It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 7:31 ID:+hD9dG9H
Because it only exists on paper.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 8:37 ID:2W81jO2j
Its not infallible, its unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no way to prove it wrong. Other unfalsifiables are if there is a god or if there is alien reptiles living among us in neat flesh suits.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 9:08 ID:OkVo5iwv
>>2
If it only existed on paper you would be a slave living in fear.
>>3
Science works with facts, so how can there be no proof to begin with?
more nothing-talk. why don't you just come out and say you hate the FDA, the FAA and the EPA
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 14:19 ID:zCUYzMPX
>>4
Science work with facts yes, and a scientific theory must be able to be disproven theoretically meaning that its basic framework must include the parameters where it can clearly be discarded as disproven. That god does not exist is impossible to proove. That libertarianism does not work is impossible to proove. This means both statements are not scientific and more opinions with no true answer rather than scientific theories.
You said my mission statement included empty platitudes and no concrete goals, so now I revealing the fact that for some people our nation's values are not empty platitudes and that you don't need a government to tell you what your goals are. Do you think I am wrong and if so why?
>>8
For a start the core principles of Libertarianism work because certain principles do secure the freedom of nations, it has to be fought for and the product isn't perfect but it's epicly better than the alternative. No one can disagree with that. Libertarians merely apply the same reasonning used to generate these core principles in order to calculate why socialist modelled government policies continue to exploit the proletariat despite claiming to do otherwise and have discoverred that it was just another unrealistic utopia used to bolster corruption all along. The solution therefore is to prevent the government forcing ideologies on the popluation, they should be free to experiment if they want, but no one should be permitted to force anyone into economic policies they do not want, not even those evil people who own property.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 15:15 ID:WJeSxOnO
It's 'infallible' because libertarians don't agree on anything but free market economy. Ok, we all know that it's superior but what about abortion? Or immigration? Their everyone for himself attitude prevents them from winning any election.
We are not slaves BECAUSE of government regulation. In the early 1900s Big Business owners basically treated their workers like slaves: made them work in horrible working conditions, forced child labor, and gave them pay that they couldn't feed their family with. This is what sparked progressivism in the 1910s and 20s.
the free market does nothing to protect the environment or stop global warming. also the free market doesn't give a shit about sending american jobs overseas. libertarians are like fat kids in the cake shop in that respect.
It DOES protect the environment and even more because it's regulated by demand.
People feel like it's too dirty → they want someone to clean up the mess. That demand creates a market and the one who offers the best solution wins.
"Protecting" through regulations is on same level as reading tea leaves.
I agree. You can clearly see this working in countries such as _________.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 19:19 ID:zCUYzMPX
>>9
Its still just an opinion which lacks an objective truth. Or rather, can you state as an libertarian what conditions would have to be met for libertarianism to be disproven?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 19:26 ID:3m4WQ4um
Cock
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 7:31 ID:S2lXeOut
>>10
It's simple. By following the laws of reasonning we can deduce the answers.
Abortion: Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil.
Immigration: Immigration should be free unless it influences factors such as gdp per capita and crime.
>>12
The US was not a free market. Constraints of the free market included institutional discrimination against foreigners, women and blacks and excessive taxation of the poor. Not to mention the fact that the economy was very different from today, the US received a large number of unskilled labourer immigrants and was still developping at this time compared to europe.
>>13
Incorrect. The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property. Due to it's nature, the atmosphere will have to be considerred international property, businesses and nations will be charged for using it and the money paid to contractors for the amount of carbon they remove from the atmosphere.
>>16
Polluting the air is causing damage to property, something even socialist governments won't consider due to their inability to see the benefits of property laws.
>>17
There are 100s of companies across the globe which perform clean up operations. http://www.pdcarea.com/
What are you trying to say? That it's only physically possible for these companies to exist if they are run by the government? That's absurd.
>>18
The only thing that can be disproven are the conclusions that have been made through reasonning. Libertarianism is just a branch of political science, within the range of accuracy that we have core libertarianism is correct and the newer libertarian policies are predictions. In before "GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF THEM WORKING".
Within it's range of accuracy newtonian physics works, while on the quantum or relativistic level it does not this does not mean that when you drop a pencil it will not fall at around 9.8ms^-2. I'm sure there are innaccuracies in predictions made by libertarians, but within the range of accuracy that we are capable of in political science we can be sure the predictions made will occur. If newer libertarian policies are implemented methodically over a period of 4 years, starting with the obviously most beneficial such as personal freedoms and equalising tax and going on to experiment with other ideas, you can be sure you will see major improvements in society and the economy.
Anyway, libertarianism first and foremost is about making money by any means possible except crime. You can all afford computers so once you people see the opportunities openned up I'm sure you will be able to cut yourself a slice of the cake, then you will become libertarians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 10:13 ID:+qsyM8UT
>>13 >The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property.
It's really cute how you spew out this pie in the sky bullshit. Left to their own devices, business will make ZERO allowances for environmental protections - even on their own property. You make it sound like libertarianism is a big, happy system where Chinese factory wokrers hold hands and sing Earth Day songs while they add 3000 cars a day to the roads of Bejing.
STFU. There is a strong need for government regulation in this area.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 10:53 ID:Q+fmp0u2
LIBERTARIANS DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 18:40 ID:S2lXeOut
>>21
If they make zero allowances their business will fail, so they won't. If they don't notice it or don't care then their shareholders will and they will lose or not make as much money until they start doing otherwise. Shares = long term investment, this is why logging companies only chop down trees of a certain diameter and why oil companies only extract a certain amount from an area even though they could increase "production" several hundred times as much with the profits they make.
There is no need for government regulation, just big business and investors who think about their future.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-07 18:57 ID:xDEp4L0H
>>20
is abortion killing sentient life? define sentient. if fetuses are sentient so are fucking cows.
so everything should be free unless it affects gdp and crime? Everything affects GDP, so i guess nothing's free.
so... people will buy and sell "environment", and make it as profitable as possible? what do you even mean by environment? how will a company make a quarter of a mountain side profitable? without mining it or something similar? and if you can't mine it or something similar you can't make it profitable.
the athmosphere will be considered international property? who owns it then, who's going to take money from the businesses and thwart the market when they pollute? where will all the money go? to a supernational organization? a supernational organization that owns the athmosphere?
Yeah, pollution 'causes damage to property, and what do you think is the most profitable for the individual organization? to protect themselves from the pollution or to chip in a tiny bit to removing all of the pollution? it's a typical prisoners dilemma situation. the only way you can solve it is by instituting is by setting up some sort of commitment device which has to be instituted by govenrmetns etc. this menas you ahve to have an incentive for companies to not pollute, and it HAS to be instituted on a global level, do you really think that's gonna happen?
And now we can govern over companies because something they do has negative externalities? and since we have to be rational about it we should do it for ALL externalities. how do we figure out exactly what externalities businesses produce? and how do we make sure that what they claim they produce is what they produce? that's right, more regulations.
Since we have do take into account all things which effect our GDP, this includes social matters. If a person has an alcoholic problem, that's his own fault, but negative personal traits such as alcoholism affects his ability to work AND his ability to raise and have kids which are effecient and contribute fully to our GDP, so he would have to be charged for his negative externalities.
Alright, so what do we have now, all companies and people are being watched and monitored by a supernational government in order to make sure noone contributes inefficiently to our GDP.
good job.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-07 21:03 ID:QjmfMyvV
Competition ends.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
Companies collude, merge.
The public is conspired against.
Government is the only force that can stop it.
In before guild system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 1:33 ID:uouiKCS0
It is due to it being the application of political science.
Hahaha
HAHAHAHAH
GGGGGGGGGGGYYYYYYAHAHAHAHAHA*thud*
Something (a very big something) tells me you haven't even taken Political Science 101. It's an interesting topic, but science it sure as fuck ain't.
I guess you believe creationism is a science too?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 1:48 ID:l8dEq6Bi
Libertarianism needs to be updated with a post 16th century economic model. lp.org is apparently quite ignorant of the simple concept of a market externality. Their platform would actually make sense if they endorsed Pigovian taxes for markets with significant externalities. I guess that goes for all the parties!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 9:19 ID:ZPB3OyW1
people who are so zealous about government regulations confuse me. what makes the corrupt rich whities in congress better than the corrupt rich whities in a company board room? the corporate fatcats actually stand to lose profits if they fuck over their resources and consumers, the government weasels dont give a shit either way.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 9:50 ID:6XMrzEwk
>>28
Because the business fatcats loose money if the income level is risen, i.e. they stand to loose if poverty is eradicated. In theory, this is not true of politicians and the government. In some countries (not the US) this actual practice. And everybody except the filthy rich stand to win if poverty was ever eradicated.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 10:10 ID:ZPB3OyW1
>>29
i dont know what fucked up econ classes you've taken, but more people with more money is VERY good for the corporations that are trying to sell people things. if anyone loses when poverty is eradicated it's the government, because if everyone has money, no one is going to vote for the guy that wants to take it away.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 13:21 ID:Y+DEqujd
>>24
Abortion: You fail to see my point. Where do you draw the line as to whether a fetus is sentient or not? If a fetus can survive outside the womb is it ok to end it's life? etc..
GDP and crime: It is unfair for one country to have to lower it's living standards to deal with another country's inability to prevent overpopulation and crime.
Environment: Environments have tourism value.
International property: Everyone owns it. Due to it's fluid nature the atmosphere can only be everyone's property, so everyone in the entire world must pay for it's use and decide it's composition.
Pollution: Pollution is damage to other people's property. For instance you can dump all your trash in the back yard instead of sorting and composting, but if the stank and rats start to affect your neighbours you are damaging their property and you will have to pay for it or work off your debt to them in prison. Property laws have been degraded over time, but they will be become a lot more touchy under libertarianism and will serve to prosecute polluters. Commitment devices or any other pointless bureaucracy is needed.
Regulations: Regulation is a standard part of law enforcement. The improvement libertarians would make is to ensure businesses foot the bill for the law enforcement needed to police them. This means they have an incentive to prove they are law abiding and stay that way, one slip up and they have to pay substantially more tax for a few more years along with their legal costs. This way evil corporations won't even touch immoral activities with a 180 foot pole.
Social problems: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a "supernational" government to prevent self-destructive behaviour. Libertarianism would greatly reduce social problems by forcing people to be responsible. If every time you fall the government catches you you would never develop a sense of balance.
>>25
A cartel forms.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
One company manager quickly discovers his branch can gain a little extra profit by reducing the cost or increasing the quality or his services.
The shareholders demand a split
The corporate cartel faces losing a significant proportion of the value of their company unless they comply.*
fix'd
>>26
The first thing any scientist does is look for facts or problems in reasonning. Since you have provided none I will reply to someone else.
>>27
They are not ignorant of it. They expressly state a deeper understanding of this dilemma which for some reason you cannot reach. Consider this. In the prestigious institution of walmart, 99 law abiding citizens and a hooligan all purchase a 6pack of beer. The law abiding citizens consume the beers over the period of a week whilst the hooligan consumes them all within an hour, he goes on a drunken rampage vandalising property before being picked up by the police, sent to the courts and spending a week in jail at great expense. The expense just happens to be the amount of extra tax levied from the 100 customers that day.
Did that tax stop the hooligan?
Who paid for the damage?
actually, you failed your point, you said abortion was killing sentient life and that killing sential life was evil. You drew a line right there, and i'm saying to you you can't.
Not all environments have tourism value, what about the ocean? large interdependant environments?
Oh, so everybody everybody in the world has to pay for using the athmosphere and decide how it's composed? what if say, 2/3rds of the world doesnt want to pay?
how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it? since the fine is enormeous, their incentive to attempt to bribe the inspector are that much greater, and the inspector being able to retire happily in macao for the rest of his life after two bribes may as well comply.
so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike? give the kid the bike and say "here, have fun trying to learn how to ride a bike" or holding the bike untill the kid got it straight and then let go?
And about the supernational government i was taking your argument of forcing responsibility of pollution on a supernational level and using a completely rational way of doing things one step further, leading to a computer-run technocracy in order to remove negative externalities and inefficiency costs.
100 law abiding citizens buy a sixpack. 80 of them drink it over the course of the week. 20 of them drink it over the course of an hour, and beat up their wives, giving her a minor concussion which reduces her efficiency, but she won't tell the cops on him because she loves him even if he beats her.
Also, in your example the hooligan went to jail, keeping him away from work for a week, instead he's doing low-production manual labour in the private jail, worth alot less than he would've produced in his normal work week, he will also make less money to consume less. So the company he works for gets fined for his inability, and all the other companies that produce things he would've bought lose sales.
The hooligan being arrested leads to a total reduction in GDP, and this isn't really very good at all.
This thread has now more hilarious generalisations and retarded analogies than all the other threads on /newpol/ togther.
Keep up the good work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 7:01 ID:8ozVXBvx
>>32
I said
"Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
I meant
"Killing sentient life is evil. If the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
Key word "If".
How long are you going to draw this out?
The ocean like the atmosphere is fluid, so a person who owns an area of ocean cannot use it to dump waste or it will interfere with the fishing business next door. If an environment has no tourism value, what's the point of preserving it? A lot more people need that land for farming or the minerals there.
"how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it?"
Indoctrinate them in the values of justice, tell them to accept the bribe but report them to the state anyway and increase the number of inspectors until the company cannot possibly bribe them all sufficiently.
"so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike?"
What is the point of your analogy? We do not need the state to treat them like kids their whole lives. After the CHILD learns how to ride the bike the parent is supposed to LET GO. The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them by never letting them learn to look after themselves.
Computer run technocracy? Let me guess, the technocrats (enlightenned monarchs?) decide the best way people should live their lives? If such a thing is beneficial, then it should have no real power beyond anyone else. How about a social R&D or think tank which people pay to teach them how to solve their problems.
What stopped the wife beater from purchasing a six pack? The tax? How much tax would needed to stop him? What if he simply brews his own beer or distills his own whiskey thus evading the tax? Again who was punished? If alcohol really did cause 20% of users to beat up their wives it would be classed as a class A drug. The hooligan has to be punished to maintain the deterant, if the deterant is gone then hard working people will drink themselves into a stupour, hurt themselves and others thinking there are no consequences because they benefit the economy more.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 7:03 ID:8ozVXBvx
>>32
I can predict your quibbles now.
"The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them INTO ADULTHOOD by never letting them learn to look after themselves."*
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 10:00 ID:qYlntB+k
>>30
Yes, but people whit money demand higher wages, thus lowering profit margins. Thats why they are closing down the factory and moving it to china you know. They dont move it to fucking sweden. They just sell shit to the swedes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 13:24 ID:LG6slosn
Im terribly sorry for reading what you write and not what you mean.
so.. so far we have indoctrination, supernational government regulating everything very strictly, the parts of the environment that can't be made profitable destroyed.
me saying that the state will let go when the kid has learned how to bike is as retarded as you saying that people will learn how to keep their balance really efficiently from constantly falling over.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 13:58 ID:T9urS6qb
>>36
The quality of workers in China is poorer than the quality of workers in the US. Companies with poor expertise cannot compete in the US so they must move to China where they do not have to purchase expensive sophisticated machinery and employ 1 american technician to ensure it function correctly, they just round up 100s of peasants and sit them next to a conveyor belt.
It is due to it being a fabrication of political ideology. It subsists in failed ideas to be promoted fruitlessly year after year with brick-headed audacity, it is next to impossible for anyone talking to a confused libertarian simpleton to teach that person the simplest of facts. It's made of ironically fascist ideals, engorged with false dichotomies and fueled by logical fallacies.
Age 4ever since newpol is a wasteland with a horrible past! If we sage all retarded threads then the reject threads starts climbing, and thats terrible!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-10 20:46 ID:0bczz3/f
>>44
Well I can't be botherred to decipher the points >>40 is trying to put across until he puts it in clear logical non-dogmatic sentences. So until then there is no reason to assume it is truth.
>>37
This might be my fault, I tend to make misunderstandings and it is difficult for me to determine whether it is because I wasn't specific enough or the prejudgement of person I am discussing with which clouds their ability to see ideas beyond that which has been drilled into them by the media. Sometimes it is because I am just not specific enough, or it is a mixture of both. I will try to be clearer now..
You have the right idea about how a "supernational government" would work. Regulation is of course needed, libertarians just have a problem with how the government throws it's weight around. Most regulations are arbitrary poorly thought out and dubious at best and if a supernational government existed with these levels of corruption it would be an absolute disaster. So I think you overhype the idea of what the supernational government's powers would actually be. It would be more like a cooperation between the laws and police forces of various countries involved in order to resolve issues that affect the entire world. Policies would hinge on a few universal principles in order to improve the law's clarity whilst it continuously monitors the multitude of situations it must cover. These principles would also cut down on loopholes and make it pretty straightforward for different nations to adapt them to their own legal system.
World governments have already decided to spend vast sums of money on renewable energy and cutting down on carbon emissions, however it is turning out to be a farce, just another excuse to create loopholes. A libertarian system would probably see the spending of a similiar amount to begin with and in a more economic manner.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 14:13 ID:lGU8Qio3
Thus far all criticism of libertarianism has been answerred for.
>>52
Thus far all you've done is sage. You have proven nothing and we both know this so there is nothing you can do to escape this fact other than engage in debate.
>>57
Correct, libertarians don't ATTEMPT to avoid facts, they just do it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 22:06 ID:eRSE81UN
Has anyone noticed that no one has actually disproven anything the libertarian has said? Libertarianism is indeed a science, either she can prove herself right or she says "I do not know the answer, we must research this further.".
As a proletariat I'd prefer to be under a libertarian government than a socialist government, that's for sure.
I would just like to give thanks and acknowledge a truly great historical figure who did his
best to help shape the world to what it is today. I'm talking of course about Adolf Hitler.
He looked ahead and saw over-population causing future global problems so he exterminated a
lot of the 'unnecessary' niches of human civilisation (eg: homosexuals gypsies and jews).
With his leadership Germany conquered a huge portion of the world and only failed in the end
because of inconvenient Allied attacks and the wealthy, well equipt but still incompetent USA
helping out. There is so much to say about this truly wonderful man so I think your homework
can be to research him and then you can show your appreciation for all the joy he helped to
bring to the world.
Ok guys this the bumping of old threads are becoming real dumb and stuff. I think we are at /comp/ can not do it so much becos its is real stuopid and dumn. If moar people are being dumnb then i think the site admins will stop annying people getting in here as it are realy dumb and i do'nt like it, ok? So guys you just neede to stop, and look at waht you are doine becauz its not funy and its real dumb and im call the admins to stop stewpid people doing it all the times. It is just dumb. Why you are'nt stoping it now is so anoying and stuped that ill have to contact the site or else it will keepe on hapining and its not good for the comunity on the intrernets becaze its real anoying and dumn and it makes them stewpide and shit, and they wo'nt be happy and its real dumb ok? So my advise is stop spaming shit and making old dumn posts new again at the top of page in \comp\ or ill be geting you in shit and shit.
Thank you for taking my seriously its a real consirn of mine that the intanrets are making dumber and i are going to stoping it rite now! So pleze cume and halp me and togetha we will fix the intrnet and making it good.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 2:06 ID:CTLs6t7i
Libertarianism is infallible, but remember, drugs and alcohol don't count as individual rights because destroying your life affects other people and doesn't fulfill the social contract.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 5:24 ID:RmcHpVyH
Libertarianism is fallible, but remember, wealth and health dont count as individual rights because destroying my life with taxes just so you can live affects me and doesnt fulfill my bank account with precious juice. Also, i suck cox.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 18:25 ID:a6Q2n7GG
In 1987, a young woman named Holly Ackerman was killed in a bizarre cult ritual. Now that you have read her name, she will come to you in the night and pay you a horrifying visit. You MUST do the following:
>It is due to it being a fabrication of political ideology. It subsists in failed ideas to be promoted fruitlessly year after year with brick-headed audacity, it is next to impossible for anyone talking to a confused libertarian simpleton to teach that person the simplest of facts. It's made of ironically fascist ideals, engorged with false dichotomies and fueled by logical fallacies.
Well, looks like it's infallible and it has all been quickly defined in layman's terms, anyone who passed high school can understand why. The likelyhood of someone voting libertarian depends mainly on if you have been exposed to an explanation of what libertarianism is, how much you stand to gain from a fairer society and how much you care about American values.
Average blue collar workers, tax payers and small innovative competitive businesses stand to gain from libertarianism. Welfare leaches, useless state bureaucrats and corporate welfare monopolies stand to lose from libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 8:29 ID:H4wt5aBa
>>82
Im an idiot because ive never heard this definition in layman terms quickly. Care to give itto me fast?
>>84
This has become the typical response from libertarians, whenever they are asked for these scientific definitions of their ideology then one is ridiculed. My heart breaks a little...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:06 ID:7/wSr5X6
I've often wondered myself why libertarianism is infallible. An ideology that lets everyone do what they want, unless it's at the expense of someone else? Motherfuck.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:13 ID:7/wSr5X6
Post 83 -- Basically, libertarians are for government staying out of the bedroom AND your wallet. Pro laissez-faire capitalism, pro laissez-faire social life. But never at the expense of others. Read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell for all the information on laissez-faire capitalism you need. That's the more controversial aspect of libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:59 ID:eSzBb2aO
>>86
It's a great political philosophy. Personally, I can't stand the thought of the government passing laws on moral issues. The only problem with it is how easily exploitable it is by big business. In a totally free market, the largest corporations are going to destroy competition, even if the competition is better for the population as a whole. Then the environment is going to go to shit, because people will have little or no sway in pollution regulation. Pardon me sounding like a hippie when I say that the Earth does not simply exist as a cog in an industrial machine, and has value beyond the commercial.
#90, that was a fantastic debunking of Objectivist ideals. That was brilliant; I'm giving up reading her works.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 19:18 ID:H4wt5aBa
>>87
Ok, so libertarianism is a science that is easily defined in laymans terms, yet i have to read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell to get a clue? Seems libertarians have problem with the definition of both easy and layman, but why am i not suprised.
Me, im a market sceptic. I believe the hype about how easily the market can solve every problem, as long as we dont tax the richest people in the world is a ad hoc argument to vindicate robberbaron behaviour. I dont even believe the market has the power to inovate, i believe the state is a much better inovator. Examples are satelites, the transistor, the internet etc. That shit could not have been invented by private companies trying to maximize profit (nor small companies), since they are too short sighted to realize the value of such things.
They drastically reduce smog and poisonous gas emissions at the cost of some power and fuel efficiency. What's to stop people from removing them and turning the cities into toxic smoggy hell-holes under a Libertarian system?
After all, it's beneficial to the car owner (better efficiency and power), and car manufacturers can also sell cars cheaper without the expensive catalysts.
Seeing as most people live in the suburbs, they don't foot the bill for the environmental damage on other peoples land causing loss of property value etc...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 7:35 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>85
You're like a child. Can't you participate in a discussion without throwing a hissy fit?. >>84 couldn't possibly have meant that "people should be able to do whatever they want" is the end of it.
Consider 2 people, E and O, E is good at finding solutions, O is good at looking for problems. Every time E presents a premise, O looks for problems with E's premises and problems that still exist.
E = PrEmise, O = PrOblem
E1: People should be able to do whatever they want.
O1: They might harm people.
E2: They should be able to do whatever they want except harm people and their property.
O2: Sometimes harming people is necessary to prevent them from harming others. Some people do not have enough property to prevent harm to themselves which can be prevented, such as poverty. The definition of harm is ambiguous and could be used to abuse the law.
This is the level we're at, retard. Not E1.
Shall we start here or do you want to beat down more strawmen?
libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.
me: so tax them?
libertarian: DSFARGEG
(lol libertarians)
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 8:17 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>97
libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.
retard: so tax them?
libertarian:: No, fine them. There is a difference.
retard: LOL I DON'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO UNDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINES AND TAXATION SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASSUME YOU SAID DSFARGEG AND PRETEND I WON ARGUMANT LOL I AM SOCIALIST I AM SUPERIOR TO LEMMINGS WHO ARE FOOLED BY THE RIGHT WING PROPOGANDAA OF THE TOTALITARIAN STATE WE ARE LIVING IN!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 12:19 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>98
so mr libertarian scientist, what are the difference of a fine and a tax? If the difference is not in name only there should be some criteria that your scientific analytical powers have detected that you´d like to share with us retards who fail to see the light?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 14:39 ID:pXXkT//q
I dump nuclear waste on the playground at your kid's school, and I only have to pay a fine?
Well, that's just the cost of doing business.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:06 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>99
taxes are for everyone, fines are for those who did the crime
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:09 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>101
????????
If you pay a tax for owning an unmodern car or you pay a fine for owning an unmodern car must within all reasonability be exactly the same thing? Except that in the first case you are actually not perpetrating a crime, just paying for the damage that you casue?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:11 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>100
The fine also includes the clean up costs and life imprisonment for 100s of counts of grievous bodily damage.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:18 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>102
No, with tax it goes into government coffers and they do not use it to, with libertarian fines a small proportion is used to pay for the government offices needed to extract and distribute it and the rest is paid directly to contractors to convert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon compounds.
In effect libertarians are less polluting.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:19 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>103
Yes, but it seems more logical to prevent the crime instead of fining it. But logic may not be your strong suit...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:25 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>105
That's why we legalise guns. One of the pupils can shoot the guy dumping toxic waste.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:28 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>104
I dont know under what kind of non-intervention government you live but where i live the government build roads, finance particle emmission research, finance clean up operations, finance forestry and wetland creation projects, finance city air quality projects etc. You should really complain to your government, thats no way to conduct a state. I assume you live in Somalia?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:30 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>107
A libertarian state does not mean such tasks are not completed, they are merely not handled by the state.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:31 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>106
Nice! And the child then pays a fine? And has therapy as well as chemo (which he has to pay for himself, the little triggerhappy parasite)? Libertarian really is a superior science!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:34 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>109
No, the child stopped someone about to dump toxic waste. The crime is prevented and everyone lives in opulent splendour for the rest of their lives.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:49 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>108
But you said your government did not do these things? I thought that this was an argument for libertarianism? You have confused me now, mr Scientist of Liberty.
>>110
So dumping toxic waste is a capital offence in libertaria? Then why the fuck are you blubbering on about fines? Just say that in libertarianism people who does not follow the rules are shot, not by the police or any other facsist governmental institution but by pupils at schools. Seung-Hui Cho would have loved libertarianism!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 17:12 ID:mZ+sOg8y
>>111
You are not being very specific. You say one thing and then the next reply you meant something completely different. You asked me how someone would prevent a person from dumping toxic waste into a school, assuming the deterant of a life in jail getting banged up the rectum by donkey shlong bubba wasn't enough I guess the only way to stop someone dumping toxic waste in a school is by force. If the police haven't arrived yet it is up to the citizens to prevent him from doing so. Toxic waste is a chemical weapon so such a situation calls for the use of firearms.
you have to remember! the government does it, but it's just paying private contractors to do it. so the state isn't doing it, but the state is paying other people to do it, and these people aren't part of or controlled by the state.
>>110
except for the families of the man who was shot because he was doing what he was told to because he couldn't afford to get fired?
but let's say a company dumps toxic waste unto a plot of land they bought, this reducing the value of the land, but is alot less expensive than digging it down, actions like this would lead to a decrease in GDP, due to the willing actions of companies. Is this legal in a libertarian society? i mean it's only their own property they are doing anything to.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-25 6:41 ID:MvjhGl3j
>>113
You're still not being specific. If the person dumping toxic waste was just paid to and doesn't know what it is, then the police can just go up to him and order him not to do it.
The world needs more COMMUNISTS and less Democrats/Republicans and "Free Market" Libertardians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 9:40 ID:HA/lvEAL
>>113
But you have to remember that private contractors would never EVER invest research in something that seemed to have no financial gain while the government invest research in such matters all the time! In the beginning the only application for internet was military and academia, ie no commercial value. No state to throw money into this money pit then no interbuts! And no, private interest are NOT psychic NOR are they into the business of charity.
>>114
Who pays cops in libertaria? Not an official noncommercial body i assume? Are they funded by fines? As a percentage of arrests? Or are they just unnecessary when everybody owns nuclear weapons?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 10:48 ID:HzCciwxs
>>122
The military paid contractors to perform R&D into computer systems and communication. In "libertaria" the academia will be privatised and it will exploit it's collection of students with their cash and free time in order to investigate various untapped branches of science. When these students graduate they may well follow it through in their professions, they will also most likely come into a lot of money to make investments since they and the companies they work for would pay very little tax.
The government and tax still exists in "libertaria", it's only purpose is to preserve justice.
>>123
Privatised academia is not objective, and more, its does not want to give away money to soemthing it feels has no commercial application (if you debate this you prove that you are a retard and i will take that as a win for reason). The military has no commercial application for its research (thats were the military-industrial complex come in).
And wait one fucking minute. Is not libertarianism a science? Then what the fuck with all this most likely and other fuzzy shit. Give it to us, easy and in layman terms, what libertarianism does better and how this is known. Take this as a put up or shut up challenge.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 14:10 ID:x7TB8WiI
>>125
So what if the libertarian education system is stripped to it's bare fundamentals, this doesn't mean research grinds to a halt, it means that talent is encouraged to do something useful and find a high position in the nation's economy in order to apply their vision. Would you rather pay a gifted artist to express herself by throwing faeces at a wall just to prove some marxist philosophy that "capitalism stifles creativity" or would you rather encourage her to become an architect so her work become an integral part of the nation and so that she can earn enough money to apply her vision as she sees fit?
The military has a commercial application for it's research, it just requires modifying. The inter-computer communication networks and programming languages developped by the military were easily adapted for use by businesses.
Libertarianism reduces inefficiency of tax by making people pay for what they use rather than an abstract undefined entity of unfathomable complexity to the average blue collar worker.
Libertarianism prevent people from forcing their ideals on others by allowing people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt anyone or their property. For instance you can set up unions or a hippy commune where everyone puts all their money in a bucket on their way in and it is shared equally. What you cannot do is pull a gun to someone's head and force him to put all his money in the bucket.
Privatized Academia would strive to make better ways to fry fries much faster and make them 120% tastier.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 14:24 ID:x7TB8WiI
>>127
Don't you want your fries more convenient to obtain and 120% tastier?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 14:57 ID:XJQgvFoo
>>125
Then why do private universities tend to be at the forefront of virtually all fields, not just immediately applicable research. How many public universities do you see in the Ivy League? Privatized education has been around far longer than public education and still has better results.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 16:06 ID:HA/lvEAL
>>129
That may be the case in the US but the international trend is the opposite. Typical libertarian forming his whole argument on one observation. Fail at science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 16:33 ID:XJQgvFoo
>>130
The US contains most major private institutions since many countries make it difficult for private universities to be founded or be accredited. Also, Most major universities in the UK function more like the USA's (accredited) private universities than the USA's public universities due to institutional autonomy. Considering most people on this board are American it's perfectly reasonable to only sample from American institutions. A multitude of observations from a single (very large) region is not the same as "forming his whole argument on one observation." And please cite examples next time you make an assertion like "the international trend is the opposite."
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 17:31 ID:HA/lvEAL
>>131
I will not cite any examples as you did not in the initial assertion. Why do you assume everybody takes your tripe as the neutral ground? And the sampling region is not large at all if it has the same fucking state governing it. There is no evidence towards the conclusion you have drawn, since you have not eliminated the noise the US creates. To prove it to be true you have to sample in a wide different environments lest youll have no clue about how much the environment skews your results. As i said, fail at science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-26 22:53 ID:YwaNFsJO
*sniff* *sniff* Man, the bullshit is rife on both sides in here...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-27 9:02 ID:/Pnpb3kH
Universities waste tens of thousands of dollars on students to study "modern art" or "sociology" because both the universities and the students know they don't have to pay for it.
