers can't compete because the standard of living is higher.
That's why he says that the West should concentrate on higher quality that means work for which you need more than just your body.
I say there 2 problems with that:
1. The Chinese aren't dumb.
2. Not everybody wants to or is able to become an academic.

>>41

no, and no matter how smart we'd all like to be, there'll always be a need for manual labour, we should then have the environment and education which allows them to be the best manual labourers. And it is likely that since we pay more for workers, the well educated workers will move to where they get paid the most, america. However even if they didn't do that, an increase in chinese wealth would lead to an increased import, especially of luxury goods, which america can supply. and a general increase in wealth and chinese education would reduce their advantage at unskilled labour.

>>42

You contradict yourself and what you write is totally incoherent.
Ever worked on an assembly line?
The only quality improvement here is: do it faster and without errors.
Harvesting also doesn't need a high school diploma, does it?
Most jobs need little to no education be it driving a truck or selling french fries at McDonalds.
Will the quality improve with better education? No, a more educated person will be just be more expensive.
There's no "The Art of Making a Hamburger".
So the best manual labourers are poor and dumb or a machine.
Because others are poorer and dumber than most US citizen and cheaper than a machine they get all the jobs.
The only type of work which improves in quality through education requires few years at college.

A brief glimpse at the next 20 years:

American growth grinds to a halt due to weak leadership and backwards idealism spread throughout the public by our universities.  People expect lives far greater than what they've earned and "rights" to other people's property through unfair and extreme taxation.  China with it's mixture of heavy-handed government and crazy gung-ho "let's get things done" pseudo capitalism springs forward while America's two-party system rips the country apart from within.  China wins... all they have to do is wait.  Unless we get some new and better ideas tossed out there.

Also

The free market is the best system of democracy ever invented: Every time you make a purchase you make a vote with your dollar.

>>41
Eventually we will have to drop minimum wage which will be good for an economy which will always be the epitome of technological progress unless there is a political disaster or a war. Eventually Chinese industries in order to continue growth will need workers who are more skilled who tend to be in shorter supply and have to compete for such workers by paying higher wages aswell as begin to compete with the west for our high academics. This new and diverse skilled workforce will be in small enough numbers to eventually form unions and threaten strikes unless they pay higher wages especially seeing western workers getting paid more. Workers with lower wages will follow suite and do the same. The authoritarian chinese government is too saturated with communists to use it's police state powers to resist the formation of unions, unless those unions begin to dabble in democracy which is unlikely to happen.

>>45
Are you linking to me because you want know my opinion on fortune-telling or is this some kind of criticism which I don't understand?

>>42
Truth, but what happens if the amount a person can be paid is less than the amount needed to keep them alive? We must keep populations low so that no one finds themselves in that position.

>>43
Education improves the efficiency of some very expensive industries. The level of educated workers a country has access to can mean the difference between them having these industries or not. Therefore if China wants to grow it needs educated workers. When they get their PHD they won't stay at McDonalds flipping burgers for the rest of their lives, they will go out and get the job they studied for and some will demand to be paid the same as an American or they'll emigrate there. The only reason you think his argument doesn't make sense is because you don't know anything about economics, which incidentally is why you are a socialist.

>>44
No. People will vote libertarian once they realise every republican term stamps out more of their personal human rights and right to bear arms human rights and every democrat term stamps out more of their property human rights.

>>47

">>43
Education improves the efficiency of some very expensive industries. The level of educated workers a country has access to can mean the difference between them having these industries or not. Therefore if China wants to grow it needs educated workers. When they get their PHD they won't stay at McDonalds flipping burgers for the rest of their lives, they will go out and get the job they studied for and some will demand to be paid the same as an American or they'll emigrate there. The only reason you think his argument doesn't make sense is because you don't know anything about economics, which incidentally is why you are a socialist."

You somehow misunderstood me or something.
I'm the guy defending free marked economy.
I recommend you to read the whole story.

I'm even a libertarian.
You must have missed the context.

>>46
>>48
I'm seeing things because I drank too much coca tea and absinthe.

penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispensipenispenis
penispensipenispenispenispensipenispenispenispenispensipenispenis

>>46
>>48
I'm still correct though.

>>52

About what?

ewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenisjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjewsjews
nigersnigersniggersniggerspenispenispenispensipenispenis

>>53
what is said is correct, not what i thought you said

To clear things up:

Trogdor: Our workers can't compete because our taxes are too high.
He: There's no need to compete with China. We should concentrate on better quality.
Trogdor: I agree that higher education and more academics will help us for now but it doesn't solve anything in the long run because the Chinese are not dumb. They learn and copy very fast.
He: You understood me wrong. I don't want more academics but a higher education for manual labourer.
Trogdor: That doesn't make sense. A cleaner wouldn't clean your toilet better if he had a college degree.

So yeah, I'm namefag now.
It makes things easier since this isn't /b/.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>>56
i mahl cxated n fuck,..

im high intoxicatged now umke sens

A few things that seem to be true, take them, leave them, or improve upon them:

1.) America needs a president that can blow off their constituency and do what is right for America as a country. It would also require a majority of Congress to do the same, and for Americans to be willing to sacrifice some of their artifical standard of living. This will probably not happen.
2.) No third party will ever rise to power without the implosion or splintering of either major party. Even then, this party will likely assimilate most of the major aspects of the weakened party, good and bad.
3.) Capitalist democracies are currently the best systems for providing for its citizens wants most adequately, but not necessarily its needs. America in particular has taken this form of government into increasingly risky waters.
4.) Unless it becomes profitable, those in control of America's future will likely not do what is best for America. As much as the Fed can attempt to balance things with monetary policy, political fiscal policy is still populist and prone to misdirection.

stob

>>56

higher education for manual labourers != lower education for academics and vica versa. you're just being a retard.

>>59

We have? all I've seen "increasingly" in any fashion is America's progression to socialized healthcare and just socialism in general. We are no longer the Laissez_faire capitalism of the 1800's and early 1900's we are moving closer and closer to Autocratic collectivism wiht each passing president and their failed pet-projects.

FUCK GREAT SOCIETY!!

>>61

No one is talking about lower education for academics, you dumbass.
The point is: A better educated manual labourer doesn't work better, he is just more expensive and can't compete with workers from poor countries.

I'm not talking about cutting education for poor famility but that we need less taxes so they won't lose their jobs to mexicans or other poor fucks.

Stupid namefaggotry.
For the people who don't know what the ID next to the date means:
It means that >>63&>>64 and probably >>65 came from the same person.

>>65
truth

>>37
If you want to base your political oppinion on that you deserve to go to the hell you and your country are on it's way to.

>>67
So we should only buy oranges from the government?

no, we shouldnt 68, however we cant allow companies to have practice without governmental oversight. government is created because it protects citizens from each other. thats why governments are created. if we make everything a private concern, then we lack the forsight and the control over it to protect the citizens.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>68
Thinking free market is the only working option is retarded.

>>68
I would not buy an orange not certified by the government.

>>72
Would you buy it from the government?
>>71
grammar pls
>>69
Correct. The government should only interfere to preserve justice.

>>73
Förlåt då ditt djävla rövhål.

>>74
gb2 mexico