At the same time the people who want to waste money on this shit because they feel they need to prove something complain about how most tax comes from low income earners.
I have an idea, why not ditch subsidising universities and reduce tax on the poor by the amount of money you saved?
I fail to see why people disagree with libertarianism. Because it doesn't allow them to force their beliefs on others? Because it doesn't stop people from criticising them? What? What do you think it is wrong with it exactly?
"Because it doesn't allow them to force their beliefs on others? Because it doesn't stop people from criticising them?"
This suggests you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 1:30 ID:IGfZyZ/g
>>136
Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean we don't have the right to bag the shit out of your half-baked, deadend political philosophy.
The vast majority of Libertarians are fucking annoying, stuck up little shitheads who delude themselves into thinking they're the smartest and most valuable 99.9999995% percent of the human population and that their views are not only unquestionable greater then anything else but they themselves are "TRUE AMERICANS" by an 1800's criteria while ignoring all of 200 years of progress that has happened without their influence.
Can you successfully name a modern country that has implemented pure Libertarian ideals successfully? Even Communism has had a better track record with the Soviet Union holding up for a couple of years before going to shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 10:00 ID:O7AN6Ujf
>>140
Yeah, and the soviet union defeated fucking nazi germany in warfare on top of that, any libertarians have an idea how to fight the great patriotic war? "Oh you leave the line because you only got a clip of bullets and no rifle? Well, heres your fine."
>>136
Exactly whats wrong with libertarianism? Well, it has nothing to do with reality. Is that concrete enough? Otherwise, read a couple of the "libertarians sux cox" threads, they contain every scrap of criticism and most often it stands unanswered by the scardypants libertards. But may I direct a question towards you? Some liberfailians posted earlier that libertarianism is a science and that it is simlple to implement and easy to understand, but when i begged for a definition then i got bullshit. Maybe you can enlighten me and convert me?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 11:09 ID:Jw6/624F
>>139
I emplaced a question mark apon the end of both the sentences in question to denote that they are suppositions, not statements.
>>140
Of course libertarians believe their values are unquestionable, if they didn't they wouldn't be libertarians. Libertarianism is a mostly modern concept which is merely the result of a scientific analysis of systems of government which have been succesful in the past. It can be seen that resisting tyranny and focussing the force of justice towards the preservation of liberty is primary in ending strife that is the result of criminal systems of government. The problems of today pale in comparison to the problems of the past but this doesn't mean we libertarianism is obsolete, extending this line of thought yields logical straight forward solutions that many corporations and companies adopt on a similiar scale, but which the government is unwilling to even test. Libertarians are of course strong on civil rights.
>>141
Libertarians are not extremists, the implementation of libertarian principles would be an evolutionary process. There would be strong debate on conscription, many regulations and high pay for those conscripted. Also bear in mind after 22 years of libertarianism a large proportion of Russians would have their own rifles, pistols, possibly heavy and automatic weapons all embued with the good old libertarian "LIBERTY OR DEATH" mentality. I'm not sure if conscription would be a problem or the Nazis would want to invade.
The Free Market is AWESUM! Rite? Right guys? No seriously, it's never been a problem... has it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 17:01 ID:O7AN6Ujf
>>142
Lol at defeating the nazi advance with libertarian conscripts. And high pay. And debate in a country where the knowlegde to read is scarse. And lol at thinking that just by being libertarian the country automatically fills up with guns by itself. I guess this visionary thinking is the true testament of that awesome science libertarianism!
I don't Libertarianism is very scientific. It's at best pseudoscience. It handwaves a good number of the problems with business practices in the 21st century.
It can't work in a world where we don't make our own foods. Without government "interference" I'm not sure that an average American could tell whether his Mac & Cheese had melmate in it, whether his toothpaste had gylcerine in it. We get our food from around the world, and we can't go ourselves to check out the growing conditions or manufacture conditions. Libertarianism never takes this into account. When Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, most people were famers or local craftsmen. Things were made locally and you could inspect the goods.
It does a crappy job of protecting the workers. When libertarianism met the industrial age, we saw child labor and shitty safety records. People losing limbs and ending up with nothing. Attempts at unionisation ended in gunfire.
Long story short, the economic end of Libertarianism doesn't work when you're dealing with an industrial society. It was designed for a time when you bought local or made your own. It was designed for workshops not factories. And it hasn't kept up with the times.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 21:14 ID:7/ST67mr
lol
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-28 21:23 ID:Jw6/624F
>>144
Well done for ignoring 50% of my argument. I clearly stated conscription would be allowed under much regulation and capped the moment the war was over.
>>145
By stopping government interference, libertarians did not mean stopping the enforcement of justice. Your entire argument about poisonning food is invalid. Child labor and poor safety are also criminal and would be stopped by a libertarian government in the pursuit of justice. This argument is also invalid. Forming unions would be a protected civil right under a libertarian government as is the right to bear arms.
Your arguments however are valid concerning Cuba, why you are here telling people who harbour a philosophy which holds liberty and justice above all else these things when you could be telling Fidel Castro you will have to admit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 5:05 ID:Fo44DzT5
>>147
Okay. Lol at conscription under much regulation and capped as the war was over. Your argument is still shit and there is many lols to be had imagining libertarian minutemen fighting the nazi advance. It would be like "Hans, vat waz zat noise?" "Oh, zat were ze russian conscripts, all three of zem. Nevermind them Gunther, we vill clean ze threads ven ve are in Moscow!"
Who decides what is illegal in a libertarian state? Macdonalds? I weonder if childlabor or meltmate then would be illegal. Or what, somehow libertarianism counters the immense manipulative power of large corporations by arming three year olds?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 9:53 ID:BOWpIY5G
>>148
Holy shit you know nothing about history or warfare.
"Or what, somehow libertarianism counters the immense manipulative power of large corporations by arming three year olds?"
exactly.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 10:08 ID:Fo44DzT5
>>149
Well, the russian partisans were communist (as almost all partisan s during ww2, see any pattern emerging?) and they worked behind enemy lines in enemy occupied territory. They would have never whitstood the invasion alone, and by refering to them you have proven your complete lack of understanding of reality. The famed french resistance did not liberate france now did they?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 14:51 ID:Hs/bqG0j
>>151
Are you talking to me? I never said guerilla activity alone is needed to liberate a country. You are the one who dismissed role guerilla warfare played in ww2 not me.
Also since libertarians permit anyone to possess firearms. Would a libertarian guerilla war against the nazis be more or less fierce than a communist guerilla war? Come on. Use your brain. You can do it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 18:44 ID:Fo44DzT5
>>152
No, you are not listening. What you said is that if the soviet union had been libertarian all they would have had were guerillas and that would have stopped the nazis as effectevily as the red army. And that is a fucking LOL. You said it yourslf, you would debate conscription in a country with very low education level (e.g. they were the last country in europe to give up serfdom, tzarist russia that is) etc ad nauseum.
If there are no firearms in the country and no money in the country and if the technology level of the country is far below other countries how effective do you believe this libertarian militia to be? Compared to tiger tanks or the T-34? And yes, i higly suspect libertarians to be egotistical pussies who´d never be able to fight against invaders and oppresion, at least not as fiercly as commie guerillas have done. Do you believe a libertarian guerilla in vietnam could have defeated the US?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-29 21:27 ID:/lmIlev9
>>153
"No, you are not listening. What you said is that if the soviet union had been libertarian all they would have had were guerillas and that would have stopped the nazis as effectevily as the red army."
I'm not listenning when you tell me what I said? What?
So you dismiss the fact that weapons are more widely available under libertarianism because you think we are all goateed coffee house types like marxist intellectuals? The russian guerillas weren't fighting for Stalin. Even Stalin knew this, his propoganda was almost entirely aimed at defending mother Russia not the state. Libertarianism is a philosophy that would have cut closer to home, when libertarianism is about protecting freedom and national self determination, this coupled widespread weapons would make the conscript army and the guerillas much more well equipped and determinned. Also bear in mind a libertarian governmetn would be on more friendly terms with the US.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-30 1:53 ID:JJs6j5Ed
>>154
So you just dont give a fuck about answering my criticism? About a guerilla is not a replacement for a regular army? Or that even if guns are allowed to be owned by any man their supply might still be short? Since you dont care to answer i assume you dont have an answer to give and you´re just to much of a pussy to admit defeat. And btw, during the war the soviet union was on friendy terms with the US also, look up lend lease.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-30 10:42 ID:lJXh3oCw
>>155
You're not criticising anything. I never said guerilla armies are a replacement for a regular army in the first place.
I've written less than you, so if this ia a troll you fail.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-01 19:55 ID:c7bmZTGu
>>156
What is it then you have claimed? That if the soviet union had been libertarian it would have had a guerilla force operating behind enemy lines, as it did when it was communist? If this is all you claim then libertarianism seems quite abysmal, but then again maybe it is.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 13:32 ID:1P6dhe1u
The original. Bitches.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 15:12 ID:7cWCuJ4X
Too many assumptions are being made here. Absolute Libertarianism won't work, just like absolute communism, democracy, socialism or, who cares, theocracy won't work either. You simply can not trust the mass of sheeple or corporations to do what is right all the time. You can't trust the government to do what is right ever.
However, a larger part of it is the fundamental role of government. Is it to improve the lives of the people or to secure the freedoms of the individual? Leftists espouse the former, Libertarians the latter. More importantly, Libertarians seek limited government -- not the absence of government. When government gets involved, things tend to go to crap. As Jefferson said, "if the government decided when we should sow and when we should reap, we would soon want for bread."
On the economic side, Libertarianism has its problems, but so does Communism. This nation did survive a long, long time with limited government intervention. And there is a place for government regulation and intervention, such as matters which apply to the powers vested in Congress: roads, commerce, etc. Because those things do affect the whole, some government regulation is needed. What I reject is the notion that every aspect of life must be regulated, observed, taxed and subsidized by government.
But screw that. I'm not an economist (who'd have guessed?) My adherence to Libertarian philosophy is based on the desire for personal liberty. It is not the place of the government to say I can't smoke pot in my own house. Maybe I want to cook up a batch of 180 proof shine, for my own consumption. If I sell it and it kills somebody, I am at the least guilty of manslaughter; and should be punished accordingly. In my state it is illegal to buy, sell or produce pornography which shows penetration. Who the hell is it going to hurt if I watch Back Door Jackhammer Jesus XII?
Libertarianism is at its heart the idea that "if it harm none, do as thou will." The government should only step in when someone has been harmed (or, I'll concede, there is a good chance someone will be harmed, such as drunk drivers or open threats.)
As for me, "any man who lays his hands on my to govern me is a tyrant and a usurper; I declare him my enemy." -- Pierre Proudhon.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 16:04 ID:1P6dhe1u
>>159
You are mistaking libertarianism for enforced anarcho-capitalism. You can be a capitalist, social democrat, communist, socialist or anarcho-capitalist under a libertarian system just so long as you don't force anyone else to comply. Sorry you felt compelled to type so much, though it is a good criticism of anarcho-capitalism and your opinion on personal liberty is compliant with libertarian opinion, you could be described as a "left libertarian". Also recognise that libertarians are a legitimate party amongst the others that are not either republican or democrat, they do not call for a ridiculous revolution but a methodical evolution beginning by solving obvious problems first and allowing lengthy debate, mass media and referendums before enacting controversial policies.
Law enforcement, the military and state services which the libertarian government is allowing to continue temporarily while it develops a consensus on how to privatise it are the only institutions people must pay for. Liberty is preserved through justice and the law can only be agreed apon through heterarchy (representative government) otherwise you will either have tyranny or anarchy, because libertarians are sensible and realise the world isn't perfect they accept that such tax must be paid. Many of the problems you have outlined do not have to be solved through the statist practices used by reps and dems or typical major parties from other countries.. Libertarians view social justice and regulation differently....
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 16:21 ID:6ff51gCC
In an anarcho-capitalist world I'd shoot you both.
And if some do-gooder comes to punish me then I'd shoot him, too.
After that I'd kill his family. And their friends. And THEIR families.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 16:29 ID:6ff51gCC
Nah, forget it. I would probably be busy shooting someone more important.
>>160
Thanks for the heads up on the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist bit. I tend to interchange them on occasion. But god, they are like two sides of the same coin.
>>148
That's simple. A vast majority of laws can be condensed into one single law: do not harm a person, his property, or his right to do with himself as he will. That covers murder, theft, fraud, drunk driving, arson...about the only thing it doesn't cover is campaign finance. But nearly, the vastest nearly number, all crimes are harm a person, property, or the freedom of that person. So there you go, just one law.
Talk to people who work in the lower echelons of government (technicians, computer programmers, etc.) and you don't get a rosy view of government abilities, and forget government innovation. In fact, you start to wonder what miracle worker is holding that bloated bitch together. Government is a car with three square wheels. It's engine has pistons of metric and standard diameter; there a thousand redundant spark plug wires, none of which work, all of which go to the wrong places.
Government couldn't innovate itself out of a paper sack.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 6:24 ID:Qdo5a5zw
>>164
Idiot. WHO decides whats illegal. Not HOW MANY laws. And if you really believe its that simple you are naive as fucking premier Neville Chamberlain.
Yeah, and talk to the lower echelons of Microsoft, the factory workers, the cleaners etc and you will get the view of Microsoft as being an oppresive government that does not pay enough and that has no democracy at all. Are we going to cite anectdotal evidence? Because if we just count inovations and look who has developed them then governments come far ahead of private companies. Maybe its just your government that is largely ineffectual? And no, patent-holders are not inovators by default (since patents are a commodity that is bought and sold and companies tends to outbuy them so they can strangle the competition). For a capitalist you seem to have a fairly weak grasp of how it works.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 20:23 ID:AqQGsg3D
>>165
Damn it. Ya, you're right. Who, not how many. Well...Just speaking for myself, the fundamental principle that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal. So if it hurts someone, it should be illegal. It's the principle that decides what is legal or illegal.
Anyway, here's the kicker Nancy. If someone thinks Microsoft is a dictatorship, they need to quit and find another job. Unlike Microsoft, we can't just quit the government and find another. Doesn't work that way. And should Microsoft be a democracy? You see, sweetie, in a way it is. Shareholders are the citizens.
You are the second person that seems to think the government has been an innovator. Now, I'm not quite sure if you mean innovation or invention; they are related but not necessarily the same. I'll assume you meant innovation. If, as the definition goes, innovation is the act of creating something new -- in order to solve a problem -- then we can see quite plainly that the government is as innovative as you are knowledgeable of British government. You have social security circling the drain, medicare crapping out -- oh and I hate those programs -- a discontented populace and an army that is not serving its legitimate function. To date, those problems have only increased. Why? Because government has become more and more involved.
Government is creating problems, ones it can't fix. That, my child, is not innovation. That is cluster-face-fucking anything good out of existence.
And one last thing, pretty girl. I'm not a capitalist. I can tolerate any economic form or government form so long as I have personal freedom. For me, it's all about personal freedom. Bye bye now.
umm... the shareholders of the company aren't necesserily people? maybe 3% of the shares are owned by private people, but there will almost always be some major shareholders who get the majority of the deciding power. These companies might be pension funds or something so the money still indirectly go to the general population (at least to the fund that are part of this fund).
and we acn quit the government and find another, that's what elections are for, and unlike in the companies, your deciding power isn't based on your wallet (at least not theoretically) when it comes to electing a government.
now i don't quite get what you're saying here. You're saying that the government has never created something new in order to solve a problem? afaik laws, rules, regulations, national health care, public education etc. are all examples of doing just that.
The fact that governments these days generally have problems with inefficiency and ineffectivity, and seem to lack the will or means or whatever to innovate their systems, is a problem we have in our current situation, not necessarily one coined to a government.
You should stop with the whole "pretty girl" "nancy" etc. it makes you look like an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 4:43 ID:DhAhy74d
>>166
Its nice in theory that illegal things should be those that hurt people but as we all (?) know this is impossible in most cases. Cars hurt people, flight hurts people, working hurts people etc. But nevermind that, lets oversimplify to the extreme where even libertarians understand!
The question was not if microsoft is a democracy, dictatorship or a fucking papal state. The question was that for every anecdote you can produce from a "friend who works in the government" i can produce an anecdote from a "friend who works at generic company" and if these anecdotes are indicators of the properties of said org then they seem to share the same properties, ie generic company cant inovate itself out of a paperbag. See what i did there?
The state is the greatest inovator becasue the greatest inovations are if not organized so at least funded by the state. No state, no inovation. This list of inovations include communication satelites, internet, mobile phones, the transistor etc. And as i said earlier, for every government that works poorly i can whip up a government that works fine. Case in point, Sweden.
Some governments are bad yes. Do you want a prize for that discovery?
Thats a lazy opinion if i ever saw one. So you wouldnt mind to live in nazi germany as long as you where an aryan factory owner?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 6:54 ID:5DKwTIWR
>>168
The spitfire frame and engine was developped by air racers who served to advertise for their capitalist funders. Without the spitfire Britain would have lost the battle of Britain. Germany's industrial centres could not have been bombed and they would have the clout to push to Cairo, then Moscow. The pax Germanica in Europe would be a launching platform for nazi and Klan propoganda in the US in the decades after the war quelling the possibility of a civil rights movement and usherring in extreme racism. You have capitalists to thank for your ass not starving away in a concentration camp.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 9:16 ID:DhAhy74d
>>169
No, i have the T-34 to thank for that. You loose fucker.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 14:09 ID:HYsvsK8c
you cannot have lax laws and keep a civil government.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 17:25 ID:5DKwTIWR
>>170
You have US industrial contributions to thank for the number of T34s manufactured and bombing runs on Germany to thank for the reduced number of superior Tigers. Next time you see a billboard or giant corporate logo get on your knees and thank your Allah for the existence of the free market.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 18:16 ID:ehQIjqfn
>>168
I enjoy over simplification. The thing is, I don't really feel like writing a treatise of my own views on this thread. So simplicity has to be the order of the day. Anywho, yes, it is a nice theory. Yes, cars hurt people. That's the fun in life, knowing that any of us can die by such a plethora of random objects. But the use of cars outweighs the bad side of that use, and last I checked, only a few people use them to kill people. Compare that to, say, meth. A fine drug which may cause euphoria but is a detriment to that person and the people around him or her. It has almost no positive value -- except for maintaining a clean house, perhaps.
Anecdotes are wonderful. Do we really have anything but anecdotes? We may find random studies, this, that, and the other, but a shit load of our natural perspective comes from experience, hearsay, and, yes, anecdotes. Mayhap I should cut back the usage, but if I had known I'd be called out on the floor for it, I'd probably have omitted that part. But hey, life is hearsay.
As you can list a few things you attribute to government, I can list just as many from individuals. By the way, how do you think government came up with the transistor? Because it was interested in germanium? Anyway. How about the AC motor, vacuum tubes, speakers, the lever, pulleys, vaccinations... And this is all pointless.
Efficiency or inefficiency of government is a moot point. As much as I like efficiency, in government it's not always a good thing. Case in point: Nazi Germany.
And as I said, I can live anywhere as long as the government is running roughshod over me. Aryan factory worker, Roman magistrate, janitor. Try harder.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-19 8:08 ID:tzQ+F9as
>>173
Cars hurt a lot of people through pollution and CO2 emmissions, all car owners are responsible for these casulalties, yet the cost of those lifes are not factored in the price of a car. So how do we regulate so that these casulties can be minimized? Your simple assertion that there is no need for more laws than one helps us naught here.
We have science, ie statistics and logic.
Yes, but i am not asserting that individuals cant inovate themselves out of a paperbag, your argument is irrelevant, the two are not exlusive. I assume therefore that you accept that the government actually can be an inovator.
I dont care about efficiency myself, i just combat the myth that governments MUST be inefficient and i believe that idelogies that require inefficient government (eg libertarianism) are to be suspected. Just because your government suck does not mean that it have to and that there is no point in trying to improve it. Rather, since there are examples of benevolent and efficient governments who have succeded in some of its ambitions are proof enough that it is possible. Fatalism is for losers.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-19 17:30 ID:tzQ+F9as
>>172
No, i havent. This is just something US history theachers say to gloss over the cowardice of not joining the war until pearl harbor. Its not like lend lease was an act of benevolence, nor was it so crucial that without it the war would have been lost. And how many spitfires or pilots did the US contribute during the battle of britain? Its not admireable to join the winning side in a war after it has already been decided.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-20 5:31 ID:bZ5t9w+T
>>174
Why not list something other than cars? You know, something that hasn't facilitated the entire via Americana? I don't know, alcohol? To assert that car-related casualties are the responsibility of all car-owners is rather like saying that, well, any one who owns a dog is responsible for all pit bull attacks.
Yes, we do have science and logic. They are wonderful. When I try to find stats from the Federal government, I can't find what I'm looking for. The other day I was hunting down the 1913 Federal budget. Couldn't find it. Not a damned trace of it. The data organized by the Federal government are not processed in the same way from department to department, bureau to bureau. This government has used neither logic nor science. In the absence of such, what do we have but anecdotal stories?
Now, of course government -can- be an innovator. With absolute control over the economy and intellectual property, the government is the only innovator. There is no AK-47, only the Soviet 47. Any government with absolute control can claim to be innovative. If you remove the individual, who remains to invent and create and innovate? Following your logic that if the government simply funds a thing, in part or in whole, that it then is the innovator is also flawed. Your assertion that government came up with the transistor? Crap. Telecommunication satellites? Crap. Telecommunication would not be feasible if not for General Relativity and the work of Arthur Clarke to figure geosynchronous orbit.
And so on.
Finally, I don't give a shit which benevolent governments have done what. I just don't care. Some of us still value independence more than personal wellbeing. The Swedish government may be swell, super efficient and benevolent, and it may take care of the citizens of Sweden. The nanny-state is the ultimate form of tyranny. Without any coercion or violence it prevents the people from ever speaking out and speaking up.
You accept a level of being governed. I reject it as much as I can. Let's just leave it at that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-20 5:55 ID:wRO8mYeg
Nanny states do nothing, they just mask problems instead of solve them. George Orwell's 1984 is a vision of the ultimate nanny state, it won't be long until Sweden decides to address the problem of political grievances the same way it challenges possessing alcohol.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-20 5:57 ID:RmcHpVyH
>>177
And how does it handle alcohol possesion differently from other states?
>>179
That is not a challenge on possesing alcohol but on selling it. And its democratically founded, no party in sweden, left nor right, supports a complete dismanteling of the systembolaget, since the beneficial effects compared to neighbours speak for them selves. If thats communism then traffic rules are communism.
#180, that's right, most countries already implemented many socialistic institutions. It evidently works. You wouldn't want to leave your house without knowing that the police will protect you, would you? Only the liberals are dumb enough to cry about it. They must have missed the memo that liberalism and laissez faire economics died with the age of enlightenment.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-20 10:13 ID:4QZD2iwH
>that liberalism and laissez faire economics died with the age of enlightenment.
They weren't really born, also, do you mean libertarianism?
Thel, I'm talking about the classic liberalism here and not about that twisted US definition of liberalism.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-20 10:43 ID:4QZD2iwH
#183
Oh right, I'm too used to talking to Americans on the intarbuts. I havn't even got round to reading this whole thread yet. I'm nowhere near an anarcho-capitalist, but I think it's a better option than the current ones, So I hope it's not dead.
Thel, if RedCream #183 keeps that up, I won't need to come to this 4channel anymore. He looks and sounds like me. WEIRD.
I don't exactly agree with what he says, however. Socialistic institutions (as they are largely implemented in the West) provide a social fabric or background more than they impede social activities. I would leave the house if I know the police wouldn't protect me, since as a US citizen I have the right to keep and bear arms. We're not really railroaded into supporting the more despotic institutions (neither the more despotic aspects of more benign institutions).
It's true that classic liberalism is quite a bit different than the bizarre form it has been twisted into in America. In the USA, it's all about making and keeping money, and everything is being mutated into supporting those two functions. It's disgusting and it must stop.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-20 11:00 ID:4QZD2iwH
Haha, you have an admirer.
But wait...how do I know YOU'RE the TRUE Creamy?
(just messing with ya).
Well, In England we're in a Police State, cameras everywhere. However, they are grossly inneficcient so it's like having no police, just a bunch of guys that will put you in a room if they think you comitted a crime and some community support officers that say hello, ride in thier bikes and suspect you of having weed....
I think that Companies fuck as up just like the government does but I'm a believer in social institutions and smaller communities as the way forth.
Well, Thel, just start blotting the cameras. A good paintball gun is readily concealable and can be used quickly to blot the lens. What makes a surveillance state work so well is that people don't fight it when such a fight is so effective. Do you think your watchers have the wherewithal to actually go out and clean camera lenses often? No. With enough people blotting lenses as a matter of course, the cameras will start to become useless.
I always suspected that the more cameras are used, the lazier the police become.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-20 11:13 ID:4QZD2iwH
As a child I did things like that, I also used to swing round rocks on the end of strings infront of speedcameras so they kept flashing because of the speed, making them useless. That and petty vandalism. I think it's good advise anyway, reminds of the midget in the Illuminatus Trilogy.
What, you mean the midget that went around changing signs to subtly make people more and pissed off at authority? Yeh, that was a great character. Structured vandalism. In one of Bruce Sterling's novels ("Heavy Weather"), he called it "structure hitting", which essentially brought down WesternCiv and replaced it with ana-cap.
I'd like to organise such things on mass scale
like using flash mobs, rallies, street orgies etc etc
Also, the more I hear of you, the more educated you seem.
Why, thank you oh so much, Thelema Designate #190/4QZD2iwH! I'll send one of my own clones to meet you. {guffaw}
I love admirers. Please, admirers, I've left a body of literature scattered all over the Intarbutt. Please inspect every nook and cranny of the smelly thing and ferret out my statements. Weave them into their fabric of inherent logic and education. Wave the flag therefrom formed, and rally the citizens to the cause of LIBERTY.
I'd say at this point to "give me liberty or give me death", but not only is that passe, but largely the issue is that I will TAKE LIBERTY for myself, and those who try to stop me will largely meet with a few, select rifle shots that will end their participation in metabolism.
(I'm sure it's not shocking for Thel to realize an American is well armed.)
Name:
Thelema2007-07-20 11:32 ID:4QZD2iwH
Sometimes I think you have delusions of granduer :P
Creamy, Killing people who oppose Liberty since '96
>>185
If you feel safe because you own arms and not because you have a police force then you are forced to buy arms. I dont believe its cheaper (economy of scale and all that), and its sure as hell is not as efficient as a working police force. Yet idiots like to pay for lower quality products as long as they pay for it themselves and not through taxes. Its like the oldest con in the fuckin book. Enjoy your vaporous freedom. And seace the namefaggotry already.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-20 19:45 ID:BjauzuMM
You know, I used not to understand Libertarians. They appear to be raving loonies.
Then I sat down with a former US citizen and had a little chat why he left. I realized that the US government is even more utterly fucked up and completely insane than it appears on TV.
Seriously, the US government hates its citizens.
So, if someone has lived their entire life in the US, is it any wonder they're libertarian?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-20 20:46 ID:8A21L8mC
>>197
"Seriously, the US government hates its citizens."
Granted, yet libertarianisms solution is throwing out the babe with the bathwater. There are a lot of other states where government actually works and where taxes actually are used for good. There are no states where libertarianism works, and there has never been.
I've got some sad, terrible news for ya, #196. The police actually can't stop crime. When crime really gets a head of steam goin', the police only nip away at it. The real crimefighting happens with the citizenry. Once they stop tolerating crime in their midst, it largely stops.
Hence, feeling or not, the responsibility falls to you and I. This has nothing to do with expense (as if a $200 gun is in any way an onerous expense for self defense, but I digress).
Sure, my freedom is vaporous. The vaporific nature of it is largely due to the complacency of fagcits like yourself who can't bring yourself to see that the citizens are the true barrier to crime. You accept being effectively ruled by paramilitary forces (i.e. police). Talk about the fleeting wisps of freedom!
P.S. "Cease" anonyfagging, yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 1:39 ID:Jog0TeEs
Just an aside: vigilante justice is mixed news.
You're obviously not just advocating self-defence, because you would go and help a Kitty Genovese, right? Right?
Now multiply that by another dozen people with good intentions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 1:43 ID:Jog0TeEs
PS. for those who don't get it: you hear a scream, you rush out with your gun. You see another person with a gun. Whadda ya do?
Now ask yourself if everyone will behave responsibly in the heat of the situation.
It's amazing how many Americans think that it's illegal to stop somebody who is committing a felony. In fact, citizens are legally affirmed to have arrest powers when a felony is occurring. Of course, you should be sure about what's going on, in case you're quite mistaken about who did what and how.
>>203
Doesn't understand that justice is fucked up.
Police protecting you? unlikely that one will be ready.
Police just catch people that have already commited a crime and stop them from doing it for 'a bit'. It doesn't seem like a decent solution to me. Also, police will never stop murders or any such crimes.
Oh, so I don't sound like 'to much' of a retard, I don't think we should fuck the police, because I HAVE seen police doing good on the streets (well, i've seen them stop a couple of drunken fights while on patrol).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 8:17 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>199
So then countries with low crime rates must have high levels of gun ownerships and urban militias? Like Sweden, Japan and the UK?
Nice hypothesis, but it seems it exploded when it came into contact with reality. Now you can either take this to heart and change your pubescent libertarian ways now before your idiocy hampers your chances of procreation even further or you could ignore reality and continue living in middle earth with the rest of the blindfolded retards. Enjoy your celibacy. And i see im up against a spelling master here.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 9:09 ID:cBPQLjgL
>>206
I agree with the fact that gun ownership doesn't help stopping crimje at all, and that's a myth. however, we should have the right to protect the individual not just the state. Also, there's already so many guns in America that illegalising them will not stop the criminals, just citizens that want guns for legitimate purposes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 9:58 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>207
A comparison. In svalbard one is forced by law to own a rifle so if one is attacked by a polar bear one can defend oneself (a real danger in svalbard as the polar bear is an oppurtunistic predator who has no fear of humans). Your argument sais that there is no longer any choice for americans about gunownership, they are forced to bear arms since guns are now so prevalent that every criminal will wield one, ie there´s no longer a right to bear arms, there is a command to bear arms or else its ones own funeral. Nice freedom of choice, i guess the gun companies feel really bad about this development.
there is no command to bear arms, it's just a logical procedure, think there is some level of freedom of choice but not at all on illegalizing it. However saying that we must NOT own arms allows absolutly no freedom of choice.
We should be allowed to bear arms but not for the reasons the state tells us too.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 11:33 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>209
But by allowing it we are arming the criminals the arms are about to save us from, cant you see the idiocy here? Why is there an intrinsic value of owning arms, completly apart from their functionality? Should everyone be allowed to own ICBMs too? And is this intrinsic value worth more than having unarmed criminals? You are prepared to pay with other peoples lives for your right to wear a gun as a fashion statement?
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 11:45 ID:cBPQLjgL
I agree with the fact that bringing arms to citizens is not a good thing to do LOGICALLY. However is it not the same with countries? If countries may protect themselves (dangerously) then I may protect myself. If you want to strip my of my arms, strip yourself of your arms and strip the state of it's arms. Yes that would be great if we were all to do so, but we don't live in paradise.
Also, I don't give two shits about the fashion part of weapons, I want to own one because I do not trust my government (English).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 11:57 ID:o9fPL6r2
>>211
Well, since by living and voting in a country you implicitly agree to the monopoly of violence that the state wields. If you dont like move to a place where the state does not have this monopoly, like Rwanda or Afghanistan. And no, countries are not comparable to individuals in an ethical sense, since countries are not individuals but collectives, like corporations. There are no capital punishment on corporations who commit murder yet AFAIK. And if you demand the one you should be okay with the other, no?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 12:31 ID:tdz296rT
>>205
The threat of punishment is there to deter crimes from happening, not to exact revenge for past crimes.
I have a serious question this time: "When are you anti-gun queers going to get at least 38 state legislatures in the US to agree to remove the Second Amendment from the US Constitution, as well as the mimicked versions in their own state constitutions?" Take your time answering; no anti-gun fag has EVER answered it, so it must be a GREAT answer ... an EPIC answer ... an answer as filled with WIN as much as PoshCunt is filled with BeckamSeed.
Name:
Thelema2007-07-21 12:54 ID:cBPQLjgL
>>213
I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way.
Fucking Seriously >>212
I don't vote and I don't accept it as thier land, I built this house on unused land, so that arguement does not work. And fuck of with me agreeing to that, I was born in this country I never signed anything that said I agreed to this shit, that mentality is dispicable.
Nations are defined by borders, everything within those borders is part of the nation. So unless you find a piece of land that is not within any borders, the land may be unused but it's not yours to take.
There are three purposes with punishing people for doing crimes. Deterring them from comitting crimes, rehabilitating them, and to provide vengeance to the people the crime was comitted against. Which parts there should be focused more or less on is up to the judicial system and the politicians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 14:16 ID:yYI73f+2
Um, it <b>is</b> actually!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-21 14:32 ID:Jog0TeEs
>>202
If you're referring to >>200,201, you missed the gist of what I was trying to say.
To wit: either people with guns won't do anything (they're chickenshit, not my problem, by-stander effect, etc), in which case you need the police, or you'll have a group of trigger-happy do-gooders wandering around, in which case accidents will happen often.
I work in software development. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that most people are unreasonable, and the impossible happens all the time. If you think people won't be shooting the wrong people by mistake with regularity, even with training, you're hopelessly naive. :(
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:40 ID:eIwog0ks
Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of everything run by the government, it is about getting rid of everything that the government doesn't need to run.
The government should run law enforcement and the military, it should not run how I buy and sell alcohol except where law enforcement is concerned. Why should I go to jail for mixing some plants and fungi in a barrel, waiting 6 months, permitting the police to test a sample to ensure it is not poison and exchanging the liquid for cash?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 6:43 ID:eIwog0ks
Seriously. If I pay the police to test the sample and that's all, then I make a lot more money and poor people get cheaper beer.
Tyranny eliminates economic and political freedom. Goods are expensive, wages are low.
Socialism eliminates economic freedom and permits political freedom. Goods are expensive, wages are high.
Capitalism permits economic freedom and eliminates political freedom. Goods are inexpensive, wages are low.
Libertarianism permits economic freedom and political freedom. Goods are inexpensive, wages are high.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 9:38 ID:uvcB50d/
>>229
Nice proof. So wages are determined by political freedom and prices by economic freedom? Competition does not exist, nor production costs? gb2 school plox
>>233
I never said my proof was the only factor at play. The fact that there are many factors in empirical situations is something you assume when you come into a conversation like the "+" symbol means plus.
libertarian: 2+2=4
retard: WHAT DO YOU MEAN TWO DIVIDED BY TWO EQUALS FOUR AHAAAAAHHAA YOU FUCKING RETARD
>>234
You.are.a.fucking.retard. Please explain how wages can be high while prices are low. And how libertarianism plans to combat deflation without limiting economic freedom (the last part is biting the bait i know but i cant help myself, sorry!).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 14:37 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>235
economic freedom increases efficiency
political freedom allows workers to form unions
Libertarians would privatise currency.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 15:20 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>236
... unions try to press up the wages as much as possible, leading to a decease in amount of people companies can afford to hire, leading to less output etc. ?
"economic freedom increases efficiency" that's a pretty big statement to pull out of the hat. How much economic freedom? complete economic freedom? and what exactly do you mean with economic freedom, just "no taxes" ?
>>238
yes, i'm sorry, but i assumed that since we're being all libertarian here, the unions would be profit maximizing for their members? Getting the members the best wages, the best insurance, etc. They do of course need to get this to as many people as possible, so they need to be carefull not to fuck up the economy, since all their members would be out of work and the union would have to pay them unemployment fees which would eventually ruin the union if there were too many unemployed. But in general the unins will try to push up the wages for the workers, leading to a lower output.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 16:44 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>237
Why don't you just use logic instead of barraging me with easy questions?
If the union's minimum wage is too high businesses make redundancies, unemployment rises and members leave the union to work for less than the minimum wage. Unions which negotiate realistically keep their members.
There are limits to economic freedom, tax ought to be paid to support law enforcement and the military. What we should not do is pay tax to support institutionalised loopholes like the federal reserve so that "socialists" like George Soros can hatch schemes and take billions more.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 16:46 ID:yMT7gVJ8
Unions could be like businesses that buy and sell jobs.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 17:34 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>241
those aren't unions, those are job agencies. unions could have job agencies as a part of their service offered to the workers, but job procurement isn't what unions are essentially for.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 17:38 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>241
oh wait a minute, i must've misunderstood what you said because it was so retarded.
I assume you mean tht a unions should trade available jobs between eachother? and that if a company needed, say, 10 new engineers, they'd sell the job offers to a union?
That seems quite supply-side minded of you? i don't know, it just doesn't really make any sense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 18:45 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>243
Not the same as buying and selling employees. Businesses are more skilled at deciding what they want rather than which specific individual out of millions they want, so they would buy a "job". Unions are the ones providing a service and of course they want as many members as possible to increase their clout and profts. It just makes sense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 18:51 ID:yMT7gVJ8
>>243
Also, going back to grass roots, the unions will want their employees to be paid more so they would use that clout to increase wagea with the added bonus of the unions calculating the best course of action instead of the brute paranoia of their marxist counterparts. So we've figured out a way to privatise communism, what next?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 19:24 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>244
not really. Most businesses want a specific worker, especially smaller growth-orientated businesses want specific workers that go well with the company mentality and who will work well with whatver management system is being used in the company. They don't just want whatever the union sees fitting for the job description. (just hiring people on the paper is never as good as interviews etc.)
"[He] exposes, in true and lively colors, the vices of a declining empire, of which he has so long been the victim; the cruel absurdity of [politicians], unable to protect their subjects from the public enemy, unwilling to trust them with the arms for their defense; the intolerable weight of taxes, rendered still more oppressive by the intricate or arbitrary modes of collection; the obscurity of numerous and contradictory laws; the tedious and expensive forms of judicial proceedings; the partial administration of justice; and the universal corruption which increased the influence of the rich and aggravated the misfortunes of the poor. A sentiment of patriotic sympathy was at length revived in [his heart]...and he lamented, with a flood of tears, the guilt or weakness of those politicians who had perverted the wisest and most salutary institutions."
All I had to do was change a handful of words and you'd swear that paragraph was about America. I'm sure we all agree that those conditions are intolerable. So let's play a game. Let's play Find out who He is, and What nation is being spoken of! We're headed down the same gutter but so many people think that if we only had a government bigger (read worse) and better (read more inept) that life would be peachy. Makes me want to kill myself.
So go! Figure out which nation is spoken of.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-24 3:42 ID:OlZH4sRt
>>246
You don't understand. Either every business has a database with millions of employees that it keeps updated and analyses continuously or you have 1 sector of the economy that deals with that and businesses pay for the service.
>>249
"...a flood of tears"? Doubtful. Hitler did not cry. Even when his dad got cancer. And then his mother. And then his country lost the first world war. He definitely did not cry.
*cough* idealougs *cough* you guys really need to learn how and why the goverment works before jumping to conclusions, and you also need to know that the federal bank exists for a reason, along
with regulations. here is somthing nice from before regulations on free market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 0:41 ID:4rgCpx25
anyone who claims their ideology infallable is often delusional. and more often likely to turn authoritarian.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 2:43 ID:7SdgMSYc
>>252
Oh god. The Federal Reserve exists to give more dollar bills to the government. The Fed creates inflation -- inflation which helped to create the 1929 crash. The Fed fucks up the economy. Read Friedman. Fuck, read Bernanke. As he said, "I would like to say to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz: regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Oh, they will. Worse than the last time. So just remember guy, the worst economic disaster happened on the Fed's watch and rational economists agree that the Fed was at fault. Good fucking job, government.
And regulations. I'm okay with a minimalist approach to regulation. By minimalist, I mean levels circa 1789. The US government can't do a good thing of its own volition, and it sure as hell acts like it is trying to do the wrong thing every time it gets involved. Take Ma Bell. They had a monopoly, and the Feds were going to break it up. The influx of competition would reduce costs, you know. They broke up Bell into the Baby Bells and guess what? Cost went up and in many areas it was a long time before competition showed up. And Bell (or ATT, if you want,) still remains dominant. Good fucking job, government. They fucked up in a major way with Ma Bell and the only ones to benefit were shareholders. Government couldn't regulate its ass out of a paper sack.
I wonder if some people honestly think that if government was somehow reduced all of a sudden that their lives would be thrust into chaos, that they'd fall victim to all sorts or predation. And it seems they think that once a power is given to government that it shouldn't -- or worse, can't -- be taken away. Pity.
If I had child and it was government, I'd kill it with a hammer and toss its body in the Muddy Boggy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 5:05 ID:Vmb6L+LP
>>252
They had fluctuations in the market of similiar magnitude under Coolidge, because the government did not interfere there was no panic and the market corrected itself. Look at any decade long graph of any company's share value and you see that although shares occasionally plummet they jump back up when people realise the true value of the company is now higher than the share value.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 6:56 ID:sF5ej0vW
>>254
So why has europe and china an economy at all? Seems mr Friedman should stop cocksmoking Augosto and do some more research.
>>256
Is that in reference to central banking or government regulation? If it's about central banking, you should bear in mind that European nations also suffered economic collapse in the 20s and 30s, so, again, central banking can't prevent such devastating collapses. If anything they cause it by artificially manipulating the market. When the Fed increases the money supply, your value is worth less than it was before. Todays dollar is worth 6 or 7 cents compared to the 1913 dollar -- the year the Fed came into being. Todays dollar is worth less than it was in the Great Depression.
And I'll just be blunt about this: the Fed is going to cause the most disastrous economic collapse we've seen. When creditors lose faith in the dollar and the influx of foreign investment dries up, we're fucked royally.
As for regulation, there are some interesting things about that. A small amount of regulation is acceptable: namely when laissez-fare turns becomes fascism. But short of that I draw the line. Europe and China both have more regulation than we do. And they face some particular problems. Europe has a higher unemployment rate than we do, and, consequently or not, lower productivity. Until recently, China had pegged the yuan to a fixed amount against the dollar. This gave China an advantage in trade, but by artificially manipulating their currency caused economic woes for the people. The more regulation you face, the worse things get until, at the end of the spectrum, you face a 1980s-91 Soviet economy that is based more on wishful thinking and government control than real world conditions. The Soviets were assigning values and setting levels of supply that just weren't cogent with reality. Nazi Germany regulated the economy in such a way that unemployment was brought down but wages fell just as dramatically.
A market can exist without government, with its own little rules and currency and economic factors, and it can survive without government involvement. Bartering. Prisons have their own economic systems, ones not based directly on the dollar yet functioning without government regulation.
Have you ever considered the fact that drug dealers seem to have a better, more realistic grasp of economics than the government? They at least are fiscally responsible -- maybe because if they run up too much debt they'll get shot. In any case, they can still produce a more balanced budget for themselves than the government could ever hope to achieve.
No matter. Regulation amounts to the government wanting the economy to be at such and such a level when the market might not be able to meet such a lofty goal.
Have a good'n.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 15:35 ID:sF5ej0vW
>>258
So inflation only happens because of central banking? I thought the inflation rate in europe at least have been record low the last two decades yet theres still central banking... Oh woe!
China has more regulation than India, yet China is expanding faster, produces more engineers, produces more food, more power, exorts more products etc ad nauseum. I understand though, i also wish macro economics were so simple that only two or three things described the lot so it could be understandable by you, but alas, reality has a tendency towards the complex.
And the black market is more or less regulated by crimelords. Ever seen what happens to a soldier who doesnt give the old guys a taste of his action? Taste is italian for tax.
I really like though that you describe libertarian utopia like a prison or a drug dealers fantasy. Seems apropiate i guess...
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 16:06 ID:7SdgMSYc
>>259
While I'm not concerned with Europe, per se, I'll be glad to respond. Inflation is caused by other things, true. A diminishing supply of, say, flax will cause the price of flax-based products to increase. Which falls under that natural trend for the price of goods to increase. As far as Europe goes, if they can make central banking work, somehow, then good for them. The US Fed is not working. All it has done, as I can see, is set optimistic goals and devalue the dollar.
China does have more regulation than India, it is true. But you omit the fact that China has been benefiting from decades of foreign investment, especially in industry, whereas India has only lately (let's say the past decade) started to receive that same influx of money and industry. Also, to a small extent, China does have a higher population and that does result in a generally higher industrial output. And while I take no offense at the condescending banter, I kind of chuckled about the "...so simple that two or three things..." bit. What other reason would China have to out-pace India? Perhaps it is the notion that the Chinese do what is best for China and always have; that the Chinese, or east-Asians in general, have a damned fine work ethic and that does result in increased performance across the board. I attribute the fact that Japan went from a poorly industrialized nation circa 1900 to the second most powerful economy as of today to that hell-bent work ethic and national determination. India doesn't seem to have that as much. Should I go into other facets?
Crime-lords are like emperors: far removed and out of touch with the foot soldiers. While they may have a good deal of control along part of the transition line, at the end they have a lot less control. It's up to the governors, if you will. And that entire idea ignores what I call free-lance drug dealers, like meth cooks and people growing their own pot. There are no meth crime lords and yet that market mostly governs itself.
Libertarian utopia? Hmmm. Of course, I was trying to point out that things can run themselves without government -- being an American it's hard to find a single thing that is free of government involvement, excepting drugs or crime. But if you can think of something legal and devoid of government regulation, please let me know.
So let me ask. Why do you take issue with the libertarian philosophy? It's just a matter of curiosity, so I can know where you are coming from. Do you consider it infeasible? Idealistic? Demagoguery?
#260, I've gotta pipe up here. The presence of government intervention markedly affects "unregulated" things like drugs and crime. You sound so cogent otherwise in your postings that that seems to be a blind spot for you.
Drugs are expensive all around, legal or illegal. The legal ones are expensive from a one-two punch of government interference ... first, they make creation and testing of drugs very expensive to pursue, and after that the government's pro-corporation and anti-individual legislation keeps prices high despite economic pressures to lower them.
The illegal drugs are made expensive (or low quality, which is just a hidden cost) from the anticipation or opportunity costs of law enforcement. It's expensive to try to avoid the law, to handle prosecution events, and to suffer lost opportunities from your imprisonment and your ensuing felon record.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-25 16:59 ID:sF5ej0vW
>>260
I accept that, the US Fed sucks. This does not mean central banking sucks though, and that is my point.
Two words, economy of scale. The chinese through their massive central government can focus more people and resource than any other country in the fucking world. If theres a million people living where there will be water when the three gorges damm is finished, fuck'em! Just send them somewhere else with little or no compensation since the government owns everything anyway! This is of course impossible in both India and Japan. There are currently being built three gigantic export product centres, areas large as fucking central europe each dedicated to one branch of products coupled with huge R&D facilities. Economy of fucking scale, theres your your explaination more than anything else. Okay, thats simple too, but at least it incorporates contemporary economic theory generally accepted by academia.
Whatever about the crime thingy, i dont now how regulated that sector is, yet i dont think freelancers are allowed as long as they dont cut in to the earnings of the big players, if they do they eitehr pay tribute or sleep with the fishes. And thats regulated enough for me.
The reasons why i hate libertarianism and libertarians are many fold. The people i hate because of their arrogance and retarded way of debating, like reinventing definitions so shit gets confused fast (eg capitalism and socialism). And their assertion that libertarianism is a science, yet never can answer why its a science, and how it fucking works (read this thread from the beginning and youl find multiple examples of this)! They also assume that the US failures must mean a global failure, they never assume that other countries can actually succeed where their own government has failed. They love huge strawmen. The ideology i dont know that much about, yet how great can it be if its followers are so retarded that they cant even answer the most basic of questions? But illuminate me please, why is libertarianism infallible?
>>262
Then we can find ourselves in agreement on some points. Yes, the Fed sucks. And no, not all central banking sucks -- I'm sure Bank of Japan is ideally suited for Japan. I just don't see a Fed-type system working in America.
As for the crime thing, that was anecdotal. I've already been admonished about that once...
Until this thread I had never heard Libertarianism called a science. It might be based on historical examples, but so are my theories about imperial retreat and the termination point of federalism. Doesn't mean either are scientific. The philosophy itself is much like Communism before the Russian Revolution: there are ideas on paper, but those ideas have not been tested; and no one knows exactly how they will be put into action or how they might fail. In a few more years it won't be possible because by then all Americans will have been raised, to whatever extent, by the government; and won't be able to meet the level of independence required by Libertarianism.
As for the followers, we do have an arrogant strain. It seems to be a common factor. But every other faction, party or religion in America suffers the same problem: a host of followers who know nothing of the ideology or theology, and thus most can't answer basic questions. It is unfortunate. But revolutions are led by the intelligent and pushed forward by the momentum of the sheep.
Libertarianism is not infallible. Those who say such raise it up to the level of deity. The only idea formed by man that can't be questioned, as far as I know, is Will Roger's quip that the only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
Veni, Vidi, Dormivi
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-26 4:51 ID:6ce1goD8
>>264
They have been tested. Libertarianism like all science is the logical analysis of as many facts and phenomena, except with the intent of calculating the best utilitarian course of action. Communism is a theory developped from fallacious science that continually ignores the most obvious criticisms.
Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, in doing so millions of communists believed they were incapable of being as ignorant as the religious and went about their brutal insane activities as gleefully as the next religious fanatic. Libertarians place free speech on the highest pedestal, criticism of your own leader is considerred more patriotic than criticism of your mutual enemies.
I think the whole "Libertarianism like all science is the logical analysis of as many facts and phenomena" was torn to shit pretty thoroughly last time. Go back to your bong, art fag.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-27 12:28 ID:f2S91PTY
Don't talk about libertarianism, you're a schmuck. I'm a libertarian, and I refuse to associate myself with you. You're spending more time being intellectual than you are being intelligent, and you fail horribly at even that.
Libertarianism is infallible because it accepts all of its flaws. Libertarians are aware that no system is perfect, but that government sure as hell never solved any of those problems. It also bases itself in principle rather than power. It is based in the only correct principles as it is the only political ideology that does not call to tell other people how they have to live their lives, it is based entirely on every individual's liberties and desire.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-27 15:37 ID:DLzJ6dpX
>>270
"i think the world is flat, the fact that the world is flat is infallible"
"dude, the world is wrong"
"no, i say the world is flat, but i know it's round, thus the fact that the world is flat is infallible"
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-27 16:08 ID:78uWNza8
>>269
That never happenned. Libertarians have answerred all questions logically, maturely and concisely leaving little room for trolling and no room for succesful criticism. Further criticism is invited, just don't take it personally when you are proven wrong.
Libertarianism takes into account the fact that humans are flawed. What little altruism we have must all be directed towards the enforcement of justice.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 7:26 ID:JJs6j5Ed
>>278
No it does not. Since if it did it wouldnt want privatized police forces, courts, fire depts, roads etc. Libertarians miss the simple lesson of prevention, that if we never allow the environment were injustice grow expand then injustice will never be a problem. If we instead let the injustice occur and then hope that market forces will selfcorrect then we actually let the injustice to occur and put our blind hope to something other than us. Its mysticism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 11:39 ID:8gEPObW4
We've already seen how well private police forces and fire departments work...
Now if we could only put the brakes on the entitlement culture in our publicized police and fire forces, we'd really get somewhere, #280. Knowledge of the depth of their entitlements is a great way to convert a person over to advocating market solutions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 13:33 ID:oZNAFloh
>>279
Libertarianism wouldn't privatise the police or the courts. Fire department would be contracted by insurance companies to patrol an area so they never have to pay out. Privatised road companies would construct roads and motorways based on supply and demand rather than populism and politics and pay people who own property they need instead of bullying them out of the way.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 13:41 ID:JJs6j5Ed
>>282
And areas populated by poor people just get worse or no roads since demand in this case means realized demand? And this is not an injustice?
>>282
You seriously expect insurance companies to pay for things? You're a fucking retard.
Private companies would build roads wherever, and then charge tolls for them. Goodbye city planning, hello complete traffic mess!
Courts would be contracted out to private companies, as would the police. We would have mercenaries walking the streets, aka police for hire. Of course, corporations would be able to pay them more, so they wouldn't bother protecting poor people.
LIBERTARIANISM: I'M RICH I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I WANT, INCLUDING HIRE MERCENARIES TO KILL MY ENEMIES.
I must have fallen asleep there during your explanation, #282. How is a fire department not privatized if it is paid for by an insurance company? The insurance company is private, right?
Also, from your model, privatized road companies would build roads around cities and nowhere else. In order to deliver the mail, how would the mail company get out to the boonies? Or, do you imagine Americans cramming themselves into cities, thus leaving most of the land in the hands of what are effectively landed nobility?
Don't get me wrong. Market solutions should always be considered, as long as they save money and serve functions. But privatizing everything (or important things) like that just leaves us all at the (usually lacking) mercy of the Hypercapitalists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 15:30 ID:lJXh3oCw
>>284
If their roads are a total traffic mess, then people won't use them, thus they'll use something other than tolls to make a profit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 16:22 ID:bZ9gbLgS
thus they'll use something other than tolls to make a profit
Until there's a monopoly lollerskates.
I'm sure they will make it up somehow, #286. Sadly, it's likely they'll petition the local, state and federal governments for "relief" and then as the first cent of public funds crosses into their sweaty palms -- BANG! We're back to public funding ... except worse, since the profit motive will create endless demands for funds to increase without bound.
Look at the current model of transferring turnpikes over to private companies. You just know the publics going to make those fuckers "whole" in case anything bad happens, like the CEOs take more Barbados trips, or the public uses the pikes less.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 22:29 ID:NLuVQcOe
I like how libertarians view the world as this magically self-correcting system. The environment is the most obvious example: if a company pollutes too much, people will boycott their product, or their factories will close because the environment's too hostile! Back in the real world, there are no mass boycotts, and all the people dying of cancer downstream doesn't really affect the operation of the factory.
The real reason libertarianism is infallible, though, is that its definition can be changed as soon as someone challenges it. Let's face it, though, libertarians all want a few of the same things: no more EPA, no more FDA, no more Social Security (which wouldn't really matter since nobody would live over 65 in such a place anyways), across-the-board deregulation (so you can buy a car at a 70% interest rate to drive on a toll road) and regressive taxation. There's nowhere to hide, libertarians. Your philosophy is shit and we all know it.
That was a good outline of what's wrong with strict Libertarianism today, #289. At least in today's model, the people dying downstream have a recourse to the law, although such recourses don't seem to change much these days.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 7:28 ID:WC/kPLal
>>289
Libertarianism has a national police, courts and military so your argument is strawman.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 7:42 ID:JBWLXdI6
>>292
National means publicly funded through taxes yes?
And what about the injustice of poor people not having roads since their demand is not enough to warrant building nor fixing roads for them? National roads too? If so, then i think i spotted a trend in libertarian thought.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 11:03 ID:XNRUdfxm
>>293
People would be charged for their role in congestion and road damage, most of this comes from haulage and heavy vehicles. People who don't drive 45 ton articulated lorries near continuously on major roads would be charged less for road usage and would be able to afford it.
Justice that's efficient just isn't justice, #295. To use the extreme to show what I mean most effectively: The most efficient justice is to execute people on the spot when they are caught in a felonious crime.
The system of justice should be excruciating since the standard of proof is so high. We've already seen Libertarianized justice systems in action, in Texas, Illinois and other states. The jails there are filled with poor people who were unable to mount an adequate defense from the "efficiency" of the justice system that essentially attacked them.
All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at wasteful practices in the justice system. Libertarian thought is instructive and can be used to bring us back from the brink of too much Socialism in whatever cultural function we examine. But outrightly privatizing the police and courts? No, that's just another extreme, and the poor -- and petty criminals -- will be routinely denied their Constitutional rights.
Name:
Food!CIf5RA2NbM2007-07-31 14:37 ID:3cVCBUme
>>The most efficient justice is to execute people on the spot when they are caught in a felonious crime.
If that's what the majority of people wanted, and were willing to pay for, that's what they'd get.
>> We've already seen Libertarianized justice systems in action, in Texas, Illinois and other states. The jails there are filled with poor people who were unable to mount an adequate defense from the "efficiency" of the justice system that essentially attacked them.
This is down to elected prosecutors herding people into jail like some kind of production line. They do this to make it look like they're doing their jobs properly. Under a market system, everyone has a strong incentive to maximise profits by reducing crime, rather than just throwing poor people in jail.
>> But outrightly privatizing the police and courts? No, that's just another extreme, and the poor -- and petty criminals -- will be routinely denied their Constitutional rights.
As you rightly pointed out, the poor already are denied their constitutional rights. It would seem that the fastest way to reform the courts would be to force them into competition on an open market.
#297, there's a difference between "routinely" and "routinely always". However, your last point is the best; maybe if courts and cops had to compete, they'd clean up the more appalling of their circus acts.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 15:39 ID:XNRUdfxm
Libertarianism isn't about privatising the law system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 19:13 ID:KDAWj3br
>>299
Then what is it about? If you privatize and deregulate roads and mail, people in rural areas won't have any service because it will NEVER be profitable. Do you want to get rid of environmental, health, and workplace regulations, with the absurd idea that somehow it will all work out well for the individual? Do you want to get rid of the minimum wage so that businesses can pay people $2 an hour, thus creating an underclass that adds nothing to the economy and is basically forced into a life of crime?
Really, name one attribute of libertarianism that you can't just back out of later on, and that would somehow benefit society as a whole without relying on magical thinking or an absurd interpretation of economics.
Libertarianism has one large flaw: Its naive faith in economic incentives and cold matemathical reason being the only driving forces of mankind. This is, in my humble opinion, a very superficial analysis of the human being.
In addition, I think that politics should not be only about human beings and human society, but about how we interact with (and essentialy, how we are just a small part of) nature, with the power to destroy it completely.
But hell, who am I? Just another ecologist moron...
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 20:49 ID:W4DvlGts
>>297 >>300
You people are under the wrong impression that Libertarianism amounts to an abrogation of the Constitution, which isn't the case. If anything, it's an affirmation of it. Libertarianism isn't entirely about getting rid of all government involvement in our lives, but instead it focuses on intrusive (largely) Federal meddling.
1. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power (read: duty) to regulate interstate commerce and that includes building and maintaining infrastructure, such as railroads and highways. Congress can't just shrug off one of its powers. We Libertarians have an issue with the Federal abuse of the Commerce Clause which modern legal scholars have interpreted to allow the Federal government a huge range of abusive powers -- such as criminalizing marijuana. In any case, though, Libertarianism can't legally take away Congressional power to build highways.
2. The on-the-spot execution of criminals is an unconstitutional act. Only government can deprive us of life and liberty, and the sole purpose of our government is to protect our liberties. What you are thinking of is the stench-ridden idea of democracy.
3. For me, there is no such ability to privatize things like the police and fire departments.
As far as the EPA goes, I don't count on the market to self-regulate itself entirely, nor I have loads of faith in exploitative corporations. But what it comes down to, for me, is that if a factory up river is sending waste my way and it damages myself or my property then I have been injured and I thus seek a just recourse. I follow a similar notion with the FDA. If you've noticed, many cases of recent food-recalls have been issued by the manufacturer. If they know negligent business practices will result in hefty, injurious punishments then they won't be as negligent (notice: I didn't say they'd be perfect, just less imperfect.)
Why not get rid of Social Security? It's going bankrupt. So is Medicare. By the time I'd be old enough to benefit from either, they won't exist. Why then should I be asked to pay into a program that will never benefit me? Because it benefits the collective good? Nope, don't think so. But what really boggles me is that people can look at Katrina+FEMA and the Bridge to Nowhere and still insist on a bloated, abusive and intolerably wasteful federal government.
Have a good'n.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 23:46 ID:ED1xHJ2C
>>302
See, this is what I love about libertarianism. If someone can show that it's shit, it can just be changed at whim to suit whatever position you want to take. Now, you've gone and confused anti-federalism with libertarianism. Good job. Let's sum up what we have for your libertarian utopia so far:
1. Power goes to the states, which means that in Florida an abortion doctor will go to jail for ten years, while in California tax dollars are used to give free abortions to illegal immigrants. Marijuana possession earns you a death penalty in Kentucky, while in Washington you can get it for free (that is, paid for by taxpayers) if you get a doctor's note.
2. The federal government still has most of it's regulatory bodies, such as the EPA and FDA. Roads are still maintained, by and large, by the government. Military and legal systems are unchanged. Basically the only significant reduction in government spending is on Social Security and other public-welfare programs. That means old people will be left to die of starvation if they don't have family or friends to take care of them, but since they aren't economically productive I guess it shouldn't matter to libertarians. You're obviously around 15, so for you it makes sense to not have to pay into Social Security when you enter the workforce ten years from now.
That's about all I could get from your incoherent post. It's the typical point of view for a teenager: you don't want to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit yourself. Then why should the government exist at all? Of course, you think it shouldn't, but you know that nobody will take you seriously as an anarchist. Try developing your viewpoint a little more, give some consideration to how such a system would affect everyone else, and give it another shot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 3:25 ID:KWBq+vQy
>>303
My particular view of Libertarianism has not changed. I don't speak for others, I speak for me. If there are discrepancies, deal with them on a case by case basis. If my views ever adapt, and they do make minor corrections, be glad. I'm not a dinosaur, a demagogue who is locked into a belief system that can't change. If a position becomes untenable, why should I stick to it? Mental five.
1. Yes, more power should go to the States. But even they should have less influence on people's personal lives. The hypothetical situations you list are too outrageous warrant a response. Now, I would make the case that anti-federalism and libertarianism aren't that far apart. 98 other Senators and 430 Representatives can't very well draft a law -- if draft they must -- that will do good for my state, or for yours. It has to be vague enough to please everyone, and most get shafted in the process. By taking power away from the Federal government on issues like marijuana -- an issue proudly abused via the commerce clause -- each state and the citizens can decide how much personal freedom is too much or not enough. And again, within the confines of the constitution.
2. I wasn't clear on this one. I don't want the EPA. I don't really want the FDA (I do enjoy a little risk.) No department of education, knock it down to a bureau or an agency. Same for energy. Hell, get rid of most of them. And again, mea columba, the Constitution delegates to Congress the duty to build and maintain roads. So let me sum it up: I'm all for letting Congress keep the powers that are vested in it by the Constitution. If it's not a power given to Congress no prohibited to the States, then it's for the States to decide.
Yes, that is very much a anti-federalism issue. Of course it seems you didn't realize that my original post was very much about federalism and libertarianism, but that's okay. I can be incoherent at times.
I pay for lots of things that don't benefit myself. I take my brother out to eat. I buy gifts for my friends. Hell, I've even been known to go over to my grandma's house and mow the yard for her. Point is, outside my immediate family and friends I really don't give a shit. If I see someone needing help, I'll do what I can. But I'm suck-as-fuck not going out of my way.
Why should the government exist at all? To wax idealistic, because its primary function is preserve liberty. Which it fails miserably at. More realistically, because people are not worth the log I drop in the morning and will go out of the way to injure others. So yes, darling, government must unfortunately exist. I do not fancy myself an anarchist, but I have been called an anarcho-capitalist. Kudos for me?
I have given it some consideration. Lots of it. People will get fucked over. People's lives will be ruined, some will flee in panic as the nanny state disappears and they are left to find jobs and pay bills and, cherish the thought, pay for the food they eat.
So here it is. I'll give you a nice overview of all my big political beliefs and you can print them off and tuck them into your pocket and they'll keep you warm at night.
1. More personal freedom = good.
2. Less government = good.
3. Adhering to the Constitution = good.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 9:47 ID:Os8AT6kj
Just look at the libertarian manifesto. They don't want to cause a penis riot, just change a few things they believe are seriously wrong and prove that the country needs to lean towards libertarianism if not go all the way.
You people keep arguing about anarcho-capitalism all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the state is the cause of many of the problems you blame capitalism for.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 13:26 ID:Vlfgvvhk
it doesn't change the fact that the state is the cause of many of the problems you blame capitalism for.
The tired refrain of the libertarian. To a libertarian, industry is never to blame; it's always the meddling of the bumbling corrupt (by who? hah!) government that gets in the way of the self-correcting invisible hand.
Having some government is better than giving private interests free reign. Until I see a modern society that works like you claim, libertarianism is pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation. You're little different from the Marxists, with your head up your arse.
>>Then what is it about? If you privatize and deregulate roads and mail, people in rural areas won't have any service because it will NEVER be profitable.
People in cities should not have to subsidise people in the country. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to.
>>Do you want to get rid of environmental, health, and workplace regulations, with the absurd idea that somehow it will all work out well for the individual?
Workplaces improve for the same reason that wages rise. When employment is high, workers may pick and choose between employers, and this forces employers into competition in the labour market.
Nobody wants worse working conditions, libertarians merely argue that working conditions have been improving anyway and that the government has been taking credit for those improvements, when really the state contributes nothing.
>>thus creating an underclass that adds nothing to the economy and is basically forced into a life of crime?
What crime would they commit? If drugs are legalised, drug gangs disappear; they can't steal anything because the rich can afford private protection agencies, and the same goes for hired murderers. If there were a major economic slowdown and an unemployed underclass did form, it is more likely that they would have to return to low-tech, low-status jobs like mining or farming. Your criminal-society scenario could only occur if a government were obstructing the normal course of the economy, so surely some form of radical libertarianism is better?
>>Really, name one attribute of libertarianism that you can't just back out of later on, and that would somehow benefit society as a whole without relying on magical thinking or an absurd interpretation of economics.
I'm using a tripcode so that you'll know if I try to take back something later on. If you or anyone can make a strong enough case, you'll have de-converted one libertarian. To be absolutely clear I'll try to summarise my viewpoint:
A market, as the medium of mutually-benficial service provision and goods exchange, free of murder, theft and fraud, is the normal state of a society of free and law-abiding human beings. Markets can do everything governments do, incluing the provision of law and defence. Governments are a legitimisation of murder, theft and fraud in the form of war, tax and political manoeuvering, respectively. Government therefore represents a perversion of normal human interaction. All laws and regulations passed by governments are merely posturing and political grandstanding, and either do harm, or would have been done by the market anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 16:00 ID:HvkXopvQ
>The hypothetical situations you list are too outrageous warrant a response.
No. If power is given to the states (where I agree it belongs), abortion will be made illegal in most states, and others will fund it with taxpayers dollars (as they are already doing). Similar things will happen with drugs. These are not outrageous situations at all.
At least you've gotten back to libertarian ideology. You want to get rid of the EPA, FDA, etc. Then what happens to the environment? Sure, we can still have all the laws that are in place, but nobody will enforce them. You say you "enjoy a little risk" with your food. Good for you. In China, there's so few controls on what goes into the food that 7 year old boys are growing beards from the hormones.
>People will get fucked over. People's lives will be ruined, some will flee in panic as the nanny state disappears and they are left to find jobs and pay bills and, cherish the thought, pay for the food they eat.
Yes, people will get fucked over, but you seem to think that Americans are all lazy welfare cases. Once the "nanny state" disappears, everyone's wages will go down because of a lack of corporate regulation. Kids will be sent to work in sweatshops instead of college so that they can have food to each (cherish the thought), not that they'll be able to go to college anyways without public universities and government grants.
A lot of lives will be ruined, but whose lives will actually improve? Am I wrong to think that this should be the point of a sweeping change of government's purpose? In your libertarian utopia, it looks like for every one CEO's son who gets to smoke pot while watching CP at his personal movie theater, there's thousands of already hard-working Americans who will see their lives degrade into that of a Chinese peasant.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 16:27 ID:Vlfgvvhk
People's lives will be ruined
Sounds like an excellent reason why it's a bad idea.
I so do love you sociopaths seeking social acceptance.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 16:41 ID:HvkXopvQ
>>309
As long as Steve Forbes doesn't have to pay income taxes to the evil IRS, it's okay with us libertarians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 23:57 ID:s8KmPw4z
>>308
They are too outrageous to respond to because no state could ever get away with executing someone for smoking joint. So what if one state wants one thing, the next wants another? I simply hope that people will enjoy the freedom from excessive government found in states that -- and this will never happen -- adopt a more libertarian trend.
Laws can be enforced, without a government agency. If a manufacturer is poisoning my drinking water with outrageous amounts of lead, I have been injured. If you and/or your property is injured because of a negligent manufacturer, you can pursue legal action. I'll grant that this line of thought leads to some fuzzy areas, like what should one do if the damage is inflicted communally, such as smog? Don't know right now. Of course, one can always move to the country. As for China, their problem isn't a lack of regulations -- they have like seven bodies similar to the FDA -- it's a matter of corruption and bribery and government stupidity.
>Yes, people will get fucked over, but you seem to think that Americans are all lazy welfare cases.
I was only referring to people who so regularly and perpetually feed off a system that hands out cash like a drunken sailor. Wages may well drop. I make about 8 bucks an hour. If my employer wanted to drop that to four, I'm gone. And while it wouldn't happen immediately, if wages did fall then cost of living would also come down, though perhaps not across the board.
Whose lives would be improved? Pretty generally I'd say anyone who pays taxes. As it stands, I'm losing 15 or 20% of my paycheck to the government and all I can really show for that loss is the worst set of interstate highways in the nation and a post office I never use. If I had to pay only 5% in taxes, I'd be able to afford the medicine I need to function without pinching pennies. For me, that's the crux of it. People will be more able to supply themselves with what they need instead of relying on what amounts to government stipends. The government can go back to its original and intended job: more or less mediating between the states, maintaining infrastructure, ensuring the common defense, yada yada.
And were it all to happen, I would make exceptions for people who really are unable to provide for themselves, such as the mentally ill, the elderly and all that. I'd much rather that charity provided for them. But I know that not everyone around retirement age today has bothered or been able to save up. I'm not a complete monster, I guess.
But remember: how many lives were ruined by the first sweeping government change, the Revolution? 17,000 directly ruined out of a population of 3M. Lives are always ruined when massive change occurs. And about the Chinese peasant part, which is better, to live a high quality life that is governed by ideas like productivity and submission to unreasonable laws or to live a much more destitute life where you can put the emphasis where you want.
As for the CP, that won't fly. In making the CP, the adult subjected the child to a situation which most certainly would result in mental or behavioral disorders. Someone's been hurt, so that won't fly.
>>309
If I wanted social acceptance I'd be either a pot-smoking Democrat pundit or a bible-preaching Republican pundit. But if you want to give me a hug that'd be super swell! xoxo
#311, are you sure about how much of your yearly wealth gets sucked into the government via all levels of taxation? You have to figure all income taxes (Fed, state and local), then all the other taxes on things you consume (fuels, sales, special local taxes, etc.), then certain government fees (licensing, etc.). You'd find that about 40% gets swallowed up by the government.
The average US citizen is overtaxed. There are certain levels of poor who "make out" on it due to EITC, but they also pay other taxes (consumption and licensing). The wealthy are subject to rather heavy taxes (at least, those who don't indulge in many tax shelters, either legal, illegal or IRS-gray-era). Overall, our levels of government form a 40% monster on our backs. That well exceeds the Medieval tithes.
One of the reasons libertarianism is so infallible is that the typical libertarian is a teenage boy. There's absolutely no empathy for the common person who actually lives in the world, and there's always an unrealistic expectation that anyone can become a millionaire unless they're lazy welfare cases. As such, there's no real attempt at forming a valid argument, so there's rarely anything palpable to argue against.
What's the possible benefit of libertarianism? That we would have fewer taxes to pay? We can go through each part of government spending, showing how almost all significant spending is necessary (though efficient). We need the military, because having fees paid to mercenaries through non-governmental means is absurd (and would be ineffective even if possible). We need to pay interest on the national debt. There you go, just with those two you very well aren't going to be close to living a tax-free life.
Someone needs to pay for roads somehow. If you want to buy some delicious Florida oranges in Chicago, they have to get to the store, and if the government isn't making the transportation infrastructure with your tax dollars, you're going to be paying it anyways with higher prices.
Do we need an FDA or EPA, so that the average life expectancy can be competitive with the rest of the civilized world? Libertarians won't admit it, but they really don't think so. They don't have any sympathy towards people who don't have the money to fly around on their own private jets and feast on Swiss chocolate. The rest of us peasants can either starve or eat pesticide- and hormone-laced food (at higher prices than now, because instead of paying subsidies with your tax dollars, you'll pay them directly).
An appendectomy costs $2500. Do you have that kind of money laying around? A lot of people do, a lot don't. Libertarians believe that if you don't, you should just die on the street. The garbage men can pick up your corpse. That's what's so cool about libertarianism- it's so gleefully evil. There's absolutely no desire to benefit anyone other than oneself.
For objectivists (who don't know they are yet, because they don't have the attention span to read Ayn Rand), wouldn't that make sense, though? I mean, I could argue against objectivism, but that's really a different topic. Here's the problem: it doesn't even benefit yourself. Forget the remote possibility that you won't have a million dollars to retire on by the time you're 40. In four or five years, you're going to graduate from (public) high school. What then? Does your mommy and daddy have enough money to send you to a private college? No? Oh well, I guess instead of being an engineer, graphics designer, or whatever else you could have been if you had gone to college, you can just dispose of dead bodies (from starvation and easily curable diseases) that are laid out on the street for minimum wage (haha).
This gets to the crux of libertarian thought. To the libertarian, it will somehow all turn out okay. Once all the public universities are gotten rid of, more private universities will pop up. They'll do all the same stuff, except better and cheaper because they're private industry, and since there's more of them, an increase in supply will lower the prices enough that ordinary people will be able to afford them (without government grants, even). I'll agree, the cost will definitely go down, but why would you think that it would go down enough for the average family? Really, weren't public schools created because private industry couldn't meet the demands of society (a well-educated workforce that could do something other than farm, which incidentally results in greater individual prosperity)?
Then the libertarian comes back with his not-so-secret weapon: a hideous distaste for civilized society. If demand can't keep up, he says, let them all be peasants! Somehow, it'll all work out. When there's enough people in the work force that honestly can't do anything other than flip burgers, the wage for them will go up, they'll be able to send their kids to private school, and society will be better off for it! There's a problem with this kind of thinking, guys: it's shit. Nobody over the age of 19 buys it, for good reason.
The best quote so far:
>People's lives will be ruined
That pretty much sums up libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-04 17:10 ID:RPRzMp3p
>>321
Sorry, you've mistaken libertarianism for something else.
#321, there's a slight flaw in your examples, in that dead bodies on the street will not be collected since there's no money to be made in such a collection. When jet-setting and eating bon-bons, you're above all that crap, anyway. And ... hey, didn't I just describe modern Capitalism? Why yes, I certainly did!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-04 22:51 ID:T8M63nu+
>>323
I don't know about that. Remember, all property would be private in a libertarian society. It's not like you could get mugged and murdered while jogging in a public park. Those kind of places would be a thing of the past- the ones on rivers would be turned into factories (for easy disposal of waste), and the larger national forests would be owned by billionaires who want privacy for their "hobbies". There'd be waste disposal companies, of course, and everyone would have to pay a fee to them, just like how they would pay a fee for everything else.
Ah, to live in a libertarian utopia. If someone were to die on your lawn (perhaps from starvation or poisoning), you'd have to bury the body yourself (not that you'd actually have a backyard for this), or have the mafia-run disposal company pick it up. If you aren't paid up on your subscription, you could just leave it there, but then you'd be sued by your neighbors for violating their economic right to not have their property values degraded by nearby rotting human corpses. See? It all works out in a wonderful libertarian world governed by batshit insane economic principles.
Well, #324, I DO know about that. Even with property being bulk-bought by billionaires, the existence of streets implies a commons, if not by de jure than by de facto. People will still die during transportation accidents and the result will be dead bodies that no one will want to collect since there's no profit in it.
I don't spend my time demonizing Libertarians. They have some great ideas. Other of their ideas are fairly lousy. As you imply, it's a great blowing hugely BAD IDEA to let the people with the money dictate everything, at least indirectly by letting property rights trump everything. However, past all those extremes, we can sanely discuss privatizing the fire department, and especially so in cases when said department is heavy with live-in retirees (which we must admit is the case in too may union instances) and other overpaid workers.
There is no "libertarian utopia" in exactly the same way we know that there are no socialist and capitalist utopias. All these philosophies have ideas great and bad. Wise heads can cherry-pick these things and make a society function.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-05 18:38 ID:MH6Tn5l6
Libertarianism isn't about unrealistic utopias. Socialism and capitalism were developped from the oh so great Marx who triggerred more than a century of a top down approach to political science. Libertarianism is scientific and was the result of 18th century attempts to apply scientific method to everything, liberty and justice were induced from the facts as necessary, equality was declared to be good from the beginning and an entire pseudo-science framed around it.
It's pretty sad what passes for "science" nowadays, and the mouth-breathing morons who actually believe it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-06 21:24 ID:nQKubugL
>>328
Observation, analysis, prediction, experimentation and evaluation. When composing their ideas libertarian follow these logical steps to find the truth and calculate the best way to do good.
|Observation, analysis, prediction, experimentation and evaluation. When composing their ideas libertarian follow these logical steps to help them write incoherent bullshit that's based on nothing more than an irrational faith in market forces.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 13:06 ID:PrfzTDZf
>>331
Market forces = the reason you were not severely disabled by whooping cough when you were 5 and did not spend the rest of your short life working the fields in some collective farm (exactly the same thing as a feudal estate).
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 22:34 ID:TXwhZPF3
>>Whole Thread
Anti-libertarian people making really bad points (are they points when they aren't sharp?) and some true Libertarians completely owning said bad points, while other "libertarians" that need to redo their research.
It's not "no taxes, no spending" or "nothin' but free-economy."
It's a delicate mixture between the freedom to do what you want to do without harming others (which means ~progressive~ measures to fix current issues which lead to harming others) while minimizing bloat-spending in government and the removal of laws which try to create social norms or infringes the peoples freedom (right to abortion). This gives more money to the people AND gives them more free reign to what to buy and how to live their life, which, now that you have happy people with more money, gives the economy a permanent boost.
It sounds LULZ REDICULOUS, but if we bite the bullet and TRY, we'll find out. We will either become the shining city on the hill with history, or the laughing stock. However, we had the courage to think different.
Vote George Phillies in 2008. Libertarian for President.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 23:17 ID:01GeQsmA
>>333
Yes, if we legalize abortion it will help the economy. Let's have the courage to ruin our country with pseudo-scientific extremism so that the few people to have enough money to survive will be able to enjoy increased freedoms.
Vote George Phillies in 2008. Libertarian for President.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 23:30 ID:TXwhZPF3
>>334
Generally, the bloat spending of government was the reason to help the economy, whilst Human Rights give the people freesdom to do as they please, making them more wanting to spend their money.
I'm glad you're a fucking idiot and have no idea what you're talking about. It's your right as an American to become a job owner, rather than a grunt.
YAY WELFARE, right nigra?
At least you know his name now.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 23:34 ID:TXwhZPF3
And before you pull a fast Democrat faggot move and try to evade the subject whilst poking fun at the competition with the sole intention of trying to pull support your way:
*freedom, not freesdom.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 1:30 ID:88P0t9Xw
>>335
By your logic, if it wasn't for taxes (which I assume are the problem, as opposed to government spending itself), I'd automatically become a "job owner". Cool, can we all be job owners? What about the people who do actual work? It seems like the "market forces" you worship would make it so that somebody has to do the actual work.
That's for the good jobs, though. What about the people who don't have the talent or education (good luck getting that in Libertaria) to get good jobs? I guess they can just live without Medicaid for a while (for some, a very short while). Besides, they should be able to get private health insurance on minimum wage (oh, but you'll get rid of that, too).
Here's what I'm a fucking idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about: if there is absolutely no safety net for anyone, people will starve to death once they get too old to work, people without good jobs will be forced into a life of crime, and people will die of easily treatable diseases and conditions. Here's where you pop in and say that libertarianism isn't about creating an unrealistic utopia ANYWAYS, or else some "survival of the fittest" quip, or else some "market forces" absurdity about people hiring bodyguards so they won't get robbed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 4:30 ID:m+tM7Q5h
>>337
If your grandmother was starving to death, would you not buy food for her? If she needed medicine, would you not find a way to get it? I don't know about you, but if anyone in my family needed food or medicine then I'd jump into the mouth of hell to get what they need.
People only assume one stance or the other: the people can survive alone or that they can only survive with government intervention. And both sides ignore how much we really rely on family. Aw hell, I've said it and I'll say it again: I'd make exceptions for people who really have no other support system. You do realize that before Medicare and SSI that it was normal for children to tend to their elderly parents?
One side seems to argue that Libertarianism would dissolve all government. The other, that any government at all is not a Libertarian state. Bullshit.
But nearly all believe that people like me haven't considered what life would be if our current government were reduced by 3/4. I have. I could live hand-to-mouth. I could be the victim of pollution. I could eat tainted food. If I reach old age, I might not be able to support myself and I might be left to rot and die. I have considered it. I'd much rather decide my own destiny than let it be decided for me.
Statists walk a fine line. If Freedom of Speech were proven to be a cause of death for thousands of elderly people and infants, would we get rid of that freedom? If abolishing Amendment IV would cut crime by 90% would we allow all our personal information to be searched at random, and by people who are less than scrupulous?
The government can surely improve the quality of life for some, but I prefer Liberty to quality of life. I don't exist for the good of the state, I exist for my own good, and in living I will do all I can to help those I love. But I will not bow a knee to excessive government. Eventually everyone will have choose a comfortable life over a life of liberty. But that doesn't bother me because I will be dead by then.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 18:25 ID:+4JOmXQk
>Eventually everyone will have choose a comfortable life over a life of liberty.
Libertarianism is kind of like if the founding fathers decided they hated British rule so much that they wandered off into the wilderness to starve to death or get eaten by bears and Indians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 18:51 ID:OpAR/hW0
The government can surely improve the quality of life for some, but I prefer Liberty to quality of life.
Why wait? Move to Congo today! The "government" is in name only!
What? Why aren't you going?!
Oh, right, you're full of shit. You only can only claim you prefer liberty to quality of life (which is a bullshit false dichotomy in and of itself -- think about it for five seconds!) because you're living a pleasant life. Nice going, Internet Warrior.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 20:20 ID:Y+DEqujd
>>340
Congo is an anarchy, not a libertarian-democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 1:04 ID:31RwsQVS
>>340
Good points. Libertarians are probably made up almost entirely of people who have never experienced struggle or any lack of quality of life- in other words, kids and the very rich.
India is a good example of a Libertarian society. There's little in social services, but hey, at least they're free to do what they want! For the most of them, that means subsistence farming unless they want to starve. If you're really smart, you can get into college and work as help desk for wages that would seem appalling to us. If you're REALLY smart, you can get out of that hellhole and move to America to be a doctor or engineer.
>>341
Tell that to Joseph Kabila. In all honesty though, what's wrong with moving to the Congo? According to your theory, "market forces" will make it so that you will be able to find a good job if you work hard enough. The lack of law enforcement shouldn't be a problem, because you can just hire your own bodyguards. They don't have social services or effective law enforcement there, and effective tax collection is extremely low. The DRC seems like a libertarian utopia to me.
Obviously, somebody here doesn't understand the difference between a civilized Libertarian society, and a fucking nation in collapse that's effectively a dead-nigger WAR ZONE (i.e. the Congo).
You may as well urge folks to move to fucking BAGHDAD, for the sweet smell of freedom (or perhaps its the stench of flesh burning?).
India is at least a more sane example of what's wrong with subscribing to the markets-solve-all-problems model. Stick to sanity, please!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 11:04 ID:Pktu0Kdo
>>343
Obviously somebody doesn't understand "I prefer Liberty to quality of life." You care more about liberty than quality of life? Go to fucking Congo.
Or maybe just stay in your nice cushy "quality of life" home dreaming about your civilized Libertarian society filled with "Liberty". Pretty convienient, isn't it, RedCream?
Actions speak louder than words. If you don't care about liberty than a comfortable life, don't fucking say it. Yank your head out of your arse and stop lying to yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 14:40 ID:jrn1CPGK
>>342
No one enforces justice in the Congo. I never said market forces would occur in an anarchy.
Though I could in fact hire my own professional bodyguards and clear a very large amount of productive land for development, the cost of security and transportation would be higher than say starting a coffee farm in Nicaragua.
See! Market forces.
>>343
Racist. The Romans called celts and Germans "barbarians" which is the equivalent of today's "niggers" when describing savage black people. They had an inferior culture very much like many of today's blacks, if history repeats itself then it won't be long until hoardes of niggers overrun civilisation and plunge it into a dark age which will last 1000 years by the end of which the niggers will be at the forefront of civilisation.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 14:46 ID:jrn1CPGK
>>344
An injustice is the infringement of a person's liberty, thus liberty cannot exist without justice and justice does not occur if the law permits infringements of people's liberty. There is not much justice in the Congo, though I would prefer to live in the Congo more than North Korea.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 16:15 ID:1KlNaxLj
>>346
I think that injustice is more than just infringement of a person's liberty, but I'm glad you agree with me. As noted in >>340, it's not really quality of life versus liberty, since if you have little liberty, your quality of life will be rather poor.
This is one issue I have with a lot of libertarians though. Power fills a vacuum, so if it's not the government, it's some other private interest. Hell, corporations and republics have the same structure. But at least with a so-called democracy everybody has a say, even if they don't exercise it.
Claiming that a monopoly won't form, and won't defend itself from a weak government, strikes me as a bit dubious. And the people will rise up? Risible.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 17:01 ID:Nny0msW5
>>343
And what's keeping America from becoming a "dead-nigger warzone"? (though if you look at RedCream's other threads, you'll see he's full of gleeful anticipation for such a situation)
I care about liberty more than quality of life. With the former, you can always find the latter, but with the latter, you often find yourself without the former.
Those who prioritize "quality of life" only invoke Fascism, leading to the creation and enforcement of masses of poor, leading to great suffering. Sure, a minority achieve an enviable quality of life, and a tiny minority get an amazing quality of life. But that's effectively tyranny, and it behooves the free man to shoot tyrants down like dogs lest they throw him into their various meat grinders (corporations, schools, military).
The more we care about money by confusing it with wealth, the less we end up ensuring the prosperity of our neighborhood, town, state and nation.
Although the screamfags on this topic don't want to hear it, it's entirely possible to have a moral social structure that provides a certain minimum for the truly needy, while allowing the truly capable to become prosperous. This involves a minimum government with mandatory taxation. Taxation is, after all, the price of civilization ... but with a minimum government, such things can't be onerous. The bulk of the wealth of the people belongs in the pockets and vaults of that same people.
In closing, the Congo is still a dead-nigger war zone and all that was accomplished by semi-Fascists paying attention to money instead of WEALTH. Now that the citizens and government officials let things degrade so much, institutionalized violence is the only result that a sensible man should expect in the short term. Hence: DEAD. NIGGER. WAR. ZONE.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 19:58 ID:M7ZMM+0Q
>>349
RedCream, this is a very impressive post, even for you. Literally every single sentence, with the exception of the first one, is demonstratively wrong. This is like an art student's thesis on logical fallacies.
More importantly, though, this should show you why nobody respects you here. It's not that your arguments lack substance. It's that EVERYTHING you say is absolute bullshit. You could construct a rational argument, because oftentimes you seem to come to reasonable conclusions somehow, but you just aren't interested in it. You aren't interested in reading Hayek or Chomsky and wowing us with your knowledge. You just want to spew out your projections that come from the fantasy world you seem to live in.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 20:16 ID:1KlNaxLj
but with the latter, you often find yourself without the former.
You have been doing too many drugs. That or you have a surreal definition of "quality of life" that is completely disconnected from reality.
>>350 >>351
In standard LibJewDem form, a couple of yuppie fuckers with too much institutional education (i.e. propaganda) have tried to respond, yet have produced not one valid point in contention. Instead, they jumped on ad hominem and left it to the usual yuppie assumption mechanism to carry the rest.
Hence, my points stand, until these apecocks realize they need to actually debate instead of propagandize-by-dismissal.
>>353
That's fucking and excellently right -- "whatever [I] say". Truth has that irrefutable quality to it, doesn't it? The sweet smell of success is mine. I win. You ... well, that means you fucking lost. Losing that badly -- so boldly -- generally makes you a loser. So sad, too bad!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 20:56 ID:QvxtdKWu
>>352
Your points don't stand, because they're completely disjointed from reality. For example, you say that prioritizing "quality of life" leads to fascism, and then you back that up with some inarticulate nonsense. Being just wrong isn't enough, though: you call for "free men" to bring a violent end to institutions vital to American economy, education, and even liberty.
Then you go on to say how important it is for everyone to know the difference between money and wealth, and how that is the difference between the libertarian utopia and hyper-capitalist ruin (as in Africa). That would be a really compelling philosophy, if you bothered to even try to explain why someone would believe this kind of nonsense. Instead, you leave it as fact, apparently because you've already decided that everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you is a lib'ral commie traitor.
Am I a 'yuppie' for consuming the 'propaganda' that allows me to communicate in such a way that I can have some chance of swaying a normal person's opinion? Really, go read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. He was an anti-socialist who you would agree with on many issues, but instead of grabbing nonsense out of a deranged fantasy world, his book contains logic and reason. It really is a compelling work, but unfortunately you're too anti-book-learnin' to bother to get out of your chair to get it (or is it that the presence of another human mind in this world is too threatening to you?).
>>355
How many times are you going to fail before you have the grace to be embarrassed?
The now-routine excesses of corporations, schools and the military are NOT "vital to American economy, education, and even liberty". Learn to differentiate between criticism of a thing, and destruction of that thing.
Anyone who doesn't understand what's happened in our society about the difference between money and wealth, is just stupid. Some stockbroker makes millions, but creates or concentrates no wealth (only money), and legions of workers are laid off by the actions of his class of money-manipulator -- at great social cost. Obviously, money can be (and too often is) disconnected entirely from wealth.
Just the fact alone that money is printed, proves my point. Wealth is secured by gainful labor to win resources, processing them into useful items (ideally, capital equipment), distributing them to greatest market reach, and then subsequent enjoyment of the items thereby (since a sustainably prosperous society not only revels in what it has, but also produces stability thereby).
And finally ... I'll add Hayek to my extensive reading list, as I don't have him either there or on any of my shelves in my library room. ... oh no! Did I just pop another one of your myths? I have so many books in my home that they'd fucking CRUSH YOU if you were so unlucky to have one of the shelving units fall on you.
P.S. The end product of money worship like yours is that a tiny minority of people end up owning everything on the strength of what a few pieces of paper in some bank vault say. The vast majority cannot be restrained from possession of the vast majority of resources, on the strength of paper alone. The inevitable consequence is absurd, hence the methods and attitudes which create it are absurd. Money and wealth have become almost completely disconnected in our society. Learn to see the difference, capitalist freak!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-09 23:13 ID:Pktu0Kdo
Hey, can someone explain why a self-professed libertarian is arguing that libery and quality of life don't go hand in hand? I thought it was well-established that controlled economies lead to poor outcomes.
Also, >>356, take your own advice. Half of your post is ad hominem and gloat. I swear you're anti-chan the way you write.
"it behooves the free man to shoot tyrants down like dogs lest they throw him into their various meat grinders (corporations, schools, military)" - criticism to the point of suggesting destruction, as any reasonable person would think.
You suggest that someone who doesn't share your quirky (at best) use of unexplained vocabulary is "just stupid". There's one demonstrated reason why everyone thinks you're a loon.
You claim to be well-read, yet you NEVER cite any source for your opinions outside of your deranged fantasies. One would think that you'd have some grounding in philosophy, economics, and political science. Instead you come off like a 12 year olds who is just making this up as he goes along.
"money worship like yours" - strange ideas about other people that seem to come from nowhere.
So are you a socialist or what? "...vast majority cannot be restrained from possession of the vast majority of resources, on the strength of paper alone" - sounds like a worker's revolution to me. Ah, but libertarianism would obviously lead to the dystopia you describe, yet it's easy enough to go back and see that it DOESN'T MATTER to you. Regardless of who controls money or wealth, don't you prefer LIBERTY instead? Why should it matter to you what kind of system distributes economic power away from you, as long as you have your liberty? What's the difference between government wasting your money on wages for needless projects (i.e., the interstate), and banks using it to manipulate the economy for their own selfish ends?
>>357
If you're so fucking down on "controlled economies", then EXPLAIN why you tolerate your national, state and local governments handing out subsidies and abatements like CANDY. America has fallen well into the wrong kind of Socialism, in that it should have remained quite limited as a Socialist-regulation model of Capitalism.
Also, fucker, I never said I was Libertarian. I'm a citizen of the (now, "Old") Republic and I well admired the fine layer of Libertarian principles in there, with another layer of Socialism added in the 20th Century. Fuck, it WORKED! Capitalism was working JUST FINE in the style of Elbert Hubbard.
But, what that good enough for the rich? OHHHH NOOOO! The rich fuckers decided that they weren't making enough money paying their taxes, and they started an outright revolt against the supremacy of Populist control of the mechanisms of government. Now, the Republic has been literally destroyed, and an Empire stands in its place. The so-called government at all levels is actually a huge, Corporate Profits Assurance Agency.
If you really want to know what you fuckbags lost, read Major General Butler's "war is a racket" speech excerpts. The industrialists had always sought to undermine the Republic to some degree, and in the early 1930s they attained significant control (largely from causing the largest financial crash in history at the time) ... which became essentially complete control in WWII with the outright dominance of what Ike called the "military-industrial complex". Instead of being citizens of a Republic, we've been subjects of an Empire ever since.
And you turds DARE to complain about "centrally-planned economies"! Shit, look around! Corporate welfare in the USA stands at 3 times the amount spent on all individual welfare programs in the nation. WHY THE FUCK DO WE GIVE MONEY TO THE WEALTHY?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-10 8:28 ID:0bczz3/f
>>359
So Elbert Howard (or whoever) can suck higher quality male prostitute cocks. To improve diversity or whatever.
If you're so fucking down on "controlled economies", then EXPLAIN why you tolerate your national, state and local governments handing out subsidies and abatements like CANDY.
That's assuming:
a) I tolerate it.
b) I'm from America.
I'd love to know what in my post indicated that either of these was true.
And you turds DARE to complain about "centrally-planned economies"!
Uh, whoa. Who exactly are you arguing against here again?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-10 13:45 ID:8/tmBPwe
>Uh, whoa. Who exactly are you arguing against here again?
He doesn't know. He's a loon- everyone is against him (for good reason), so whatever viewpoint you put up, he'll rant against it with his baseless assertions, never forming even a basic argument. If he doesn't understand your position, he can just make it up for you, which is fine for him because he completely rejects the legitimacy of your point of view. This isn't a normal way of communicating, but he believes that his opinions are more enlightened than the rest of us, who are simply brainwashed by liberal media, etc.
why is this thread still here? i can only assume its because the sad, deluded, virgin OP has nothing better to do
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-10 21:43 ID:sFjzzf+C
>>365
RedCream derailed it not too long ago with his lunacy (in other words, this thread mirrors his life).
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-10 22:04 ID:0bczz3/f
Libertarianism is the future of democracy. Economic autonomy may not always be the best policy, but it allows for the highest economic efficiency possible unless either we become omnipotent or the universe becomes predictable. People will remember the social change of the 20th century as tyrannies masquerading under various ideologies arising through revolution, stabilising then beginning the long road to evolve into democracies utilising various social sciences the inevitable outcome of which is libertarianism as has been proven irrefutably.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-10 23:17 ID:qvLHMUs3
An interesting question is why we want the highest efficiencies? Shouldn't we want the highest happiness?
The two aren't exclusive, but they're not inclusive either.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-11 6:50 ID:BqDRINPI
Libertarianism is the way to go. Fuck the current U.S. government; it's too totalitarian and invades people's lives.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-12 11:10 ID:LrnLuD5e
Libertarianism is liberalism on steroids. All freedom, all the time. The only people opposed to it are weak failsacks who rely on the state to wipe their ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-12 13:29 ID:DnKyi9tM
All freedom, all the time. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
It must be comforting to know there's nothing to catch you if something goes wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-12 20:16 ID:lVumpqra
>>371
If Ron Paul were elected president, market forces would somehow make it all okay. After all, only lazy welfare cases can't afford bodyguards and other personal services to make life tolerable. It's just all that taxation that you have to wait until April to get back that's making that impossible.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-13 2:25 ID:lW2mtz8a
>>371 >>372
Libertarianism is about the enforcement of justice so your argument is null. Libertarianism is infallible.
96% of the posts in this thread are from the same person
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-13 13:43 ID:ym1O427R
I am that person
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-13 21:28 ID:h4epn7U4
Didn't it used to be the big question of the Libertarian Party: would you be willing to give up your favorite government agency for lower taxes?
I would be willing to give up the government agency that keeps me from raping school children.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 7:05 ID:2KGRADx4
>>374
Criminals are the fascists, they commit injustices. >>375 >>376
Same person. >>377
There are many governent agencies we are better off giving up for lower taxes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 17:48 ID:n4HNcIse
>There are many governent agencies we are better off giving up for lower taxes.
Name one that
1: doesn't already take such a small amount of money that it's irrelevant in the big picture to begin with, and
2: wouldn't reduce America to a 3rd world hell-hole by getting rid of it (without relying on libertarianism's magical "market forces" nonsense).
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 18:36 ID:cW91cOjV
>2: wouldn't reduce America to a 3rd world hell-hole by getting
>rid of it (without relying on libertarianism's magical "market
>forces" nonsense).
>2: wouldn't reduce America to a 3rd world hell-hole by getting
>rid of it
>wouldn't reduce America to a 3rd world hell-hole by getting
>reduce America to a 3rd world hell-hole
phat chance
i want to die
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 19:48 ID:ix8x8UXW
Libertarians fail to acknowledge the ethical problems with the libertarian system. Yes science could get more done if it could test on anyone, but we cannot choose who should be sacrificed for advancement. So we only allow those who volunteer. And even they are reviewed to see if a crime of ethics is not being commited. (an example would be letting a drug addict volunteer for a methadone test.)
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 21:46 ID:YH78qBck
>>381
Under libertarianism, the country would be full of people starving to death, desperate to sell their organs or test drugs for a few pennies to give to their families. See, market forces make it all work out! There would be plenty of test subjects for whatever experiments are deemed necessary by shareholders.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-14 22:56 ID:Q8vjq8Iw
Hah. Who are we kidding? The starving people will just get together are start killing others.
If the critical mass is high, you get what's generally called a "revolution".
If the de facto government (whether public or private) really is as weak as many libertarians appear to want, then it'll be a pushover. End of Libertaria.
If the critical mass is too low, you get what's generally called a "high crime rate".
In either case, a thoroughly unpleasant and shitty situation to be in, for everyone involved.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 0:33 ID:4lLF6OYh
>>383
>In either case, a thoroughly unpleasant and shitty situation to be in, for everyone involved.
Remember, though, the people that matter (to libertarians) will be able to hire their own bodyguards to protect them and their property. Police forces, if they exist, will concentrate on enforcing laws against the most egregious crimes (high-stakes property crimes, of course).
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 2:37 ID:FGx0y1PJ
>>384
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Of course, hiding behind bodyguards is neither pleasant nor free. I'd like to be able to walk down the street without being accosted, kthx.
Desperate people will do desperate things. Diseased people will spread their infections. Ambitious people will raise private armies (but they won't be named that!). The power law will ensure there will be monopolies. The power disparity will increase, and my bargaining power will decrease. And so forth.
This is shit I'd rather not put up with. I don't want beggars bothering me, I don't want to catch something, and I don't want to be robbed or killed. No, I'd rather be surrounded by contented healthy people who aren't trying to stab me in the back because they're terrified of losing their job.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 3:48 ID:rqlWqzBQ
>>379
FCC, Dep. of Education, Soc. Sec., DHS, not to mention several invisible taxes in the form of useless regulations and corporate taxes that raise the cost of products for the consumer. Gutting the fed so our currency is based on some kind of real value rather than the whims of a few private bankers that the government all the power in the country to.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 7:39 ID:9j9LGM1R
When you subsidize something, you get more of it, Subsidize failure with government safety nets, guess what, You will continue to get more of it. There are flaws with every system, but I would rather deal with the flaws of a system where personal liberties are best protected, giving you more range to fix said problems.
This post was way too long to read while laughing out loud. But I do have to ask: Did you take the jolly good chap to the pub?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 8:04 ID:CKnSRgCj
How about this. We have the same institutions that act as a "safety net" for dumbasses who neglected to look after themselves and their children, except they are run by the private sector. If someone comes crawling to them for help they set them up inside a work camp where they will get medicare, food, protection and accomodation in exchange for agricultural labour. If we expel all illegal immigrants, including anchor babies and other loopholes there will be a huge demand for unskilled labour and it will solve all our social ills.
>>385
See, that's just how market forces work. They're magical and scientifically infallible. I agree, living in Libertaria would inspire so much despair and hopelessness among the people that it would be like a disease, causing needless suffering.
Eventually, though, it all works out because libertarianism is scientifically infallible. At first, people have to deal with non-people begging for money (gee, I guess they should have studies harder at private school, huh?). Some of them give in to despair or non-libertarian 'values' such as sympathy, and they end up losing their money (and therefore citizenship). Others become stronger (wealthier), and eventually they will simply be able to buy the entire town. You won't have to worry about beggars bothering you, because they'll be arrested for trespassing and given whatever penalty your government feels fit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 16:15 ID:CKnSRgCj
>>394
This would not happen under libertarianism. With less tax and what tax there is placed using market forces everyone will be richer and have the cash to spend on social security or whatever if they want it. As for the disadvantaged they can go to the police and say "My brother coerced me into taking drugs, please help", the police will arrest the unfortunate soul's brother and place him in a work camp and the profits will be used to fund a contractor to rehabilitate the disadvantaged soul.
Bying an entire town is extremely difficult under libertarianism, you would have to be of extraordinary merit in order to achieve this and I doubt if you had an enormous source of spending power money you would aim to invest more of that into what you did best to obtain such money.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 17:10 ID:0GXq4WEj
With less tax and what tax there is placed using market forces everyone will be richer and have the cash to spend on social security or whatever if they want it.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
People will be richer because of lower taxes? What about the peripheral effects of a weak government?
Also, just a guess: you've never dealt with insurance.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 19:26 ID:lMviG3yV
>>396
He's probably never dealt with paying for anything other than those gumballs you get outside of kids' stores.
Also, corporations aren't motivated by the public good. They're motivated by profit. If privatizing everything were the answer, we would have had it thousands of years ago.
It doesn't really matter, though. Libertarians are kids. I used to be one, actually. Then I grew up and realized that it was nonsense. Kids can't be persuaded by adults because they simply don't have the same capacity for reason.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 22:22 ID:6LGrtFhG
>>396
Insurance, such as health insurance, is expensive due to Government interferance. Lobbyists sway Congress to meddle in things, such as health care, that they aren't originally intended to meddle in in the first place. Their meddling gives health insurance companies reduculous powers to do what they will and ultimately assist in monopolizing the health care industry.
HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHHAH back at you. You really have to think things through on both sides.
>>397
People who think that the government can cater to everyone are children. The Founding Fathers thought that they could make something close to perfect, but their private wants lead it to be fallible. The Bill of Rights helped solidify it as, what would be considered today, a pretty Libertarian governemnt, less a little more federal tax so they could actually work.
So what now?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 22:28 ID:3CdeRnii
Libertarians are laughably stupid. Putting profit above public health is nothing new for American industry. Left to their own devices in the free market, corporations will gladly sell you poison if they think they can come out ahead in the end.
Case in point, leaded gasoline. They put in in gas when they realized it would prevent engine knocking, but knew from the start it would harm people's health. Atmosperic lead rates soared for 65 years. Gasoline emmisions were literally poisoning the entire world. But no action was taken until the federal government stepped in and allowed EPA to ban the practice in the 1980s.
So why was this? Nothing was preventing the free market from acting on it. Knowledge of the danger was widespread, both inside and outside the oil industry. The answer is simple - profit motives trumped health concerns. There are countless examples of this principle across many industries.
Who knows, maybe its just bald faced hypocrisy. I've noticed libertarians love weakening regulation of American business, but love to tighten it in other areas. If Ron Paul really believes that Americans are fed up with illegal immigration, wouldn't the free market take care of the problem? Wouldn't Americans demand to pay higher prices for goods produced by businesses exclusively employing American workers?
When someone describes themselves as a libertarian, it colors my perception of them. When I look at their face, all I see is the ugly tumor of ignorance and greedy desire surrounding their squinty vacant eyes.
/thread
/fuck the OP
/ron paul is gay
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-15 23:09 ID:FGx0y1PJ
Insurance, such as health insurance, is expensive due to Government interferance. Bull-fucking-shit.
What planet do you live on? I can't believe I just read that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-16 4:40 ID:o82lFrxm
Insurance, such as health insurance, is expensive due to Government interferance.
Bull-fucking-shit.
What planet do you live on? I can't believe I just read that.
Bull-fucking-shit.
What planet do you live on? I can't believe I just read that.
>>400
That depends on what you mean by "Government interferance" [sic].
If you mean the big bad government comes in and tells people how to insure, then that's wrong.
If you mean the various medical associations have lobbied and pushed legislatures for years to carry "mandates" for various ailments on any policy written in that state, then that's right.
The effects of private medical industry and the profit motive have made most of the insurance horror we see today. If anything, Populist re-orienting of government to sensibly regulate the insurance and medical industries would start to fix all that. After all, the government is supposed to be a representative actor of the people and you wouldn't get a closer action than that.
I think it's all gone too far to fix, anyway, regardless of the route sought. Populism doesn't work anymore since the people are bribed to cross their interests by involvement in the finance system. The profit motive will only continue making things worse, and the old correction system of bankruptcy and redistribution won't work today since the assets of an overreaching corporation will only be bought up by another Fascist who will enact the same predatory policies. Government involvement has only proven to involve either outright welfare, or mandating people submit to the insurance companies (google for what's happening in Massachusetts).
So, as far as American healthcare is concerned, we're doomed. The sensible man would see all that coming, of course. He'd understand that the future relies upon preventative healthcare, not reactive healthcare. You've got to keep yourself healthy, since by the time you need care, it will be either too expensive, or it'll make you worse (or kill you). Only the rich and well-connected will be able to enjoy real, reactive healthcare.
Too bad, eh? Move to Europe if you don't like it (as I plan to do). Certainly the last thing you'll do is place sensible and Populist controls upon your government. Any controls like that will affect corporate profits and too many of you think that that's some sort of evil thing.
We should return to the system where insurance is a VOLUNTARY BET. On one side, the insurer is betting you won't get sick or injured; on the other side, you're betting you will. The both of you meet to set the price of that wager. The government should ONLY stick its nose into the matter to make sure the contract terms comply with contract law ... and it should do NOTHING ELSE except enforce the contract if ever challenged in court.
American lived fairly decent lives before the pervasiveness of health insurance. They did so since they lived healthier lives filled with a minimum of manual labor, family interaction, natural foods, and a lack of exposure to unnatural chemicals. Insurance can't help you if you sit on your ass, ignore your kids, eat fast food, and lick lead paint.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-16 7:25 ID:oMPbzNOB
>>396
The government would be weak and that's a good thing as it means the people would have more control over it. When libertarians say they want a small government they don't mean they want it as miniscule as possible, they believe that at the moment it should be reduced in size, that it is overbearing and force for corruption. The libertarian party has made great strides in becomming America's third party which as you can imagine is a difficult task, we would not have done so if we were idiots.
RY BET. On one side, the insurer is betting you won't get sick or injured; on the other side, you're betting you will. The both of you meet to set the price of that wager. The government should ONLY stick its nose into the matter to make sure the contract terms comply with contract law ... and it should do NOTHING ELSE except enforce the contract if ever challenged in court.
American lived fairly decent lives before the pervasiveness of health insurance. They did so since they lived healthier lives filled with a minimum of manual labor, family interaction, natural foods, and a lack of exposure to unnatural chemicals. Insurance can't help you if you sit on your ass, ignore your kids, eat fast food, and lick lead paint.
>>396
The government would be weak and that's a good thing as it means the people would have more control over it. When libertarians say they want a small government they don't mean they want it as miniscule as possible, they believe that at the moment it should be reduced in size, that it is overbearing and force for corruption. The libertarian party has made great strides in becomming America's third party which as you can imagine is a difficult task, we would not have done so if we were idiots.
405 Name: Anonymous : 2007-08-16 09:28 ID:Heaven
this is the gayest thread
406 Name: RedCream : 2007-08-16 09:54 ID:LnHe37JG
>>405
What, too many words for you? Go get the fucking Cliff's Notes on it, then.
>>410
Oop! Sir, you seem to be suffering from Anatidae Evocis, which is characterized by outbursts like yours. Please see a physician soon for official diagnosis and possible treatment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-17 17:19 ID:mxYBt+y+
>>410
Doesn't really matter, you can look up the medical CPI graph and the dates of all the government "fixes" for rising medical costs, they just put them in one place.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-17 18:30 ID:ibxfmQDS
>>412
The first and last "fixes" only serve commercial interests.
How is allowing commercial interests have more power by reducing government power going to prevent this?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-17 23:27 ID:dcLBch/E
>>413
Well, for example, the government has made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices.
Oh wait, libertarians want to get rid of basic social services like Medicare, too. Let's see, what kind of bullshit can I come up with... libertarianism isn't meant to create a utopia? Let me iron your face?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-20 20:32 ID:kyP+XvTK
>>414
Research and development has to be paid for. Who do you think found the cure for polio? The communists?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-21 13:48 ID:rSdwdEyi
That about covers everything. Libertarianism does not equal anarcho capitalism. Libertarianism allows both EQUALITY and FREEDOM in all spheres of the economy.
Why? Because they don't work. Forced wealth redistribution doesn't work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-21 23:01 ID:3bCPgdY4
>>415
How about health care companies that want to make a buck off peoples ailments? People would pay big money for that.
Of course, the government pays more because they get money from everyone, not just those with polio or their families. Lets nag them for funds.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 1:06 ID:HKREH2/V
>>415
Actually, R&D costs basically nothing compared to marketing and government lobbying.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 4:43 ID:PdEvm3iw
>>418
Cancer medication is expensive, but polio vaccines are 100% safe and dirt cheap nowadays. What about people 50 years from now? Do you want them to have a cheap cure for cancer or the same standard of living we have now? It is all these people whining for free medicare who are the selfish ones who want to sacrifice their children's future so they can have a few more bucks to spend on weed today.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 7:41 ID:Qk+ZsvR4
>>419
Moar like R&D see fuck all budget while marketing receive the most to sell the shit they just created.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 12:07 ID:ZShKsRtL
Marketting is just part of the package. More gets spent on R&D under a free market system than under the only other alternative, communism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 13:11 ID:gIIJvNdT
>>422
yeah, because the only alternative to a free market is communism. -__-
of course if you're not talking about a completely free market but just some sort of system that is not completely communistic, then of course these have free market aspects, but there are so infinitely many combinations of free market and controlled market situations that you are giving "free market systems" too much credit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 18:30 ID:GWvFJ6ZI
>>425
Libertarianism is so obviously such a horrible concept that our resident libertarian is forced to grasp for straws. If you aren't a libertarian, you're a communist, so of course libertarianism is infallible, right?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, countries with market protections enjoy cheaper drugs, while drug companies still make plenty of money for R&D. In America, people over-pay so that drug companies can buy TV ads. Wouldn't exasperating these problems with libertarianism be wonderful? (all in the name of a vague cry of 'freedom!')
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 20:25 ID:J0JDnTd4
this thread is just like Ron Paul's supporters. Obese, intellectually lazy and hollow at the core.
>>427
Considering Paul supporters are rather strict Constitutionalists like he is, it's a blatantly false statement to say they're "intellectually lazy". Like Paul himself, his supporters tend to have read the US Constitution and exhibit a strong understanding of it ... unlike you, perhaps, who probably doesn't even understand how many of its sentences are at least two lines long, I mean, totally, how can you, like, make any sense of that stuff, ya' know? Darrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ....
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-22 23:01 ID:EQ/lZ2ya
>>426
What are you talking about? Laws have and are being passed so people actually pay more at the pharmacy than ever before.
For example, Medicaid shows just how price controls backfire. According to the Government Accountability Office, a 1990 law requiring pharmaceutical firms to grant a 15 percent discount for Medicaid purchases ended up raising prices for managed care.
Price controls also would create other huge disincentives for companies to develop new lifesaving drugs. Not only would price controls curtail overall research; they also would divert it into less risky and less promising areas — particularly with regard to seniors.
In other words, if drugs that are primarily used by seniors suddenly are made unprofitable by federal decree, the drug industry would lose all incentive to develop cures for diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, that affect mostly senior citizens. Companies instead would focus on developing cures for which demand is more evenly spread among different age groups.
See? Government interference never actually ~helps~ anything, though it seems like it would.
The Government needs to stick where they are useful - judges, prisons, national defense and police. I think people can care for their homes and communities on their own.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-23 0:47 ID:zkJSJ1hy
F_acsist
O_ligarchic
X_enophobes
perfect!!!
Quote:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
Quote:
Oligarchy is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small, elite segment of society. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" and "rule".
Quote:
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers. It comes from the Greek words for "foreigner/stranger" and "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.
see also "The 14 Points of Fascism" http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Sure a government can have free market and communist policies side by side, but what's the point? Let's forget the fact that the free market is more efficient just to speed things up a bit. Communism is an unrealistic utopia, it has 2 faces. The first is it's propoganda face, the heterarchic government controls the economy so all needs are fulfilled and it can be happy tiem nao. The second are the actual effects, no democracy is ever perfect, not everyone has the 11 inch politicock needed to vote correctly (libertarian!) and as a result many individuals and organisations have influence over the government that is not influenced to votes. The government's purpose is to decide what the laws are, when you have laws which say the government should control a sector of the economy an institution develops that profits from alterring laws to it's favour by fooling voters into thinking they are necessary, as the state gets larger it gets increasingly more difficult for voters to notice corruption in the state. A country is better run if it has a clear goal to privatise all national institutions except those that are fundamental, not immediately, just not to shirk from the idea of looking for alternatives. I find it concerning that there are so many people are branded fascists just for submitting this idea.
>>426
I think you're mixing up aspirin with the enormous array of different drugs used in modern medicine and prescribed by doctors. There is only one type of Cefradine, if a hospital needs 1000 packets of Cefradine pills it phones up drug companies and asks for the prices, places an order and that's all there was to the marketting.
>>430
I translated it to cover all forms of totalitarianism (communism, fascism, socialism, national socialism etc..).
Powerful and Continuing Idealism
Apologetic towards human rights abuses by similiar idealists
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Supremacy of the State's power
Rampant division of arbitrary demographic groups
Controlled Mass Media
Obsession with thwarting the efforts of invisible Enemies/Scapegoats
Idealism and Government are Intertwined
State Power is Protected
Individual Power is suppressed
Disdain for Science and political freedom
Abusing Crime and Punishment for political purposes
Rampant hypocrasy coverred by propoganda
Fraudulent Elections, inability to accept Legitimate election results
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-23 9:41 ID:+YP83tZJ
>>431
not fascists, just libertariantards.
when will you stop pulling things out of your asses? Yes, communism is an utopia it'll never work and history has proven that. But one of the problems with wanting a completely privaticed free market situation is that the idea of a free market is based on some pillars which are non-existant and largely utopian in our world today. And if you want the entire world to think and be alike in order for the free market to function flawlessly, well then you are likely to be branded a fascist.
Do you really think the world would be a better place if the government's only purpose was protecting people? If that is the fundamental purpose of the government. Different people have different opinions on what the fundamental purpose of a government is.
in a libertarian society, there'd be a large gap between rich and poor, am i right? if not then please explain to me why.
Studies on human behaviour show that people don't like huge gaps between rich and poor. If you don't have alot, you have a feeling of animosity towards those that do. Some studies have shown that people withouth that much, have been given the choice of recieving some, or taking alot from someone with alot more. And the chose to make the other guy poorer, at their own expense.
i don't mind libertarianism, i just don't find it very human.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 0:31 ID:1sxmdDF3
>>432
Yes, there would be a large gap between the rich and the poor. Would the poor be groveling in the street? If they have a job, probably not, but they won't be living in a ritzy townhouse either.
In a Libertarian system, mostly everything is privatized. That means that there is no minimum wage, very few taxes and a system based on the market.
Without minimum wages, the companies can pay their employees whatever they think their employees are worth. If their employees believe they are worth more, they can quit and find a better job. A minimum wage sets a standard of not how low you ~can~ go to pay people an hourly wage, but how low you ~should~ go to keep those who ride the minimum wage where they are. Lets say the minimum wage is $7. That means the majority of basic labor jobs will be $7 straight, let it be from cashier to inventory counters to hole diggers to truck drivers. Why try to get a better job, or better yourself, when it's just going to pay you the same rotton wage?
Now, if there was no minimum wage, you would think that people's hourly "value" would drop into the nickle and penny digits. Wal*Mart wouldn't be able to pay their employees $0.30 an hour, however, due to the fact that some other company would be employing for a higher wage. If you want employees who aren't the lowlifes of the world, you will pay a higher price for them. You will pay that dollar or that two dollars, or that four, six, twelve, 24 dollars an hour for people who come to work on time and don't arrive with hair coming out their ears and thorny, scraggly beards jutting out at customers. In fact, Wal*Mart may not exist in a Libertarian land, for they would only be able to employ the scum of the Earth at those wages and wouldn't be able to sell government bonds to China.
That is ONE example of why our methods don't work. Want to get into Health care next? See >>429
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 10:12 ID:lIj80enI
>>433
what about the poor people who don't have jobs?
there is no minimum wage.
companies pay whatever they want to the employees.
of course if we're in an expansionary period the need for all sorts of workers would push the wages up to the maximum the companies are able to pay. But what if we're in a recession? a very high rate of unemployment all over the country press down the wages to a point where peole will do practically anything for very little just so they can get by.
Of course rational intellegent people would've saved up money during the "up" period in order to get by easier during the down people. But people don't necessarily act like that.
A minimum wage of 7$ would mean that all of the basic labour jobs would pay the same, but basic labour jobs are just that, basic jobs. They don't require any real training or education, you can go from one to the other interchangeably, this means that if an industry needs alot more diggers then they'll need to raise their wages over the 7$, and if there is virtually no need for diggers, the few that there are will still be paid 7$.
A side effect of the minimum wage however would be that companies would try to cut down on the amount of basic labourers they have, rather than hiring 50 diggers it might be more profitable to invest in some machinery, machinery which would require mechanics and operators. This would cause there to be a need for a higher educated(thus higher paid) workforce, which would entice the workers to educate themself.
your claim that eventually the wages for people who do basic jobs and don't look like cavemen would skyrocket and eventually be many times that of the alternative minimum wage is just lame. The general minimum wage would rise only untill it was more profitable for the business to somehow increase efficiency in a way other than hiring more workers, just as in the example above.
so what's the difference? the difference is that in a recessionary period there would be a higher unemployment in case one, but the people who are employed would be paid more, and in case two there would be less unemployment but a lower wage level.
but yeah, isolated a constant virtually unregulated minimum wage can be a problem during recessionary period because it takes a longer time to recover than it does for a libertarian economy.
Then you have to look into how the rest of the system is made up in order to see how bad this effect is.
and no i don't really want to get into health care since i'm not american and don't really know the details of how your system works (or fails to), i'll leave that to someone else.
The only way a minimum income would work is if it would be coordinated with a maximum expense. People on the min wage should be summarily denied alcohol, cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV, nigshoes, and all the other crap that the poor buy in order to continue being poor.
My idea is that if you take the min wage from an employer, you agree to a new ID card that marks you as "POOR", hence you can't buy luxuries by law. Hey, if you don't fucking like that, then don't take the minimum wage, Pal! The law got you that wage; the law can therefore say how you spend it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 11:33 ID:HWmp4Qem
for the love of god can a mod erase this thread? only on the internet can an unemployed faggot with no skills endlessly prop up a hollow flawed political belief system such as Libertarianism.
>>436 History isn't over. Also, keep whining upward into the cold dark for Big Moderator Jahweh to come and take all your troubles away.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 13:24 ID:Xc7XJfHL
>>435
Might as well give 'em another card that says "please sell crack and pay more for luxuries on the black market"
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 21:27 ID:1sxmdDF3
>>435
Exactly. Guess what? We're going that way! We call it "Socialism"!
At least in Libertarianism you'd have a job if you really needed one. People should have the right to sell themselves at the price they see fit to sell themselves at.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 0:54 ID:2oACuzj8
>>435 >>439
I think normal people pretty much already know that both of these ideas are really terrible, and are espoused by people who are unable or unwilling to go through the basics of cause and effect when they have an idea that occurs to them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 18:49 ID:gpom+1DC
>>432
Libertarianism is not a utopia or unrealistic.
Communism and other ideals dictate how people should act in order for the utopia to work. Libertarianism is the opposite, it asks what they want and uses self-evident principles to mediate between everyone's different desires to facilitate the greatest happiness. Under libertarianism you can have your communism, just so long as you don't force it on anyone else.
>>432 >>433
Inequality.
If you set out to eliminate the causes of inequality eventually you would have to kill everyone to make them equal. Logically inequality is not a cause, it's an effect, even if inequality creates the perception that there is no hope or whatever it's those perceptions that are the cause not inequality itself. It is the epitome of stupidity to not understand the facts you are using before you've even begun. You must look at as many causes of inequality as you can, then you must look at ALL of the effects, not just the effect of inequality, and then judge whether that cause should be changed, reduced or removed. There is a bigger gap between the rich and the poor in South Korea than in North Korea, but where would you rather live?
>>432
"i just don't find it very human"
Under libertarianism you can team up with some like minded people and go out to live in the wilderness or whatever you mean by "very human". You just aren't allowed to persecute ethnic minorities or force people who believe civilisation is important and want to see where science leads to do the same as you.
>>433 >>434
Also bear in mind a large portion of our "labour power" comes from other countries which have lower or no minimum wage whom we trade with, as noble as some might think minimum wage is, all it achieves is economic inefficiency and international disparity at least until we can unify the world which isn't necessarily desirable and doesn't look as if it will happen any time soon. We could either refuse to trade with companies unless they pay their workers a minimum wage equal to our own in which case we would quickly find out this particular policy in our economic model is unsustainable or we could decrease or scrap minimum wage. Decreasing minimum wage also increases the jobs employers can provide for our citizens, employers have to pay at least the bare minimum needed for someone to stay functional and with modern technology this is much more easier than 65 years ago. Also under libertarianism there would be absolutely no restrictions on forming unions, strikes or protests of any sort unless the people there break natural laws. Under socialism all unions are run by the bloated state, under evil kkkapitali$m unions are broken up by faceless riot police who are authorised to use excessive violence.
That being said if a libertarian president was elected in 2008, minimum wage would not disappear overnight, it would slowly be phased out after considerable and lengthy debate.
In the free market there are forces IN EVERY DIRECTION.
So there is A FORCE PUSHING WAGES DOWN,
and A FORCE PUSHING WAGES UP.
JUST BECAUSE A FORCE PUSHING WAGES UP EXISTS
DOESN'T MEAN THAT WAGES WON'T SUCK
THE EQUILIBRIUM = RANDOM
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 16:50 ID:x7TB8WiI
>>442
Duh. That's why I pointed out the forces keeping wages up because all these retards were reading straight out of "Das Kapital" the obvious fact that people with no money work for low wages. What Marx didn't realise was that by forcing everyone to be equal he is ruining the economy and making everyone worse off along with handing too much power to the state. The only way to ensure "equality" is through the invisible hand of the free market, libertarianism permits tax free privatise unions and communes and permits the means for their defense and a simple bureaucracy that leaves no skeptics as to who owns what. In effect libertarianism for the average worker is privatised communism and it works.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 19:38 ID:DpEk5uKg
>In effect libertarianism for the average worker is privatised communism and it works.
Sure, as long as "privatized communism" is defined as "working for $2 an hour because it's not like you have any other choice besides being a survivalist out in the (nonexistent) wilderness".
>>446
Okay fine $3. Still, non-shareowners like you and I will be royally screwed. But hey, at least you'll be "free"!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-27 1:49 ID:ZopzTdwv
i just started reading from the start
in fact, libertarianism is impossible to be proven wrong
but because of the libertarianism is always right
you cant prove it wrong because when you do, it can change to become right, but thats why libertarianism will never fail and always go on to be right, because it is not a set ideology, unlike marxism which gets stopped in its tracks when it reaches a problem.
libertarianism is made to build upon problems, it is like a person taught to think critically and not by a fixed set of rules where the procedure might always be different
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-27 1:52 ID:78uWNza8
>>447
For unskilled labour wages will be a little higher than similiar workers in other parts of the world, you buy products from countries with no or lower minimum wage everyday so you ought to commit suicide in shame if you truly believe minimum wage is the thin line between good and evil.
If you have a skill your wages would be much higher, taxes would be much lower, employers stand to gain more profit for scarce employees and wages increase. There is also the fact that there are literally NO restrictions on forming trade unions or on the free flow of capital, making it easier for the average person to make investments. The only thing keeping the profits of allocating capital in the hands of a few brokers are endless state regulations and a nationalised currency. If things were to change you would see these profits spread across the general populace. All you have to do is work very hard.
>>449 If you have a skill your wages would be much higher
No. Remember that the consumer-spending driven economy has collapsed because most people spend their small wages on food and a place to live. Less automation is used because hey, people are cheap, so productivity is down too. And you've got lots of poor suckers training for your skill hoping to take your job.
The only thing keeping the profits of allocating capital in the hands of a few brokers
Of course, if you've got money you can start a business prety easy. What's your market? Well, ignore 50% of the population, they don't have any money anyway. Why don't you make a luxury good for the wealthy? With the profits you can buy some apartment buildings and make money from the other 50% too. Of course, if you don't have money, why should someone lend you some? There are enough wealthy business people, let them start a business.
NO restrictions on forming trade unions
UNIONISTS? Anti-free market socialists who want to extort money from your business? If you even HEAR RUMORS that someone in your shop is suspected of union activity, FIRE HIM RIGHT AWAY. If your whole shop is unionized, just fire all of them! Workers aren't scarce.
This seems like a more likely direction than some utopia. I mean, look at history! Look at most near-100% free market countries! The main reason China is doing so well is they are selling stuff to THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 1:39 ID:eTMrXfws
>>450
You caould call Libertarianism the ideal of being logical, adapting when necessary and everything that springs from that. Though a lot of political movements claim to do the same libertarianism is the epitome of adaptability since it's foundations lay in letting people choose how they live. >>451
No. The economy would not change substantially, it means that the market for the same industries dependany on cheap labour conveniently outside our borders will move in. Unskilled labourers may earn less, but goods would be cheaper as we don't need to import food, support illegal immigrants and migrant workers and spend billions policing them to make sure they go back. Automation can be uneconomical and this isn't the 18th century, we have an enormous amount of motivation to advance technology there are entire markets based on creating valuable patents to fund future discoveries. If it is cheaper to have a worker pick apples, the gdp per capita increases as the machinery support resources can be used to increase overall productivity. It may put me at a disadvantage having to compete with more people, but this only provides me with motivation to improve myself which would concern my superiors making them more efficient to prove they are worth their salary. There would be an improvement throughout the economy.
Spoiler: People do lend people money to start businesses, they just don't hand it out to anyone.
Of course, if you have a the skills, determination and a valid investment opportunity you can gain the interest of a business person, perhaps even your employer, and begin an enterprise with a starting share of the company equal to the worth your skills add to it. If the business grows you will also possess a decent sum of cash along with the wealthy, even if it is all tied up in stocks. This easier under a libertarian system as the only restriction on the exchange of capital would be the fee banks set for ensuring deals are negotiated lawfully.
UNIONISTS! Alone a worker does not have much negotiating power and an employer can just go to each worker and say "low wages or no job lol". Unions are a legitimate business arrangement which exploits the negotiating power of a united workforce. Unions attract members acting as their united voice and charge them a small fee each to pay for the think tank needed to make a negotiation, the union bureaucracy gathers information about the company and assesses the true value of it's members which it then demands.
I don't get it. The free market takes advantage of opportunities, if THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS has cash to spare and the Chinese can produce goods cheaper than their competitors then across the pacific spending power will migrate west and luxuries will migrate east and everyone's happy. What's wrong with this?
IF! there was a free market unions couldn't exist unless they were world-wide, and as >>451 said, people would simply hire non-unionists. Unions skewer the market because they artificially raise the minimum wage some workers are willing to work for, then it doesn't matter how they do it.
spoiler: a very little percentage of opened businesses make it big. Alot of them go bankrupt. You know what happens if you go bankrupt in libertarianland? you most likely never have a chance to do anything again. You'll have no credit rating. No way to get some of your loan removed, you'll have to do whatever job you can and pay off on your loan which is probably of a magnitude so that you'll be working for the rest of your life to pay off the loan.
That doesn't really sound like a situation i'd ever risk ending up in.
Different areas of the world will always have different advantages. Saying you wouldn't have to import food in a free market situation is pretty silly, unless you want to restrict the kind of foods sold to those being produced in the US, and that's not very free market is it.
"It may put me at a disadvantage having to compete with more people, but this only provides me with motivation to improve myself which would concern my superiors making them more efficient to prove they are worth their salary."
it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it. No thx i think i'll pass on libertarianland so far.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 10:02 ID:oWfYIkuH
>>453
IF! This is a common mode of thought amongst socialists who underestimate the tenacity of free market entrepeneurs! The reality is unions would take everything you have just said into account and use it as a factor which lowers the perceived value of their members. Unions would have a strong incentive to alter their policies to ensure businesses have no reason to do this as it affects their members financially, an idea which is just a gimmick for votes in the eyes of the state.
Spoiler: Don't gamble more than you can afford to lose.
Spoiler: Most failed businesses were set up by retards who didn't even research the market before making the decision.
Spoiler: Failed businesses are usually shut down intentionally and long before they go bankrupt and usually quite soon after they were set up.
Spoiler: Many now succesful business people have made stupid catastrophic mistakes in the past, bankruptcy included.
I didn't say you wouldn't have to import food, I was talking in the context of industries in this country which require less than minimum wage workers. With minimum wage the orange business is less profitable and less oranges are grown here, without minimum wage there is no need to ship workers to and from Guatemala and spend millions policing them, instead we can use American workers, they can live next to the orchards and Tropicana can make more profit.
"it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it"
Cry harder. Also consider the fact that if the government let you have more responsibility you would have a lot more confidence and determination to further your career. You might not care at the moment, but once you realise how rich you can be this life aspect becomes more evident.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 23:48 ID:HXFeRMja
>>it's a dog-eat-dog world out there isn't it
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE.
Work for your money. Either become educated and work where you are needed, less hours and hire wages, or wash my goddamn dishes.
Your choice. Nobody should feel sorry for you and your shitty life decisions.
What do you guys think about Ron Paul. Is it good that he is tied to the libertarian wing of the republican party? It means more republicans will be interested in libertarian policies, but it also means possible libertarian voters will vote republican.
If someone needs medicine but can't afford it and it would cost a person very little to give him the medicine but he doesn't want to just because that of that miniscule cost, libertarianism solves this issue by allowing the person who requires medicine to sign a deal with medicince providers to use the medicine on a loan and pay it back. The medicine provider who offers the best loan and highest quality medicine profits the most thus providing the incentive to find the most efficient means to achieve charity so people can spend their money on other things like a fine chardonnay.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-02 15:49 ID:sebLbkai
STOP OUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT
ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 5TH 2007 STAND AND FIGHT
PAINT SIGNS BLACK...
TIP EVERYTHING POSSABLE....
EGG EVERYTHING...
DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT....
AND PASS THE WORD! POST THIS POST EVERY WHERE HUMANLY POSSABLE..
NOW GO!
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-03 13:25 ID:E32QBPOZ
>>466
I fail to see how any of this would help. Also you are not very clear as to what elements of the government are socialist and must be removed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-04 11:57 ID:OkVo5iwv
I think the libertarians would run the country better than the reps or dems for sure. If we have to have a 2 party system I'd rather there be more independants and the libs and greens were the 2 major parties.
>>468
If I may, I offer a slight correction to your posting: After decades of Repubs and Dems fucking up the Republic, Libertarians would run the country much better. But heck, a fucking accountant can run the country better just by noticing that you have to balance the budget based upon income, not upon borrowing and theft.
America is now so fucked up politically, socially and financially, that an African warlord could make improvements merely from dismantling much of the system of fucked-up-edness. However, Libertarians are at least sane and are civilized, so they should be given first crack at fixing the nation.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 14:08 ID:nQKubugL
>>470
Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult. This is where libertarians come in.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 14:58 ID:0gDwTnMq
>Libertarians are at least sane and are civilized
We have a comedian in our midst. Go read Forbes magazine and try to differentiate between warlord-style looting and libertarian-style voodoo economics. The only difference is that it's possible to convince morons that there's some imaginary benefit to libertarianism.
>>472
There is a certain truth in what you say, but there's otherwise no real comparison between an American Libertarian and an African Warlord. What you're perhaps thinking are Libertarians are actually Big Government Republicans who rely on a huge government for not only their systematic looting, but also for abusing other classes in the nation to make sure they are weakened enough for further looting. A real Libertarian doesn't ally himself with government like that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 20:05 ID:P+8WcIec
>>474
The Cato institute had an article as to why Somalia is better off in its current situation than having a functional government. Despite their worship of freedom, they seem to be ignoring the necessity of why social contracts are implemented.
At its core, libertarianism wants to abolish government so that large, multinational mega-corporations can institute entirely privatized societies, in which contractual "agreements" take precedence over what we consider human rights. The mining town is an excellent example of this sort of control, shut up about safety or you lose your home. Despite the illusion of choice that free-marketeers spout constantly, human beings are not rational beings, and can be easily cowed into essential slavery.
And yes, I endorse gubbymint to intervene on their behalf, that some arbitrary entity knows whats best for them. Because, as every libertarian will contend, republicanism is superior to democracy as it acts to reign in the "fickle people" of a true democracy. Which is in effect saying, that elected representatives know what's best, rather than having a pure democratic decision making process.
>>475
I didn't realize that the CI had gone so far off the deep end. Not to be googlelazy, but do you have a link?
As for the mining-town paradigm, eventually the workers should rebel and take control of the means of production directly. Sure, this is violent, but it's not like (in your same scenario) the police and military are going to step in, right? You already said that the government would have been abolished by the Libertarians who purported to owns the means of production at first.
I agree that Republic-ism is superior to Democracy, and muchly so. Democracy is merely a tyranny of the majority and Human societies require a baseline of rules for what's possible.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-07 12:28 ID:PrfzTDZf
>>475
You can't seem to make you mind up as to whether libertarianism will end up like Somalia or 19th century Britain. Libertarianism is not capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. It has nothing to do with your marxist theories, much like reality has nothing to do with marx's theories.
Libertarianism is not about eliminating the state, it's about elininating what is unnecessary in the state. Occam's razor applied to political science.
Libertarianism is not about evil corporations, it is about freedom. Evil corporations who exploit their workers only exist because the state prevents the workers from utilising their negotiating power. Under a libertarianism there would be NO restrictions of this kind at all. All firearms would be widely distributed through the population. If there is a hand gun for every person in the US at the moment with almost stalinist levels of gun control think about how well armed the workers would be with no gun controls!
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-07 12:39 ID:CPBq56/Y
>>Libertarianism is not about evil corporations, it is about freedom. Evil corporations who exploit their workers only exist because the state prevents the workers from utilising their negotiating power.
Good luck. In my Hobbesian mindset I could never see a Government that doesn't pin its people down for interests with capital.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-07 15:32 ID:LwmCGWFb
>>476
Who can afford a bigger cadre of armed goons? The mining boss, or the miners?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-07 15:42 ID:LwmCGWFb
>>477
I love the knee-jerk reaction to playing the OMG MARXIST card, but seriously, marx drew his theories from the reality of his contemporary time, and from his interpretation of history as class-economics driven. Marx was being rational in his analysis, he was looking at prior events and trying to extrapolate what would eventually happen. It just turns out that he was wrong.
>>479
I understand your point, but you cannot dismiss that the miners themselves (having the right to being armed in America) are potentially a bigger force of armed goons than the mine owners can muster. Handguns and ammo are cheap and very transportable and concealable.
Modern gayfaggotry makes it seem that the American public is just a set of plums, ready to be plucked. The 1930s demonstrated that even disarmed, American workers stood up for their natural rights of directing the major vector of their labor. Those times can return; arguably, they MUST return since a similar financial collapse (i.e. Depression) is returning itself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-07 20:43 ID:wNLpck6a
>>477
I love the knee-jerk reaction to playing the OMG MARXIST card, but seriously, I'd suck Marx's cock clean if the opportunity presented itself!
Name:
legion2007-09-07 20:47 ID:YSb3YvXQ
this is why i vote independent... hmm... what lame name shall i put on the ballot this time?
>>486 "We hold these truths as self evident" ... and then there's a list that few people can or will remember.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-11 2:06 ID:bOp1czYk
Doesn't matter if libertarianism "fails" to help poor people. In the end, no one person has the inherent authority to force me to do something against my will.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.
Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
>>490
Anarchists don't live under the delusion that their fringe political belief is "Science" and that pseudo-religious "Market Forces" will deliver us from evil.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-11 7:53 ID:xDA/ZZI3
Voting is an obstruction of Liberty. It must be abolished.
The very notion that one man is equal to one vote and that a leader should be elected based on the will of the majority is a deeply socialistic notion to the core.
Market forces will do a far better job at selecting which leader is best for the economy, and hence the best leader for all Americans.
>>490
Have you ever tried getting an anarchist to explain how their ideal would work? All I've been greeted with is "how do you know it wouldn't work!" and "if people would just..." arguments. >>491
Libertarianism is derived using scientific method, if it isn't you should be able to contend that assertion. Under a libertarianism you don't need to make financial decisions based on market forces if you don't want to, therefore libertarianism has no pseudo-religious stance on market forces. >>492
Voting is a method of representation. It can be utilised to prevent tyranny.
The notion that one person is equal to one vote and that a leader should be elected based on the will of the majority has many flaws but is much better than tyranny.
A democracy with strong libertarian parties will do a far better job at selecting which policies are best for all Americans.
"if people would just vote libertarian" then huh? durr hurr.
the scientific method is unsuitable for devising a political theory, as politics is people and you can't do experiments that live up to the scientific method with people. sure, in the libertarian world you don't have to make financial decisions based on the market forces if you don't to, then maybe society would change, oh wait, is that where we are today? *Gasp* i guess it is.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-11 21:43 ID:lGU8Qio3
>>496
Saying "if people would just vote libertarian" is a fallacious argument as it is hypothetical. However saying "we can convince enough people to vote libertarian through good policy and rational debate" is a valid argument as it is factual, anarchists have no factual arguments.
You were too stupid to think what I said through, you have embaressed yourself. In order to make yourself a better person you must recognise you have a problem. Admit you are stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-13 15:36 ID:k8/f55/c
This thread is beginning to suck. The critics of libertarianism are just repeating the same shit over and over. Why is it so difficult to admit you are wrong? No one is holding anything against you so there is no reason to have a grudge against libertarians.
>>499
It's a fact that you are repeating the same old shit over and over. Therefore >>498 is merely a scientific response with an emotive edge.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-13 22:03 ID:MMdoM6hu
Communism is the application of science to economics. It's science, it's all based on scientific grounds. All political philosophers consider it fundamental and foundational on scientific principles. It's scientific.
Shut up. Libertarianism is no more different than Conservatism or Liberalism. They are tried and true doctrines of politics and neither of them should profess some "scientific advantage" because saying such things is only illusory.
Libertarianism would never work. We have seen it in the early 20th Century when the rich and the poor were the only classes.
It took FDR and his New Deal to create a vibrant Middle Class.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-14 0:07 ID:5lv37Mnn
>>501
FDR prolonged the great depression. Advances in technology and freedoms created a vibrant middle class as the need and social mobility to generate a diversely skilled workforce arose.
The negative heath effects of lead were well known in the 1910s when oil companies started adding it to gasoline. Leaded gasoline had the ability to reduce engine knocking, which was notoriously bad in the early age of automobiles. To the heartless and uncaring, the advantages were unquestionable. Unsurprisingly every major gasoline manufacturer in the world was soon adding lead to the mix.
Again, there was no debate about the effects of lead. People inside and outside the oil companies readily agreed that it caused birth defects, retardation, learning disabilities, joint problems, poisoning and even cancer and neurological damage. Mechanics and automotive workers were particularly susceptible, and showed a much higher rates of illness. Yet trillions of gallons of leaded gasoline were put into the air decade after decade.
Atmospheric lead rates soared for over sixty years. The whole planet was literally being poisoned. There was an outcry from the public. Petition after petition was sent to no effect. The invisible hand of the market could only limply hold the impotent, flaccid cock of the oil industry.
Lead wasn't removed from gasoline until the 1980s, when President Reagan and a Democratic controlled congress passed a federal law that allowed EPA to regulate leaded gasoline. Regulation worked where the free market failed. With the new tool at its disposal, the EPA promptly banned lead from automotive gasoline and moved to ban it from all other types as well. But the airlines had a tantrum and to this day, leaded gasoline is still used in aircraft fuels.
The Moral Of The Story: Libertarians are smoking crack when they say their idiot political system can reduce environmental dangers. For every success story like the Chinese toy recall, theres a thousand others that the public to too stupid to pay any attention to. We need the willingness of Congress along with the concentrated expertise of the federal bureaucracy to regulate these complex issues. There's so much behind the scenes invisible hard work involved. Sure people complain, but most countries would kill to have our FDA or EPA. We need to straighten these institutions, not weaken them.
90% of the libertarians are humanities majors who don't even understand the complexity of what's involved. They take an objectivist, Ayn Rand "i got mine fuck everyone else" view of the world. Also they're all faggots.
We can do better.
Don't vote Ron Paul 2008.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-14 2:17 ID:5QvoJi8U
>>498
libertarians keep saying the same thing over and over, of course normal rational people have to repeat themselves when explaining to the libertarians that they are retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-14 3:31 ID:2KGRADx4
>>509
Many seemingly unique criticisms have been brought up against >>1. Unfortunately they all lie within the following criteria.
· Lack of understanding of the reasonning behind libertarianism. · Poor interpretation of facts. · Immorality. · Strawman arguments better aimed at anarcho-capitalists.
To which a mere 4 counter-arguments are required, tailorred for the particular discussion.
Spoiler: Libertarianism is the result of a bunch of people who one day supposed "What would I come up with if I used logic to solve all my problems?".
Spoiler: Science requires that you induce arguments from the facts, not that you induce facts from what you want others to believe
Spoiler: You can be immoral if you want, but I don't have eternity to spend on Earth and I recognise that other peopel are sapient. This is why compassionate conservatism is working so well.
Spoiler: Libertarianism ≠ anarcho-capitalism.
and i'll ahve to say this again, making a system based purely on facts and logic is a) ideological, and b) impossible
But somehow libertarians constantly go "omg, libertarianism isn't an ideology" well it fucking obviously is?
most ideologies are based on facts, how you interpret the facts however, gives way for some discussion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-14 3:52 ID:2KGRADx4
>>511
So what should we use to make a system? Mysticism?
Libertarianism holds free speech highly and is open to criticism, this can be contrasted with political movements which may be based on logic and some facts but are never open to debate.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-16 8:32 ID:noKT2wyn
marx was a jew, trotsky was a jew as were 90% of the people in the bolshevik revolution, they never cared about equality all they did was enslave and kill millions of russians all in the name of 'equality'
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-16 13:10 ID:rS/NXepY
i want the OP to know that this thread has convinced me to never, ever vote Libertarian.
So come on, generate empirical data that supports "Libertarianism" or any other political doctrine and then you can say it's based on scientific/logical principles.
Stop using the word science to make it seem as though Libertarianism not only has the best approach to economics and politics but also it's empirically the BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
If it was THE BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, the truth of it would be a priori and almost all Governments would choose to embrace it.
It's the same argument for Democracy. Pro-Democratic spokesmen will say that it's the best form of Governance because it's representative of the wishes of the Governed. But tell that to a theocracy, or people in a theocracy, and they will without doubt disagree.
There is no single economic or political doctrine that works better than another so long as that people are content.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-17 14:21 ID:iiRFXy1d
>>515
All long term government interference in the economy other than law enforcement has been corruptive. Libertarian principles form the core of all succesful 1st world democracies.
Libertarianism is the best system of government because that is what has been determinned by science.
Libertarianism is not the best form of government for states seeking to abuse their power, this is why many governments do not "embrace" it.
[sarcasm]Maybe we should ditch democracy then, since the theocrats might be right. Maybe we should not bother following any movements whatsoever, if the theocrats disagree with us on one thing it means we could be wrong so we must give up immediately.[/sarcasm]
A system of government whereby people elect parties who determine laws democratically and under criticism from other parties works better than a system of government which forces everyone to wear butt plugs and are enslaved under the transvestite god king redcream.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-19 15:51 ID:9cNdWBPp
>>516
"works better" is an entirely subjective opinion, which can only be supported when it meets subjectively chosen criteria
If a theocracy can argue that it guides it's citizens into an afterlife paradise, and the citizens agree with it, they can argue that it "works better" in terms of getting it's citizens their just metaphysical desserts.
If you don't like the situation under a democracy due to your "two wolves" clause, then fucking go to the land of sheep, nobody is stopping you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-20 3:46 ID:ye7aRFhr
>>517
It is an objective opinion. Forcing people to join a religion causes sufferring and therefore is evil. Under a libertarian democray people of that religion would be able to worship just as freely as they would under a theocracy of that religion, the difference being if they change their minds they will not be executed by the state.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-20 4:19 ID:gtM6HNNl
i showed this thread to my friend and now he's never, ever going to vote libertarian
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-20 7:50 ID:kyP+XvTK
>>519
He probably just said that so you'd shut the fuck up about it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-20 19:31 ID:+cogAXc/
Liberals at least don't play by means of stupid fantasies everyone mature enough stoped believing in after the age of 12
I'm taking a shit into your thread -- huuuuuh pffarplfshhhhh farP! splash
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 1:31 ID:0zs/aIDC
>>518
Why is the assumption that anyone within the boundaries of that theocracy going to be forced to convert? Much rather they would leave of their own volition, provided the theocracy would allow them to.
You have no idea what your talking about. Libertarians wanting to take money and guns from people that is in fact the opposite of what we want. God your fucking retarded. I hate you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 1:56 ID:ZShKsRtL
>>527
If they don't force people to convert they will still exercise power which is not directly represented by the populace. The only conceivable situation where there would be no frictions is if they relinquish their power to the point where their position is only symbolic like the British Queen.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 21:06 ID:ZShKsRtL
Under a libertarianism you have the economic freedoms to become a millionaire before you are 35. Anything else and you will be a wage slave the rest of your life.
They don't understand wealth accumulation principles (Libertarians).
To them, there is nothing wrong with a family having billions upon billions to control sectors of the economy.
Joe the Ragman who was born in poverty has a chance to become a millionaire in a Libertarian Utopia but don't kid yourself he has an equal chance to those who own the means of production.
Yes, I am a Marxist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 21:12 ID:thtFFn7c
Marx was a jew, communism was a jewish conspiracy to rule Europe and America created by jews, with the end result being jews pulling the strings being the ruiling class and everyone else as their slave.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 21:39 ID:sXwQY9Sd
>>532
sorry to break it to you but jews dont hold a single collective consciousness, they ar not the borg.
>>533
Sorry to break it to you, but Jews have a very insular and iconic culture. No, it's not the Borg, but it's about as close to the Borg as Humans can get.
Spread your lies somewhere else, Jew Apologist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 21:54 ID:ZShKsRtL
>>534
But it's still not the borg so you need to be more realistic before claiming "LOL JEWS".
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-22 21:55 ID:XWQHvq6l
But there are Jews who don't have a group mentality. The Jews who do their Hebrew magics and get wasted on holidays and follow all their traditions and have a meager income. There are plenty of innocent Jews who have nothing to do with the Jews in power. Just like the average Christian isn't the same as the richest televangelists of the Christian Right.
>>535
Bother to read, Jewsucker! I was entirely realistic when I noted their culture is significantly insular and iconic. Hence, it's entirely rational to say "LOLJOOS".
>>536
The Jews are a lot tighter than Christians. You also picked a bad example since it only proves my point ... since the Christians in their millions in the USA condone the West's general attack upon Islam. You hardly need to be a card-carrying member of the Christian Right in order to partake of the huge problem in the world that is posed by Christianity. Christianity is behind most of the world's evangelical crusades, with the balance made up with Islam. And you know what? JEWS ARE EVEN WORSE. If the Jews were about x10 more numerous, we'd have a World War constantly, and extensive slavery in the First and Second Worlds.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 7:39 ID:3qUOpxcE
Idiot . Jews may be as "borg" as humans can get but they are still not borg so your conspiracies are still unrealistic. "lol jew" somewhere else.
>>538
Thank you for admitting Jews are as Borg as Humans can get. That was my entire point and you support it. I can't ask for greater support than that.
And NO ONE here mentioned "conspiracy" except YOU! Troll some boards with teenagers on them.
You shitbitches act as if your words aren't RIGHT THERE on the screen, pwning yourselves instantly. Sheesh.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-23 21:09 ID:1X9nLAJk
....."five Jews, six opinions"....that's a cliche among Jews....
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-24 13:41 ID:mZ+sOg8y
>>539
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
Possibility can lie anywhere between impossibility and uncertainty. Therefore I did not admit "JEW IS BORG OMG I WATCH STAR TREK SO MUCH I'LL NEVER HAVE TEH GEI BUTT SECHS WITH SPOK WAAH" like you.
That's the product of lenders and the failings of the "free market."
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 13:03 ID:G57ds0Yr
at first i was against this thread cause its the same three faggots over and over but then I saw it was right next to the "Nigger Woman Shits on Public Sidewalk" thread and i thought, oh well, if the retarded, paradoxical lack of thought that is the libertarian movement has a place, it's right here.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 13:13 ID:78uWNza8
>>546
Only lenders too stupid to realise the government was adulterring interest rates.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 13:14 ID:78uWNza8
>>547
Under a libertarianism you would be free to shit on the sidewalk, provided the sidewalk is your property.
>>550
I don't have any problem. I'm just pointing it out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 14:32 ID:wP2wEz8J
>>551
Without libertarianism I'm forced to pay for undeserving niggers. Just pointing that out too.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 18:59 ID:/Pnpb3kH
>>552
Then I would like to point out that you would also not be paying for undeserving whites aswell.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 20:35 ID:zL9zPVcz
>>549
FYI, sidewalks would get bought out by holding firms and millionaires, and you'd have to pay a toll to walk on them. Shitting on the sidewalk would be against the rules that the owner applies, and if you did so, you would be punished by Securicorp because you agreed to those terms in your contract.
>>552
Yeah, your life would be a lot better if there was no safety net at all in society, I'm sure.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-27 21:35 ID:/Pnpb3kH
>>554
There are such safety nets, they are called dividends and people to stupid to obtain them are stupid.
This right here is the correct depiction of Libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 0:41 ID:eTMrXfws
>>554 >>556
Here you are tapping away at a machine of complexity beyond the point the human mind can comprehend which required the innovation and creativity of teams of elite scientists for decades to create and you believe that the only way for the invisible hand to fund sidewalks is by setting up toll booths every stretch of concrete!
Don't worry. I'll do the thinking for you by utilising my superb business analyst skills to provide a glimpse into the sophisticated road market of the libertarian future!
Toll booths are expensive and obstructive, eventually retardcorp would have given up the enterprise and put the roads and sidewalks up for sale relative to their value. The following arrangements would occur to determine how it is all paid for in ascending order of complexity.
Property.
There is only 1 user dependant on the road in front of their home and they own it.
Contract.
There are many cooperative users and a contract was able to be agreed apon to collectively own the road. Roads tend to be tied to assets and influence land values thus close knit communities, real estate developpers and land owners could easily make a contract as simple as "you own this building, you pitch in for road maintenance".
Negotiating firm.
There are many uncooperative users with different needs, there are competing roads and there is no realistic way of them negotiating a way to form a contract on their own, thus a firm provides this service for them by uniting the negotiating power of those dependant enough on the road to agree to contribute a source of payment for road owners. Negotiating firms would cut off road owners who set up expensive toll booths or do not repair their road properly and may even buy up roads themselves, whilst at the same time rewarding road owners who attract more dependant users. Negotiating firms may well also buy up roads and perform the service of generating contracts and tying them to property as described in the above paragraph. Also after the market begins to heat up, competing NFs would attempt to expand their clients by attempting to less important demographics such as average family car users. They may well manage to gain small donations from 1000s of average family car users in an area in order to pay for easier access to a supermarket or something in that order.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 0:48 ID:eTMrXfws
oop sorry
After the NF market begins to heat up, competing NFs would attempt to expand their profits by providing services to less dependant demographics such as average family car users. They may well manage to gain small donations from 1000s of average family car users in an area in order to pay for easier access to a supermarket or something in that order. NFs of this sort can easily replace most government functions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:27 ID:oWfYIkuH
Well that settles it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:46 ID:UmXejdDF
If only human nature and the resulting market forces were that predictable...
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 15:47 ID:UmXejdDF
"you own this building, you pitch in for road maintenance".
We already have that, it's called TAXES
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 21:26 ID:eTMrXfws
>>561
Except you pay for other people's roads if yours doesn't need that much maintenance.
An alternative to car tax could be a license to drive on roads owned by certain road companies. That's another method of payment.
>>562
They already have that road company, it's called the government
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-28 22:33 ID:eTMrXfws
>>560
The free market isn't what is unpredictable, reality is unpredictable. The free market merely adapts to reality, whilst social democracies like Cuba stagnate and force their people into such disgusting sub-human levels of poverty that they'd be better off in slavery under Marx's mythical capitalism.
>>567
There were no rebellions in societies marx had pegged as capitalist, they occurred under fragmented tyrannies in poorly developped countries.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-30 23:06 ID:lJXh3oCw
All these people who believe in jewspiracy theories needn't worry. Such arrangements are impossible in a libertarianism as no one is allowed to abuse the law to interfere with the economy.
>>572
What faggotry? Be more specific. Libertarianism is the logical conclusion when applying scientific method to ethics and politics, thus it is not unusual for it to take pride of place in any politics forum.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 2:27 ID:WF4qxKbr
Even though it will fail in a US election. Two party system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-01 5:07 ID:Os8AT6kj
>>574
The US is much larger than it was when the Republicans and Democrats became leading parties. Eventually the Libertarian party will join them.
The libertarian party is strong on the economy, efficient government, freedoms, the constitution and openness to other nations.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-05 5:14
Let me ask the liberals this.
Would Ron Paul have gone to war in Iraq?
Would Ron Paul sign the patriot act?
Would Ron Paul oppose gay marriage?
Would Ron Paul oppose abortion (of fetuses under 6 months)?
Would Ron Paul do anything you disagree with other than reduce the size of the government and stop handing out cash to fat stank ass welfare queens?
Secondly, coding for threadfail trumps other subtexts. This thread officially ended at >>588 ... but dumbasses like you need a larger sign to figure that out. To wit:
Bullshit (often bowdlerized to BS), also Bullcrap, is a common English expletive. It can also be shortened to just "Bull".
Most commonly, it describes incorrect, misleading, false language and statements. Literally, it describes the feces of a bull. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". Nonetheless, the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety of countries, some dating back to approximately the same era World War I. In British English, bollocks is a comparable expletive, although bullshit is now a commonly used expletive in British English also.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 9:34
Bullshit (often bowdlerized to BS), also Bullcrap, is a common English expletive. It can also be shortened to just "Bull".
Most commonly, it describes incorrect, misleading, false language and statements. Literally, it describes the feces of a bull. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". Nonetheless, the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety of countries, some dating back to approximately the same era World War I. In British English, bollocks is a comparable expletive, although bullshit is now a commonly used expletive in British English also.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 9:34
Bullshit (often bowdlerized to BS), also Bullcrap, is a common English expletive. It can also be shortened to just "Bull".
Most commonly, it describes incorrect, misleading, false language and statements. Literally, it describes the feces of a bull. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". Nonetheless, the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety of countries, some dating back to approximately the same era World War I. In British English, bollocks is a comparable expletive, although bullshit is now a commonly used expletive in British English also.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 9:34
Bullshit (often bowdlerized to BS), also Bullcrap, is a common English expletive. It can also be shortened to just "Bull".
Most commonly, it describes incorrect, misleading, false language and statements. Literally, it describes the feces of a bull. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". Nonetheless, the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety of countries, some dating back to approximately the same era World War I. In British English, bollocks is a comparable expletive, although bullshit is now a commonly used expletive in British English also.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 9:34
Bullshit (often bowdlerized to BS), also Bullcrap, is a common English expletive. It can also be shortened to just "Bull".
Most commonly, it describes incorrect, misleading, false language and statements. Literally, it describes the feces of a bull. As with many expletives, it can be used as an interjection (or in many other parts of speech) and can carry a wide variety of meanings.
Bullshitting is usually when one makes statements that are false, or made-up. Usually people describe other people's action of making a lot of statements as bullshitting in arguments, when one is making up rules or making examples that are not anything to do with what they are discussing or when one is making statements by using examples that need different rules to be applied, so this person is bullshitting
As it contains the word "shit", the term is sometimes considered foul language, hence the use of the euphemistic abbreviations "bull" and "BS". Nonetheless, the term is prevalent in American English and, as with many words, the term is used in a variety of countries, some dating back to approximately the same era World War I. In British English, bollocks is a comparable expletive, although bullshit is now a commonly used expletive in British English also.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 11:13
Libertarianism permits free speech and thus bullshit is easily discoverred.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 20:21
>>600
Granted libertarianism does a lot more for civil liberties than other patriot act signing assholes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 3:22
>>600
proof lolbertarians are fucking naïve and retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 8:58
>>602
What part of >>600 is false? That libertarians support free speech or that a policy of free speech is better than no free speech when it comes to revealing bullshit?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 10:51
>>1
A Libertarian government would never work. See Articles of Confederation.
>>611
Ok, so realistically what set of events would need to occur for Ron Paul to win? The democrats are pretty popular with all this neo-liberalism, soccer moms, female/black president and anti-bush anti-war sentiment and Ron Paul is not the prime republican candidate.
Libertarianism is not capitalism you dumbasses, it has nothing to do with the marxist line of thought. Marxism is entirely theoretical, Libertarianism is BOTH theoretical and empirical. The conclusion that the state's only purpose is to preserve liberty is not a fickle whim it is an irrefutable history proven fact and libertarians are merely innovating ways we can shed state monopolies that are corrupting the economy and making everyone less well off.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-25 0:15
when 1 man = 1 man, how is that not the perfect society?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-25 1:27
libertarianism is perfect because it takes votes away from the dems
FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER FUCK YOU NIGGER
If you're in trouble he will save the day
He's brave and he's fearless, come what may
Without him the country would go astray he's
Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Paul
Without him life would be much grimmer
He's handsome trim, and no-one slimmer
He will never need a zimmer
He's Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Paul
More reliable than a garden strimmer
He's never been mistaken for Yul Brynner
He's not bald and his head doesn't glimmer
Master of the wit and the repartee
His command of Human Biology is uncanny
How come he's such a genius, don't ask me ask
Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron Paul
He's also a fantastic swimmer
And if you play your cards right then he just might
Come 'round for dinner!
Replying with rhetoric after rhetoric is retarded. Make points and counter your opposition failfags. Debate better. And don't give me the '4chan has no serious debates' argument. That's a cop-out.
>>645
More correctly: Libertarianism allows the rich to achieve their own Socialist system, while leaving the middle class and poor to suffer all the slings and arrows of the free market. Adopting 100% Libertarianism is just as insane as adopting 100% Capitalism or 100% Socialism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 9:34
>>646
You don't understand what you are talking about, you are just pinning the properties of capitalism and socialism on libertarianism without any thought.
There is no such thing as 100% libertarianism, it is empirical and rational unlike marxist derived ideologies which are purely rational with little bearing on reality. You can envisage 100% capitalism and socialism as there are no conflicting factors to deal with, just a few abstract over-simplified ideas about reality which are calculated like an equation to give an answer. However reality is not that simple which is where libertarianism comes in, Libertarianism is the application of political science not head in the clouds abstract thought. A libertarianism is not an enforced state or an ideal, it is a democracy with an elected libertarian political party which deals with issues in a scientific informed manner.
that is, if you have a sufficient level of dodging skill.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 14:46
>>650
Dodge is a feat and not a skill, moron.
And that +1 AC bonus is worthless if the free market attacks you when you're flatfooted.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-06 11:51
I think libertarianism needs a comprehensive manifesto which covers all the usual queries. The average person just cannot be botherred to see how the pieces fit together because it is a new political philosophy and they do not consider it important, libertarianism needs normalising and it needs to remind people all new movements have to break the ice as it were.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-06 22:29
Delicious troll chow is served.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-06 23:17
the funny thing about all the people giving Ron Paul $100 is that they actually think he might win. loooooooooooooolll
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 11:05
Ron Paul won't win, but he will make a big splash. The libertarian-republican boat needs a nice young new energetic 50 year old Ron Paul junior to take over because Ron Paul will be like 80 next time there is an election.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 11:09
Face it America is the land of the free. A welfare state like Sweden or Canada is all well and good, but America is about freedoms and the world needs at least one place like America where people can go if they want to do more than earn $50000 a year and live in a peaceful suburb. For instance in America you can earn 80 times more than the average worker, not including options and dividends, and live in a penthouse apartment in an exciting crime infested inner city full of spics and niggers to keep you on your toes. I prefer to live like that frankly.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 11:25
Capitalism is killing us. In a couple of years (well within the next 15) we're all going to be hit by peak oil. No company can help, and we all know what governments get up to when economic times get tough. Getting a libertarian government to lead us in this century is suicide. I'd even trust neoconservatives more.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 11:27
Corporate conflict at the expense of the greater good at its most extreme. You get the neverending faggotory of socially left-wing and economic fascism. Have fun fag
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 12:37
>>657
Wrong. Humble energy companies which are like small local businesses helping the black community that the state enjoys persecuting will invest in renewable energy. State monopolies will force things into their asshole to take their mind off what a failure they are whilst bitch whining about "EVIL KKKAPITALI$T$".
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 12:41
>>658
Income tax is arbitrary and fluid. Corporations move to Switz tax havens exactly because our income tax system allows them. The trouble is liberals are short sighted and have a warped view of economics so they can't see how income tax is unfair on the "little guy", they just gain sexual gratification knowing that they are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor when the only rich people they take from are dumbass movie and music stars who do not know how to work the system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-10 21:23
The free market is the perfect economic system. Why won't people realise this?
>>662
No it didn't. Hoover caused the crash of 1929 with his policies that attempted to smooth out natural corrections in the market, then after the crash happenned he caused a panic by using it as an excuse to increase government interference in the economy causing another crash just as the market began to recover.
The reason that libertarians are against social security and proposed plans for national health care isn't because the ideas are not feasible but because the programs WOULD WORK. It's horrifying to them that a federal government program could better serve more people at lower cost and greater efficiency than private entities.
The free market starved old people and killed off sick people for centuries. The reason that most libertarians today are iconoclastic white kids is because they already have money have a status quo to maintain. The idea that we we should be concerned about each other and look after each other's basic welfare is against the basic tenets of libertarianism.
The top .5% of the population earns 10% of the income. We should increase income taxes on those faggots and pay for national health care. Fuck Ron Paul.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 0:00
>>668
The statist quo is not libertarian in any sense of the word, the reality is very simple...
First of all the free market is an organiser of economies not an economy itself, so if a free market economy is war torn and collapsed to begin with, like Japan in the late 40s, it is hardly the free market's fault that orphans get thrown out into the snow bladiblabla.
Secondly people are rich for different reasons, some are professionals like surgeons, succesful entertainers, succesful business leaders and university professors who are rich because they fill positions in the economy few others can. Of course there are playboys who inherit a few million. Then there are people who own an unnaturally huge amount of cash due to their exploitation of state intervention in the economy, the federal reserve, the EPA and our income tax system. These people earn 10s of millions of dollars through hedge funds and accountancy firms geared to taking advantage of these loopholes and they are often heavily involed in politics or a vital sector of the economy themselves to preserve the statist quo that maintains state intervention in the economy.
Rome had bread and circuses, America has welfare checks and evangelism/social initiatives. While the super-rich have to pay tax like everyone else it is token compared to the amount paid by the middle and professional classes, they detest welfare but for them it is a fair price to pay in exchange for the support from the lower classes for the loopholes in the economy they profit from.
The demographic you are talking about are young males who came from a lower-middle class background, excelled in education and quickly began earning a lot of money only to discover the statist quo set up by democraps and republicunts to appease the masses at their expense. If they were born into money and had a statist quo to maintain they would become republican but these yuppies prefer libertarianism since they wish to topple the statist quo and don't see the logic behind their social restrictions.
Bear in mind this isn't a conspiracy, there are no jews or gray aliens behind this, it is simply a bunch of super-rich assholes who set up lobbyists to push for some random bullshit some portion of the masses cares about and their little loopholes along with it.
I didn't read past the (Post truncated.) part - I just thought you should know that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 3:07
>>672
You don't have to. The fact the ideals you've been worshipping all your life are complete bullshit has enterred your mind already.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 10:45
THE NEGRO
Of all the mass imbecilities which have demoralised mankind, this of racial equality between all peoples, White, Black, Red and Yellow, is the most inane. Politically, it has already stirred up all the minor races into a state of belligerence and discontent which will impose minor wars on the dominant nations for years to come. But when it comes to racial integration between the White and Black races, sanity has descended to the looney bin of the impossible, because the intermixture of blood between those races must degrade the White race to the level of the Negro and cannot raise the Negro to the level of the White. Where today we see some evidence of the effect of education on the Negro it is the White blood in him that stirs some animation in his sluggish mental faculties, but the Negro pure, as he exists in Africa, cannot be educated even up to the standard of the lowest content of the White race. He may learn to parrot all the political and sociological clichés of today, but unless he is buttressed by the White race, and policed by it, he must relapse back to the jungle, which is his predestined habitat.
There appears to be an illusion today that this age is the first one in which the Negro has come into contact with a White civilisation, and so had a chance to benefit by its cultural and sociological ordinances. This is not the case. Since the genesis of this present civilisation some six or seven thousand years ago, the Negro has had contact with many past episodes of civilisation, but always, as each subsided, he has relapsed back to the jungle. The other three races, White, Yellow and Red, have devised their own civilisations, and have maintained them through the ages, but it is only in quite recent years that the Negro has come into relations with them. As in the past, his status has been one of slavery, because he has never been able to compete culturally with their achievements in the arts and crafts and intellectual standards. Nor can he compete today with those same achievements, because he utterly lacks the creative faculty: he has no thumbs. The only thing he ever learned to do was to smelt iron ore and hammer out his spear heads. That weapon was essential to the preservation of his existence in his tribal wars, and his food derived from wild animals able to defend themselves with teeth and claws.
Save for the Chinese, and other Asiatic peoples, all other civilisations were generated on the shores of the Mediterranean and the Negro penetration of them was very slight, except, perhaps, with the Egyptians, who were themselves a dark coloured race, but with no relation to the Negroid peoples. Only the Moors and Arabs, because of their geographical contiguity with Africa, have kept up the slave trade with Negroes, but sexual union with them was strictly prohibited. Or impossible for that matter. By a very simple clinical ritual, the Negro became a harmless guard and menial to the Harem. It is only since the colonisation of Africa by the British, Dutch, French and Belgian peoples that the Negro has become a momentous world problem within the last two decades. The British, French and Belgian peoples solved it for themselves by handing their colonies over to the Negroes. The Dutch could not do that. They had been so long in South Africa that they had built up another white race there—the Boers. And there, the world may be assured, they will remain, and the Negro will not be permitted racial equality with them. What must happen shortly between those peoples is already predestined. The only other country on which the full weight of the Negro falls is America.
And the Politician’s solution to it of race integration is a desperation measure which never can succeed, as the politicians themselves know, but at present, they dare not do anything about it, for President Johnson won the presidential campaign by handing himself over to the largest section of the community to command the vote, just as Roosevelt did to capture the presidential chair. We know that section, which is the pestilential problem of all peoples who seek to keep a sane balance of rationality in the conduct of their political and sociological affairs. In Australia, we call them Wowsers—a stigma word which Mencken incorporated in his American Language, but as yet Americans have not adopted it. A stigma word has great power.
In America the Wowser is the self-elected Dogooder—the temperance crank, the Purity Leaguer, the anti-saloon leaguer, the Comstock bookshop smasher and picture slasher; in short, that chapel product of the cheap suburbs and the rural back blocks which seeks to impose its own horrible codes and doctrines on all that makes life tolerable for well constituted humanity. They are the people who imposed Prohibition on America and very nearly wrecked the country. In Russia, they were largely responsible for the Revolution by cutting off the people’s need for liquor during the 194 war. They are the Pacifists—the peace at any pricers, the appeasers at any threat of war which thereby makes it inevitable by inviting aggression from piratically inclined nations. They are today trying to cripple Johnson’s handling of the Viet Nam war: the finest piece of statecraft since the great days of England as a world power, when half a dozen words from Lord Salisbury was enough to send Russia scuttling back from the Oxus. It is a great pleasure to know that our men are fighting with the Yanks, and that more are being trained to follow, if needed.
It is the Wowser, then, to use one stigma term for a generic type common to America, England, and Australia, who is doing all the mischief today by inflating the Negro with a state of megalomania which convinces him that he is the victim of monstrous injustice by the white peoples, and all revenges on them are his by right of martyrdom. And that revenge he will take whenever he has power to do so.
We must concede him injustice so far in that the Whites have invaded his country and taken possession of large sections of it. In the past, they made a commodity of him in the slave market. Those same Whites have now handed back to him the sections of country they had occupied and have freed him from slavery. Justice can go no further than that.
But America, swung off a sane balance of rationality by the maudlin sentimentality of the Wowsers for the assumed sad lot of the Negroes, has allowed its politicians to establish them in equal civil and social rights with the Whites. They have ordained that the white children must consort intimately with the black offspring from infancy to adolescence, and that alone insures sexual intimacy between the two races. That American mothers—always so passionately possessive over their young—should have allowed them to do such a noxious thing is evidence that they are too dazed by the bulldozing tactics of the politicians to realise its inevitable consequences. It is assumed that education will dispose of the physiological compulsions inherent in all such propinquity of the human species.
Education! This age has become besotted over its assumed potentialities to perform a universal miracle, which is that text books alone can create a civilisation. It ignores the irrefutable evidence that only a civilised mind can be educated. Education is nothing more than a procedure for exercising intellectual faculties which are a content of the mind at birth. It has taken the white race six thousand years to develop those special faculties on which all civilisations have been built. The craftsman’s fingers, the musician’s ear, the artist’s hand and eye, the scientist’s investigation of all natural phenomena are inherited from progenitors who have left behind them the brain cells, and the muscular reflexes essential to all creative effort. And it is now assumed that education, in a generation or two, will allow the wretched Negro to develop those special faculties and so allow him to compete on equal terms with the White race as a civilised being. Imbecility can go no further than such a preposterous assumption.
Already the Negro mass is in a vicious state of resentment because it has not straightway been vested in all the rights and privileges of the Whites. The Los Angeles episode is a sufficient evidence of a universal state of mind among the Negroes. And that is only the beginning of the trouble. When he finds that the higher-class whites will not consort with him on equal terms, and that there is no place for him among the trained working class, no police force in the world will be adequate to control him.
Americans are not a docile people when politicians impose arbitrary interdictions on the free conduct of their civic rights and their private lives. The politicians’ failure to inflict Prohibition on the American people is evidence of what they must expect by this proposal to impose racial integration with the Negroes on them. It only required an adjustment of the legal code to dispose of Prohibition, but no such adjustment can solve the Negro problem for them. There is only one possible solution to that, but I am not going to take it on myself to suggest it. It must be already pregnant in the minds of all higher class American thinkers today.
>>668
Government socialism is a lot like unions. They push up the cost of doing business with them and can very easily put the company their working with out of business. In fact they regularly do this.
So does socialism put a burden on the people. Why should other people suffer so that a few worthless entities who possess nothing live nice paid for lives.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 21:25
The OP of this thread is like a used car salesman trying to sell you on a shit car. It's attractive because it's cheap and seems like a quick fix to your needs. But the more rational part of your mind tells you there's a million reasons not to buy the lemon. So the salesman tries to plow though your indecision by talking and talking and talking and talking and talking until eventually words and ideas lose their meaning.
It's still a junker though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 21:54
>>677
The OP of this thread is like a plucky underdog entrepeneur trying to obtain investment for the next best thing. This is one of those flashpoint times in history because it has so much potential and solves so many problems you didn't even know existed. But the irrational part of your mind tells you because it's a new untested idea it might not work. So the entrepeneur meticulously plows though your indecisions by responding to criticism and backing up her/his arguments and being open and never ignoring legitimate arguments and applying sound science and logic until eventually remaining counter-arguments and retorts lose their validity.
>>681
But it's true. Despite the fierce criticism this forum provides, none have even scratched the infallibility of libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-19 6:25
Ok so libertarianism is indeed infallible. How are we going to educate the world about this?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 17:22
You stupid assholes. You fucking dumbshits. I know the real reason why you whine incessantly about how all libertarians are evil capitalists.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with your capitalist dystopia where workers are hosed down and tear gassed in the streets for protesting and you know this. There would be no restrictions on worker's rights to strike, right to bear arms or set up worker's councils under a libertarianism as it is about not permitting the state to interfere with people's lives. You would have every chance to set up your socialist utopia if you could get enough people to participate, but that's the problem isn't it. You know that most of the country would choose the free market economy over an economy run by "worker's councils". Your pathological hatred of libertarianism stems from the fact that it does not force the entire country to abide by your rules and you know that's the only way you can create your socialist/anarchist/communist utopia.
Uh, maybe there wouldn't be enough people to support it in America, but if you look at, for example, Latin America, it's clearly not, as is clearly observable by simply looking at the election results.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-25 20:36
>>686
Most of them don't know what socialism is and can't do anything after their promises are broken.
>>685
ANARCHY IS TOTES ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE DO THINGS!!!
This topic is fail because any political system is infallible when it's entirely hypothetical. I can't believe you fuckers keep this shit going
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 15:10
>>688
"any political system is infallible"
Wrong. For instance Anarchism ignores the fact that the state is necessary to provide law enforcement to protect liberty.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 15:53
anarchism is the absense of a political system, ergo not actually a political system itself. lose.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 20:54
>>690
There is no causal link between that and "lose".
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 23:57
>>687 I'd be able to take your argument a lot more seriously if Hugo Chávez didn't keep getting re-elected, and Brazil and Argentina and a number of other countries didn't elect far-left governments in recent years as well.
The reason Latin America's economy was in the shitter for twenty years is because the IMF was forcing its fundamentalist free-market-worship bullshit on their governments, which resulted in their markets being flooded with cheap goods from overseas where governments were allowed to offer their people healthcare and subsidise their business efforts. When they told the IMF to fuck off, started subsidising their workers, and created their own trade agreement among each other, their economies started to recover.
>>689 I don't know any anarchist who proposes that the state be stripped down to eliminate law enforcement at this point. Anarchism mandates a completely different structure of society in which actions would be undertaken consensually by that society as a whole. If a person were to commit violent crimes, he would likely be outcast from the society; on the other hand, victimless crimes would be completely eliminated, and since under many hypotheses of anarchism all property would be shared, it would be impossible for theft to become a problem in those cases.
Like I said, though, I don't know a single anarchist who proposes that be implemented in modern society; all of them I've spoken to advocate direct change from the individual level up to the top.
But you are neglecting that if someone is outcast from society they will still commit violent crimes. Also, historically when "all property would be shared, it would be impossible for theft to become a problem" ideology is implemented in modern times, it fails again and again. Case in point : communism
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 1:01
>>692 Not if they can't get into a society to commit the violent crimes in the first place.
Also, communism wasn't anarchism. The elitist and heirarchical system of government combined with the corrupt implementation of its legal system destined it to failure.
Do we put big walls around 'a society?' I really can't understand what outside of imprisonment or corporeal punishment could stop a human being from getting a weapon and doing damage with it.
True. But there are numerous other problems with the 'shared property' theory that are so obvious I don't feel the need to point out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 11:41
Walls, or posted guards, or a number of other things. There's also the matter that those who commit violent crime are either insane or desperate, and the aim of anarchism generally includes removing the causes of such people's desperation. The rest could probably be treated, though it would likely require some form of coercion to do so.
Also, I agree that shared property is highly unlikely to work out; however, it's also never actually been tried. I'm much closer to Proudhon's model of a society where property is consensually laid out between all members of a society, but honestly even most people I know who want property eliminated don't really care about things like houses and toothbrushes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 22:11
>>696
uh, native americans weren't too big on property, especially real estate but pre-columbian american cultures often had little/no concept of ownership of property.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 22:16
>>692
Since Venezuelans are only getting a token level of welfare where is the rest of the state's nationalised oil wealth going? Also while he has fulfilled some promises like prince controls and illegalising working longer than 6 hours, these are ridiculous polices that only result in empty shelves and failing industries respectively in exchange for no reduction in poverty whatsoever.
The IMF proposed economic freedom, but not personal freedom or political freedom. In order to be classified as libertarian you need all 3.
"If a person were to commit violent crimes, he would likely be outcast from the society"
This is usually, but not always, the case for 1 individual. However for a group of young men who have banded together their functional military power is too much for a community to resist. Your anarchist utopia would end there.
Take a look at the projects where there are many African Americans or Hispanic illegal immigrants where these primitive military arrangements exist and are called "gangs". Even though these gangs are willing to sacrifice much of their effectiveness for morale related purposes they have managed to exist and evade law enforcement for decades despite numerous arrests. There is no doubt in my mind that they would no longer act in a covert manner if law enforcement were to cease.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 22:23
>>697
But if someone feasted on the dried meat that they saved for the winter they would have to be punished. Also in your walled anarchtopia where everyone shares property and is kicked out for commiting crime, isn't mob rule a type of law? It wouldn't be anarchtopia if the mob ruled. Perhaps if you grabbed some indoctrinated college anarchist fanatics it might not turn into mob rule for a while, but no group is 100% perfect, a small minority will act violently, start sexually molesting children etc... and the people affected by this crime will have stronger personal feelings over this than they have for anarchism and eventually mob rule will occur and the criminal will be punished by being thrown out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 0:47
>>699
uh, that made no sense. wtf are you babbling on about?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 1:53
>>700
If you know anything about native americans you would know that they dried meat to preserve it during the winter. If someone consumed too much dried meat before the winter then it meant others would suffer, so they must have had property laws against that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 2:56
>>701
all that babbling to make a bad analogy? your logic is weak.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 23:48
>>702
It was a good analogy, you said the native americans didn't have the concept of property and I have disproven you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-01 0:00
>>704
uh, no, that's not what I said. what I said is, "they weren't too big on property, especially real estate," which is nothing like saying they didn't have the concept. learn to read fucktard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-01 1:50
>>705
Then you didn't have a point to begin with. Property is vital to the functionning of any society in which it's members are capable of being unethical and depend on definable entities other than their bodies.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-01 2:13
>>706
whatever, you're too stupid to have this conversation with.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-04 2:50
>>707
"BAAAAAWWWW"
Crying harder won't change reality. You have no choice but to give up anarchism, all marxist lines of thought and become a libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-04 3:34
If libertarians really think that corporations are more emboldened that government, please list a prominent corporation, and what legislation particularly emboldens it. I want the specific law, with the specific corporate policy that capitalized on the passing on said law.
>>710
the federal reserve was set up because the market alone fails so hard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-04 13:53
>>711
The Federal Reserve was set up as a headway for interventionism and WW1, and has been from the start an UTTER FAILURE.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-05 2:23
>>708
OHHH MARXIST OOOHHH MARXIST
You post on fucking 4chan, any flames coming from you are automatically nullified due to you living in your mom's basement and jacking off to furry porn.
If libertarianism is so fucking great, maybe I should see you with millions of dollars on television, considering your wise and enlightened political knowledge must correlate to real world success.
Libertarianism sucks, because you suck.
Libertarianism is fallible, because all the people who follow it are pretentious faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-05 2:28
>>706
Right, because I own my body, forces that are far beyond my control cannot possibly influence or even control my life.
Lolbertarians are fail. SOMEONE DELETE THIS FAGGOT SHIT
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-05 15:43
>>713
I am a bachelor of economics, completed my series 7 earlier this year and currently work as an investment consultant, I have accumulated approximately of $100000 in stock and $400000 in options. I am 26 years old.
>>714
Property is not defined as the bare minimum corporeal entity needed for your to survive, you don't need your leg to survive any more than you need your internets.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-05 18:18
>>712
Uh, no, it was set up in response to the Panic of 1907, another in a long line of financial crises in the US due in part to having no central bank. you're aparently too stupid to use wikipedia. or you're a liar. either way, you're a worthless piece of shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-06 7:17
>>716
The panic was caused by state intervention in the economy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-06 13:54
>>717
the state didn't intervene in shit back then, you are a lying sack of shit.
The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis in the United States. Its primary cause was a retraction of loans by some banks that began in New York and soon spread across the nation, leading to the closings of banks and businesses.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-06 16:24
To answer this simply, Libertarianism works because it is the belief in self regulation. If you do not like you do not have to do it. Outside of a few social contracts like, not murdering someone, not speeding, etc. Libertarianism is the core belief that if it does not work, IMMEDIATELY fix it, instead of waiting years. It is the ideal that self is first and everything else is second.
The argument that charity would not exist is false. The ideal that the poor would die, is FALSE. Why? Because there are plenty of people in this country who gain self gratitude from simply helping other people.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 10:38
>>718
The banks didn't want to compete with the new trusts that were coming onto the scene so they whined and cried to congress and the OCC to over-regulate them, the government at the time was heavily socialist with many corrupt dealings between those in positions of economic power and the state.
Also the great panic did not result in a depression that lasted a decade, the market simply buckled up, maturely took the recession and waited till stock was lower than actual value before becomming bullish. You can be thankful towards the fluidity of the free market for this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 10:43
>>719
100% correct apart from a few assumptions. It is not the idea that self is first, if that were the case it would sanction swings between tyranny and mob rule like the past 1000 years and this is not the case. Libertarianism is merely the realisation that there will always be people with power over each other and that it is preferable to have a libertarian army, libertarian police and libertarian courts who do nothing other than request funds for equipment, their services and an ordinary wage in order to defend liberty and represent the people.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 16:18
>>720
wow, your imagination is pretty fantastic. that or you're a fucking liar. either way, you're full of shit. when you have to resort to lies to make your point, you lose.
saying the lessez faire gov't of circa 1900 was socialist is like saying stalin was a warm, caring, loving person who could never do harm to another living thing. in otherwords, lies.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 19:06
>>722
Socialism is the idea that the state should have economic power beyond levying taxes for it's bureaucratic, law enforcement and military requirements.
Spoiler: People are capable of lying.
The banks involved and the OCC were working together, the banks can only be defined as an arm of the state and although America was not 100% socialist this particular arrangement indeed was.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 19:09
i think when the primary voting starts, we'll see just how fallible libertarianism is hmm....
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-07 19:48
>>724
People who don't vote libertarian are fallible.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-11 13:33
Yes libertarianism is a dream, but with one exception, it has strong objective figures like the founding fathers, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman who based their dreams on reality rather than their desires. Some say they have a sociopathic worldview, in truth they simply care more about people as a whole rather than merely pleasing the people around them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-11 15:27
>>726
Don't forget Murray Rothbard. And what's Ronald Reagan doing there?!
good job guys. in just two posts you disproved this faggot OP's whole 700+ thread.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-17 7:55
what a long-ass thread
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-17 12:41
Imagine pulling out 10 metre long thread from your ass.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-17 12:43
>>731
So you think the state should choose which dentist you go to? >>732
Assuming >>731 disproves the OP, how does >>730 disprove OP? >>730 supports a typically anarcho-capitalist policy whilst >>731 supports a typically socialist policy. Are you saying both are better than libertarianism?
There's nothing wrong with libertarianism. It's the libertarians who suck.
They're incapable of cooperation and refuse to do anything that requires more work than spamming internet boards.
Your typical libertarian (I'm talking about all kinds of anti-authoritarians here which includes the various forms of anarchism) is first and foremost an introvert.
The different views on economy result from their personal opinions on what's the best way to be left alone.
Far left wants to be mothered by the government and far right wants a solitary working environment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-21 19:35
>>745
You and I both know you are describing yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-23 6:57
Libertarianism is getting kind of popular amongst emos and rebels. I think the libfags are getting jealous.
btw, how the fuck is this thread still going? libertarians are just a bunch of anarchist dumbfucks.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-24 1:14
>>748
They are not anarchist as they recognise the fact that there will always be a power structure of some sort and that it is preferable to have a minimal representative form of government than a power vacuum which will be filled by armed gangs in less than 20 seconds. Anarchists should be on their knees behind me ready to suck my asshole apon command.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-28 17:15
No other political philosophy cares more about the economy than libertarianism. If like me your life revolves around making ends meet and getting all the things you and your family wants or obtaining the largest net worth possible to prove you are superior and live in opulent splendour, then libertarianism is for you. I think that covers about 99% of the population.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-29 4:53
If you're a libertarian, just give up on this site. You won't change any minds here. This is libfag central.
Like General Patton said, "If everyone is thinking a like, then somebody isn't thinking."
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-29 22:30
>>751
"If everyone is thinking a like, then somebody isn't thinking."
Which is why libertarians are the only political philosophy that believes no one should force their way of thinking on others, not to mention their almost fanatical fervour in protecting free speech.
It might not seem like it but they can do things under the radar. I bet everyone has broken at least 20 laws they are unaware of and the government can snap and draw you in whenever they feel like it by uncoverring a slip you made a year ago. I don't like the idea that the government can fuck with you. Is libertarianism the answer I don't know but they're right about that and they the only ones who say anything.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-30 19:13
>>751 >>752
it is "alike" not "a like" fucking morons.
also, if you're a libertarian, just give up period.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-31 1:52
>>756
YOU START SENTENCES WITH A CAPITAL LETTER YOU FUCKING MORON YOU COMPLETE RETARDED WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT YOU TOTAL FUCKING COCK SUCKING MOTHERFUCKER, YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD FUCKING KILL YOURSELF NOW YOU ENORMOUS TWAT
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-31 15:39
>>757
wow, did you come up with that on your own? it's almost creative. almost.
>>757
Jeepers, Mister! That sure is rude! I don't think your local Libertarian group organizer would approve of your behavior if I were to tell him about it!
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-01 5:22
>>758 >>759
Spoiler: I'm not really angry, I'm mocking faggots like you who go anal over 1 typo.
And so we may conclude on the libertarianism issue that IN THE REAL WORLD its about as infallible as Stalinism, so shut the fuck up with your 'philosophising' on the matter, cos it just sounds like trolling to the rest of the world...
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-23 22:09
>>767
And pray tell whence this conclusion sprang from?
All your 'beliefs' are frankly fantastical, unfalsifiably bullshit, which like socialism will only ever work IN THEORY. Libertarianism has failed (epically)- its the main cause of the abomination thats known as globalisation and has (when combined with all other Capitalist systems) caused COUNTLESS times more millions of deaths than any Commy or Nazi regime could have dreamt of acheiving.
Only difference is that libertarians, like other capitalists- won't fucking grow up and accept responsibility for what they do (and they get away with it purely because all the horrors that ensue because of them are caused "indirectly". E.g. when a poor countries economy is arse-raped due to 'libertarian' corperations and their people starve to death as a direct result libertarians simple say that starvation killed them- not their own actions).
Therefore in conclusion- yes libertarianism is NOT infallible.
Name:
The mighty Bob2008-01-24 18:49
Lol- the libatari-fags are getting owned :)
- Libertarianism: Where markets are free, but people are not.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-24 21:34
>>769
I explained earlier in this thread that libertarianism is a science not a theory, if a theory is disproved this is documented and accounted for already by libertarians. This is due to the fact that libertarians are pro free speech and as a result anything you can fathom to criticise libertarianism, criticism being always welcome, has been reviewed and analysed 50 times before. It's like a pro martial artist vs a basement dweller pretending to be a ninja.
So let us take a look at the issues you raised.
Globalisation: Why should borders impede trade? Globalisation is a good thing. Globalisation does not cause inequality, it highlights inequality that pre-existed before people came into frequent contact with each other, don't shoot the messenger. Countries don't get poorer due to globalisation, for instance poverty rapidly decreased in China over the past decade and outsourcing providing jobs to 3rd worlders that pay higher than most of their employee's pre-globalised parent's jobs.
Libertarians support a capitalist economic system.
Many deaths occurred under governments which used a capitalist economic sytem.
Libertarians are responsible for said deaths.
100% of nazis and communists believed 1+1=2
Many deaths occurred under nazi and communist governments.
The belief 1+1=2 is responsible for said deaths.
Corporations starving people to death, throwing orphans out into the snow etc..: Libertarianism is not just about economic freedom but also political and social freedom. If a government does not have enough safeguards against corruption then it is not libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-25 5:43
Fair enough then. In that case governments who claim to be libertarian (at least to an extent) need to start imposing these safe-guards, so as to diminish the problem.
Name:
The mighty Bob2008-01-25 23:04
Libertarianism simply doesn't work. When previous posters have made this point you have stated that any flaws in current government systems are simply due to libertarianism not being properly employed. By that note Communism is infallible. It would be equally valid to say that communism simply hasn't been employed properly and so in your next post I expect you to explain why communism is infallible. If you fail to do so I will be forced to assume that your line of argument (which defends libertariansim in this exact same way) is void.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 0:46
>>772
Which government are you talking about specifically? >>773 Libertarianism is inapplicable. Libertarianism began pretty much with some of the best philosophers and political scientists of the mid 18th century sitting around a table and deducing the best way to get rid of tyranny. They deemed that fear is the greatest tool of a tyrant and that it is used directly to control people, thus the greatest tool to oppose tyranny is to eliminate fear through the belief that death is preferable to a life under tyranny and to define tyranny as being the infringement of liberty. It is absurd to compare it with a fallacious ideology that failed so miserably to prevent tyranny for most of the 20th century.
That said libertarianism does have theories like communism, however most of these are untested unlike communism which has had astronomically more attention. Furthermore libertarians believe these theories should be implemented through consent via representative government and should not conflict with any safeguards against tyranny, those who do not are severely crticised due to the obviousness of their hypocracy.
Also libertarianism covers 100s of different issues so there are bound to be a few which are branded inapplicable.
There are theories which are succesful such as representative government, free speech and emancipation, however since they have have been adopted by every other succesful political body and today are taken for granted many are unaware of their basis.
There are those which have been used and are beneficial but not enough to prevent the average person from believing the fallacies and abuse of emotions used by opponents, these include the free market and individual freedoms such as the right to grow and smoke marijuana, bear arms and be a homosexual.
There are untested theories that are branded as outlandish despite their rational basis such as a market based tax system and privatising traditionally state operated services. Then there are fringe theories that do not have a clear rational basis but which some libertarians support, commonly anarcho-capitalist theories such as privatising the courts and law enforcement. These exist purely due to the pro free-speech nature of libertarianism which allows anyone to share the fruits of their intellect with the group, you are free to criticise them but it should not reflect on theories which are unrelated to them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 0:54
>>773
O haha, by "Libertarianism is inapplicable.", I meant that as the title. I am responding to the claim that libertarianism is inapplicable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 6:24
Apparently the libertarian doctrine is to cry on the intertubes until everyone is pissed off to the point they leave the country voluntarily.
There're only three types of terrorist organizations:
1. communist revolutionaries
2. Islamists
3. nationalists aka wannabe dictators
Where're all the libertarians who fight for a "better world"?
It's certain that such a radical change won't happen democratically because there are people who'd profit from a communist system, Keynesian economics, theocracy etc. and they're not going to vote for you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-26 11:48
When Libertarians (or any third party) achieve enough success at a governor/congressional level that their policies are nationally recognizable and understandable as different from the other two parties, then and only then will they have a shot at a position like the White House.
Top-down reform is like creationism: just because you want to believe in it doesn't make it plausible.
how the fuck is this thread still going? this thread = fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 2:36
Under libertarianism, with economic control going to private organisations, corporations would eventually be too powerful, crushing individual liberties and dominating the political scene as well unless a true free market could be acheived. The chances of that not working are pretty good.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 20:30
>>776
Communist revolutionaries? Islamists? Nationalists aka wannabe dictators? This is America not Somalia, context pls. Besides libertarians have George Washington, Milton Friedman, the culpepper minute men, Reagan, William Tell, the chicago boys and William Wallace are legendary libertarian figures.
A good example of someone who promises radical change in America is Barak Obama whom is making "change" his election platform. Putting aside the fact that change is ambiguous and not inherantly good for a second, but what is he changing anyway? More welfare? More taxes? How is that new? The majority don't profit from a mixed economy, it is just difficult for people to acknowledge real alternatives but with libertarians like Ron Paul getting 20%+ in the primaries more and more people are understanding the reasonning behind libertarian principles.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 20:34
Besides George Washington, Milton Friedman, the culpepper minute men, Reagan, William Tell, the chicago boys and William Wallace are legendary libertarian figures.*
bleh...
>>779
Wrong, it would take billions to bribe the hundreds of local governments in order to enact an unconstitutional law throughout the country under a libertarian system. With all crony capitalists removed competition would be so fierce companies could not afford to do anything other than suck on the cocks and clits of their employees and customers.
Fucking retards. Libertarianism is awesome if you are in the richest 10-20% of the country, yet funnily most of its supporters are retarded uneducated burger king workers who think it will be good because "they won't have to pay for the niggers' welfare".
And oh, to the idiotic drones in this thread, please lern2macroeconomy - it's sad, really.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 12:47
>>782
Sorry, we libertarians don't do macroeconomics, they're an attempt to control the free market, the only way we can have a completely free market is by having NO rules or regulations, and being completely oblivious.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 13:35
>>782
Which macroeconomics do you talk about?
Most theories support the libertarian view with Keynesianism being the only exception as it advises deregulation only when a recession is coming.
Methinks you're a communist retard who mistakes ramblings of a delusional jew with macroeconomic theory.
libertarians seem to live in this fantasy world where the US is a magical land where the free market rules and the the rest of the world doesn't matter. seriously, like all dumbass utopian dreamworlds, libertarian = fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 3:13
>>783
Ummmm.
Then there would be no distinction AT ALL between micro and macro economics.
Libertarian Laissez Faire is Strictly Micro Economics, name some of these "most theories" where libertarian microeconomics is simply extended to the macro level?
Here's a hint, it doesn't, it starts to break down and have interesting phenomena that are not totally dependent on supply/demand.
Under your theory, why does unemployment exist above the natural rate of unemployment? Why are some prices "sticky"?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 3:17
Money has to stay with the wealthy or else.
They'll cry. In some cases, for the first time ever.
unemployment exists above the natural rate of employment exists because of unions and government regulations.
The same are the reason for most sticky prices. In the free market we libertarians desire, the only thing that migth remotely cause sticky prices would be cost barriers to entering some markets, but granting we are dealing with the free market here, those effects would be diminished.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 7:46
yeah those pesky unions and regulations, enforcing minimum wages and forcing companies to find cheap labor in other countries where people will work for pennies, americans should be willing to work for pennies in order to compete
>>792
Quit whining. If your job provides the same economic benefits as some illegal immigrant you are going to get paid the same, either unionise with the illegal immigrants or go to community college.
>>794
Congrats on being a retard who didn't get a very simple post.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 12:03
>>791
This is both an incorrect use of the English language, and an unsupported fantasy.
Making the declarative statement that "unemployment exists... for x reason" is a logical fallacy. Congrats on baby's first political opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-14 10:03
>>795
So you weren't being sarcastic? >>796
He said "unemployment exists above the natural rate of employment exists because of unions and government regulations" not "unemployment exists because of unions and government regulations".
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 9:17
Even so caled socialist nations continue to slide towards libertarianism. Libertarians do not claim to see the destination they are travelling to, they merely deduce the best direction to follow. Socialists on the other hand strive for a purely theoretical utopia based on the murmurrings of a schitzophrenic in the mid 19th century, this is not very logical.
Most Western countries are becoming more and more authoritarian.
The welfare class in many Western countries has become so large that even once classical liberal and conservative parties pander to them.
>>801
Come back when you can find a reply to the countless arguments above, retard - though don't push yourself, if your masters couldn't find a legible excuse, chances are a moronic losers who gets caught on viral fads for "political thought", you can barely delude yourself.
>>34
The environment has value beyond tourism, which most people fail to recognize. Marshlands and other ecosystems can filter water basically for free, this became apparent in NYC which decided to restore land nearby rather than build water more purification systems.
Natural lands are also carbon repositories, holding in carbon rather than releasing it. Mining and farming do not hold carbon in well.
Really, if air and water can be considered international resources, than why can't animals and plants (especially the endangered kind) also be considered international resources? What gives one person the right to kill wildlife, even if it's on their land?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-21 14:16
>>799
Market forces are resolving this issue. Jobs are being outsourced, more and more R&D is done abroad, investment is haemorrhaging into asia and individuals who represent the future of innovation and technology are moving to where they won't face oppressive tax rates. 20% is just too much. >>800
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
OH WOW AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU FUCKING BRAINLESS MORON AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I CAN'T STOP HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH >>801
get troll'd moar >>802
Can you wait till 2012? >>803
be specific moar >>804
no u >>805
? >>806
Better still, turn the atmosphere into a market. People must pay someone to take the carbon out of the atmosphere that they put in. Then market forces can decide whether a marsh is better off as multi-million dollar real estate or a carbon depository.
>>807
Typical libertarian, witty, logical, just someone with a correct political opinion who knows he/she is right and isn't afraid to share it. >>808
Trollfaggot, probably some socialist who just enjoys spouting 150 year old marxist rhetoric "OMG TEH EBIL CAPITALISTS EXPLOITING WORKERS".
Newflash: It never happenned.
>>810
Typical samefag, who is extremely ignorant and takes his opinions from retarded viral fads on the internets, and then makes pathetically hilarious statments about being "correct", "witty", and "logical" - which are all, in actuality, the ramblings of a deluded retard with no connection to factuality.
Also, lol@the rest of the ignorant crap you managed to squeeze in that post.
Everyone who knows a bit about computing knows technologically RISC is superior to CISC - you probably have no idea on this subject, so take your time to google. Now, processors on almost all desktop computers use Intel, AMD etc. processors are CISC (essentially), because when the breakthrough in RISC was achieved, Intel jammed money into marketing and used monopolistic tactics, and the stupid customers who didn't know shit about computers, bought the brand they knew about from the ads.
So, how does free markets work in favor of humanity and not in favor of the guy with a shitload of cash, with reference to this example among countless, dear retards who are so eager to suck the cocks of your masters in the time you aren't busy flipping patties?
All this OMG U R TEH STUPID crap is going nowhere. We must discuss facts in a factual manner to get to the heart of this issue.
>>812
Unnecessary state intervention in the economy is what prevents a lot of competition. Even within so called monopolies there are many investors and executives who stand to profit from a spinoff since they could easilly compete with the bloated morass and make millions for themselves that would otherwise go to their superiors. This usually occurs during the bear period of the business cycle when autonomy becomes more desirable. If the state interferes with market forces by trying to resist business cycles and control the money supply then monopolies persist.
>>813
It didn't end there. Macroeconomics is not a fluid business model, if the government steps in whenever there is a problem there is no incentive for the private sector to innovate and develop foresight. The state is only needed to ensure deals and transactions are followed through lawfully.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-24 16:52
>>814
Wow, that's a really sad attempt at free-market apologetics, try again - but this time try to give an actual answer instead of crying, get to the point - mine was an example involving the company with capital surplus wins in a free market regardless of product being better, . This also goes for healthcare, but you got it 'covered' with the argument "I don't want to pay for nigger's health".
Also, way to fail on not knowing what macoreconomics is, and avoiding the point on the quoted post.
And hence, this is why "you are stupid" crap is going on, because you are too ignorant on the subjects you formulate an opinion on. Your opinions, are not products of genuine thinking, but just idle talk perpetrated by others, as described by Socrates in the Apology.
tl;dr libertarianism is a pipe dream, but unlike communism it doesn't even bother to promise a better world (except for a few), which its formulators know, but its drones don't.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-24 18:13
>>815
I am truly amazed at how stating a simple series of facts can procure the worst of demagoguery possible from you. I fail to see how business cycles do not play a role in macro economics and why only statist ideologies are the only valid macro economic doctrines. Attribute this criticism to stupidity all you want, it won't it go away.
>>816
It's funny because it involves an ignorant retard refuting a valid field of economics just because he can't fit it in his narrow view of the world.
Reminds me of creationists and the ensuing hilarity when they attempt to sound scientific while refusing it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-25 6:01
>>817
So I refuted your argument and that means I am narrow minded?
>>822
So you admit that you are a statist who believes that macroeconomics should be monopolised (much like state monopolies on roads and education) solely by the branch of socialism called Keynesian economics.
>>823
Wow, your retardation and ignorance is summed up in this post. Not only that you misunderstood what was being meant again, if you think Keynesianism is socialist, then you clearly don't even have a fucking clue on what we are talking about, and that's why we are back to the point that libertarian drones are fucking retards who just babble without having knowledge over anything, which is the reason why they are gullible enough to be carried away by viral fads and how they can easily accept such retarded ideas.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-25 20:56
>>824
Are you attempting to shit me reeses puffs for breakfast? Keynes announced clearly his belief that the state should interfere with market forces during the bear period of the business cycle in order to end unemployment. How is the belief that economic power should be in the hands of the state not a socialist belief?
Not only you don't know what socialism is, (hello, state capitalism), you also don't know what Keynesian Economics is, like I stated in the other post and you went on all the way to prove your ignorance and humiliate yourself once again. I suggest you to at least bother to google before you make such retarded statements. We are discussing the macroeconomic portion of Keynesian theories, which suggests that gold/silver capital too plays a part in a nations' wealth, which is seen as a model which re-introduces portions from the disproved notion of Mercantilism. But, before everything, this discussion is irrelevant because the point was that according to ANY valid macroeconomic theory your dim interpretation of the neo-sheep herding ideology, Libertarianism, is wrong.
See, you can't do much without knowing shit and just spouting back the bullshit that was fed to you. Good day and enjoy your fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-26 11:51
>>826
So your points are.
1: You don't know what socialism is.
2: You don't know what Keynesian Economics is.
3: Gold/silver capital plays a part in a nations' wealth.
4: According to any valid macroeconomic theory, libertarianism is wrong.
1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
2: Keynesian economics is a field which observes how macroeconomic state intervention through blanket policies, such as interest rates, affects the economy. Proponents believe they can solve problems, such as unemployment, by lowerring interest rates to promote growth. In truth all this does is upset market forces and cause people to make uneconomical decisions that reduce the overall value of the economy. The sub-prime mortgage crisis for example was caused by an extended period of low interest rates following the dot com bubble and 9/11 enacted by the socialist bush administration. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_conservative_origins_of_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis
3: Everything plays a part in the nation's wealth. Be more specific.
4: Every macroeconomic theory implies analytically that other theories are invalid. This however is not the measure of whether a theory is valid or not. One must prove that Keynesian economics is valid before it can be implied that a laissez faire approach, state intervention caused the great depression after all.
>>827
1- Whoops, no - and I had put "state capitalism" in there to make it easy for you to comprehend where you failed, but ahh... Your stupidity knows no boundaries.
2- Again, nice failure - but that part of Keynesian Economics was irrelevant as stated explicitly - but you are too retarded comprehend.
3- Yet again, a point where you expose your ignorance - please read on the subject some before making such retarded claims, that was the Keynesian approach and for example, Adam Smith had declared that gold surplus was virtually irrelevant, while it's opposing school, mercantilisim had claimed that precious metal supply was all that mattered (this particular one was disproved).
4-Ahh... I don't know where to begin, you have summed up so much fail in here.
>libertarianism is wrong
That isn't what I said, let's look
>your dim interpretation of the neo-sheep herding ideology, Libertarianism, is wrong.
see, it's YOUR FUCKING INTERPRETATION - Again, I had explicitly stated that Libertarianism would "work" but, it wouldn't work like you retarded drones think it would. Read on the fallacy of Anarcho-capitalism, libertarian is just a fancy fallacious new name for a lightened version of it, basically.
And I'm just laughing at the second part, it's funny how people who are so blatantly moronic and ignorant can claim to understand what is valid and what isn't, and it's sad that you are still trying to make an argument based on keynesianism - reminds me of "if evolushon is true, den why are there still monkies???". Please, please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, it's really sad from the perspective of people who know a thing or two. It's so fucking obvious that you are just being a dimwit parrot. But hey, I'm hoping that you are getting a thing or two among the things I'm saying, so maybe one day you'll start reading, learning and producing original thought.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-26 13:41
>>828
WAIT, WAIT HOW DID I MISS THIS
>by the socialist bush administration
OH MY GOD HOW CAN A PERSON BE SO FUCKING DIMWITTED, DISREGARD THE LAST SENTENCE YOU ARE DOOMED TO BE A RETARDED FAILURE AT LIFE, WHAT THE FUCK!? What's next, Adolf Hitler was Anarchist-Communist? I thought there was a limit to your stupidity, yet I was wrong. There is no cure for this level of retarded delusion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-28 8:13
>>828
1: You put "state capitalism" in brackets with the explanation "hello". State capitalism is itself a branch of socialism, (hello, state socialism).
2: Macroeconomics is a field, keynesian economics is a branch of that field. You were claiming that someone who denies keynesian economics also denies macroeconomics as a field.
3: Don't be a hypocrite. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=gold&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Results 1 - 10 of about 577,000,000 for gold
Read every single google result for gold then complain that I asked you to be more specific. For someone as omnipotent as you it should be easy.
As for how gold should be used in an economy, this should be left to market forces.
4: But libertarianism will work, I addressed the problems put forward earlier in this thread.
"if evolushon is true, den why are there still monkies???"
This is called a false dilemma. It assumes that species do not branch off. Can you point out where I made such a logical fallacy? Under a libertarianism people are entitled to their opinion, even if it is a logical fallacy. Libertarians believe if you are correct you should be able to persuade others and there is no need to persecute people for their beliefs. Why does this make you angry?
>>830
If by "answered" you mean ignored contradicting evidence and cried a lot, exposing your ignorance again and again on this subject, proving that you did not have the knowledge required to have an opinion on the subject of economics, then yes. Again, as exemplified in your "points" 1, 3 and your hilariously retarded classification of bush administration as socialist, I'm sorry but you are really stupid even among your fellow libertarians.
But also, your problems are not limited only to your lack of knowledge, as you reveled yet again in point two, you lack significant reading comprehension as well, probably related to your severe retardation. The point was, your retarded interperetation was wrong NOT ONLY ACCORDING TO KEYNESIANISM BUT ACCORDING TO EVERY FUCKING SCIENTIFICALLY VALID THEORY AVAILABLE. I do not share Keynes's views on economics, but in your deluded and retarded drooling you missed that too. What kind of horrid education did you receive to end up being like this?
Libertarians of course believe in being entitled to fallacious opinions, else they would have to shut up. There is evidence showing you are wrong but you are too stupid and ignorant to comprehend it, hence why you are still repeating the same things again and again and again without being able to refute a single factual argument I have provided, only making more and more false statements and showing you don't know shit. It has surpassed the level of "sad" and is bordering "pathetic" now.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-28 16:33
>>831
Bush is a left wing socialist by my standards. If I were to list my disagreements with his domestic policies it would consist mainly of excessive taxation and unnecessary regulation all in the name of benefitting the people. That said many republicans themsleves are suprised to hear themselves being called socialist even though they agree with me on the same points. Semantics? Or perhaps I am the only one willing to use that dirty word? You decide.
Since you are quoting nothing specific about my argument all I can say in my defense is that I have shown nothing but a well informed knowledge of macroeconomics and the bizarrely popular keynesian branch of that field. I have proven libertarian macroeconomic principles to be infallible. When you are ready to discuss them I will be lurking.
Perhaps you could repeat any factual arguments I missed. Do not include any more irrelevant personal attacks. I know how strongly you feel about being proven wrong but this is the internet, I am currently being insulted on /b/ for saying the LHC will not lead to the end of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-28 20:46
Anyone who believes that regulations hurt the corporations today and that the government is the enemy of corporate control is just completely wrong. The state is completely bought off, so I'd rather just live with less regulations and taxations since they never do what they're supposed to anyway.
People have this idea that libertarians are anarchists. We're not all about total deregulation and regressing to the Articles of Confederation. Not at all, we start with the Constitution, meaning, there certainly needs to be a federal power to do a couple things here and there, but not the welfarefest that is today. Theres a reason to fear of big government.
It's not just a matter of free market vs. regulation, there are many implications to each, and many middle grounds in between as well. Most is up to debate but it almost always depends on what market we're talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-29 11:50
>>832
>Bush is a left wing socialist by my standards.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOUR STANDARDS MEAN NOTHING, YOU ARE A RETARD WHO KNOWS NOTHING AND MAKES SUCH RIDICULOUSLY RETARDED STATEMENTS YOU FUCKING MORON, And then you go on and claim making "factual statements". You are REALLY retarded, it isn't a "personal attack", it's a fucking fact, even among libertarians there aren't people so fucking ignorant about anything related to economics to say this stuff, anything you say has no value because all you say is bullshit with no factual connections. For the facts you cry about, see my posts which you couldn't reply. Enjoy your low IQ and perpetual failure at life
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-29 11:51
>>833
Yeah, the state is bought off by faggots so they don't obey the law, let's make it weaker so they will obey it out of pity! oh wait...
I'll go on to sum up on how I wasted my time with this pathetically retarded moron who is so stupid that he thinks George fucking Bush is socialist, let's see.
>>812
An example of free market failing was provided. The reply was an irrelevant "less state control needed", which is hilariously ironic, as the subject was about a corporation monopolizing. The retard couldn't refute this, as it is hard to do it with facts, and his ignorance and retardation didn't help him much either.
The rest was a debaucle about macroeconomics. The fact that all valid macroeconomic theories. The retard first tried to ignore it, then probably google-searched, and thought Keynesian economics opposed his retarded view, and everything else agreed. Then he cited some irrelevant info about Keynesian economics which was not at all related to the field of discussion, which further proved his ignorance as he simply didn't know what was being talked about. After FINALLY getting that other valid theories too failed him, he simply kept crying and told "I proved it infallible", and then said state-capitalism and bush was socialist.
This debate proves one thing. If a retard believes one thing, he will defend it to death, if facts are presented against him, he'll just ignore it, keep crying, and say "I disproved it", while no actual information was given. This is a sad example of "Idle talk" Socrates describes, which leads to his death in the apology. Basically, someone makes up bullshit, and tells it to the retard. The retard, unlike the one who made it up, does not know it to be a lie, and does not have the capacity to judge whether something is true or not, so he repeats what he is being told with a fervor, believing it to be a fact because he doesn't have the intellectual background to think otherwise.
so, everything about economies and ideologies is actually taxes = COMMIE no taxes = LIBERTARYAN huh? If that is what you understand, really you should just shut up.
>>836
We get it, he doesn't know economy and you're so smart - what, do you get off on showing off your INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE skills? you are as much of a faggot for dragging it on for your e-penis, it only proves your time is just as worthless - enjoy your fail.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-01 10:23
>>836
actually had some win there, above you can see some butthurt people whining
>>836 OAH WAO. It's true that too many "Libertarians" are just Free-Market Fundamentalists. They never listen to facts or reason ... they just want to get the government off the backs of the corporations in their stock portfolios.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-01 11:49
How can we make this even more clear...
People, the government is NOT here to PROTECT YOU from corporations and oligopolies. YOU are to defend YOURSELF from it if you wish to. Do it in the community, in the courts, but don't go taxing and regulating every one and making it an even harder market to get into.
The corporations don't give a fuck about regulations, period. They have an army of lawyers ready to circumvent anything the FDA or EPA throws at them, plus the whole system can be bought off anyway.
If you don't like monopolies, don't expect ANY type of government to abolish them for you. Because believe me, all they'll do is create an illusion that they're doing so. And if anything, regulations even help monopolies since it gets harder for small companies to comply with all the FDA garbage.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-01 13:02
>>842
the government is there to do what i god damn please.
You whine about crony/state capitalism (a branch of socialism) a lot but completely miss out the state's role in the equation.
A small state is not weaker, it is less corrupt. It means instead of endless regulation it focuses all it's attention on actually enforcing justice. Instead of the bureaucratic morass we have now I want a slick, tight knit, efficient government, more like a law enforcement agency, with all the nation's media focussed directly apon it leaving no room for error let alone corruption. All those "EVIL KKKKOORPORATION$" you complain about will find that they can no longer worm their way into loopholes and bribe up an obscure politician bestowed with power over billions of $s worth of the economy. Also, yes, tax will be much lower.
>>834
>THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOUR STANDARDS MEAN NOTHING, YOU ARE A RETARD WHO KNOWS NOTHING AND MAKES SUCH RIDICULOUSLY RETARDED STATEMENTS YOU FUCKING MORON >>836
>The reply was an irrelevant "less state control needed", which is hilariously ironic, as the subject was about a corporation monopolizing. >>841
>they just want to get the government off the backs of the corporations in their stock portfolios.
These quotes outline the typical faults in common thinking, the direct result of the enormous attention society pays to the doctrine of a mixed economy. It is time to think outside the box. I explained earlier clearly how state control allows monopolies to exist yet this was never addressed, there is no longer any escape from this argument. Ignoring it again and sending another barrage of personal attacks will only result in me concisely dissecting your argument and disproving you for all to see. If you do provide a counter-argument it will of course be addressed as always. Keep firing away. Criticism is a good thing. It's why free speech is beneficial and should be allowed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-03 17:00
>>851
And he had said your criticism was worthless because you didn't know anything, and you are still thinking STATE = KOMMUNIZM NO STATE= LIBERTARYAN, which proves it. Of course you are entitled to your right of speech, but that doesn't add any value to your opinion.
Also, "LET'S THINK AWSTAYD DA BOX I DUN WANNA PAY TAXES" isn't a valid argument, sorry. You simply don't have the knowledge to participate in such a discussion.
>Ignoring it again and sending another barrage of personal attacks will only result in me concisely dissecting your argument and disproving you for all to see
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The only thing you have disproved is the notion that you were an intelligent person. Come back when you can retort to ANY of the arguments instead of saying BAWWW EVERYONE IS COMMUNIST EVEN THOUGH EVERY FUCKING ECONOMIST AND ECONOMIC THEORY DISAGREES WITH ME, LOOK I DON'T LIEK BUSH AND I DON'T LIEK KOMMIES SO BUSH IS SOCIALIST!!! SEE HOW SMART I R!??? I'LL DISPROVE YOUR ARGUMENTS IF YOU MAKE ME BUTTHURT AGAIN!
it's the crypto-jewish-communists that infiltrate everywhere and publish fake science and economic theories. Only that man saw the truth out of their baby-eating schemes, faggot.
I consider 2+2=5, because I'm different, you should think outside the box - just because I am an uneducated retard with absolutely no knowledge that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to me, why are you ignoring me?
>>859
Apparently, everything about economics boils down to the size of the state, according to libertarians, as exemplified by them hilariously classifying state capitalism as fucking socialist, even though it contradicts with the definition and I chuckle every time I remember there is an organism in this planet that classified Bush as socialist due to his butthurt retardation - but you can't expect him to know about the definition, when his brain can only accommodate a single bit of binary data - STATE or !STATE. Sad, really...
>The only thing you have disproved is the notion that you were an intelligent person.
No causal link provided.
>Come back when you can retort to ANY of the arguments instead of saying BAWWW EVERYONE IS COMMUNIST EVEN THOUGH EVERY FUCKING ECONOMIST AND ECONOMIC THEORY DISAGREES WITH ME, LOOK I DON'T LIEK BUSH AND I DON'T LIEK KOMMIES SO BUSH IS SOCIALIST!!!
I explained earlier clearly how state control allows monopolies to exist yet this was never addressed.
>and I chuckle every time I remember there is an organism in this planet that classified Bush as socialist due to his butthurt retardation
No attempt to refute my claim.
>- but you can't expect him to know about the definition, when his brain can only accommodate a single bit of binary data - STATE or !STATE. Sad, really...
From >>827
1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 23:36
>>858
I did not say that unconformist beliefs are always right, I said that conformist beliefs are not always right. >>859
When the state interferes with the economy in matters which are not related to enforcing justice then it is using a socialist policy. >>860
I believe there should be a state, just not a state capitalism or state socialism. Bush is less socialist than Barak Obama but he still supports socialist policies. >>861
I voted for Alan Keyes, he supports socialist policies but that's not all I care about. I also care about true American values and freedom. Heard of them?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 14:31
LOL why am I so right about everything?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 15:14
>>862
>No attempt to refute my claim.
LOOK KIDS, THE BUTTHURT RETARD STILL CLAIMS BUSH IS SOCIALIST
ITT: Extreme retardation, which is apparent to everyone, but one. It's sad, really. I'm sorry I won't be bothered to waste my time like these other retards with someone so full of bullshit that he claims George W. Bush is socialist, along with everything else because he read it in a retarded blog or something, with a stupid definition not even a mother could love.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 15:33
You seem to be calling any policy that is not anarchistic in nature socialist. If you want to take that line of reasoning everyone is socialist. EVERY SINGLE PERSON. EVEN YOU!
>>867
It's funny because according to this idiot's definition, Anarchist Communism isn't socialist, but State Capitalism is. Is this how they teach American kids to think these days? Bifurcated thought at its finest.
UR ALL RONG, THIS MAN IS RIGHT BECAUSE HE IS NON-COMFORMISST, FUCK EVIDENCE!! SCIENCE AND EECONOMICS ARE LIES OF JEWISH COMMUNISTS, INTELLIGENCE AND EDUKAYSHUN ARE OVERRATED, GO GO FREE MARKET RAPE! BUSH IS COMMUNIST, PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!ONEONE!
Bush is communist? I KNEW IT - That was why they named those places red states after all...
Seriously, though, this discussion is too stupid even by /n/ standards, which is pretty much as low as it gets.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 9:43
>>865 >>866 >>868 >>869 >>870 >>871 >>872 >>874
My definition of socialism encompasses all forms of unnecessary state intervention in the economy in the name of "the people", when you are ready to explain why this is wrong go right ahead.
You find this assertion absurd only because it is not popular and when I point this out you believe that this is my only argument in favour of it. Well it isn't, I already explained the reasonning behind it.
From >>827
1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
And my criticism is valid.
From >>863
I did not say that unconformist beliefs are always right, I said that conformist beliefs are not always right.
So there you have both facts in the same post. Can you ignore them both? Let's see what you can come up with now.
>>875
So I see that Bush is still communist, and anarchist communists are still actually capitalists.
>facts
there are no facts, there is only your retarded belief, which is caused by your extreme ignorance. Enjoy believing in ridiculous things against every possible intelligent explanation and definition, and being so stupid that you think the shitty definition you made which contradicts with what it is, makes something a fact.
This is how retarded libertarians think, if you had proper education, you wouldn't have butthurt American things thinking socialism is STAAAYT, and then making his "own" definition, which contradicts with everything else, but he simply doesn't have the intelligence or the knowledge to see how fucking stupid this is, and keeps repeating the same bullshit, crying about how his illogical, retarded beliefs with no connection to factuality is "right". Very, very sad.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 14:44
Socialism means the government does things first and foremost for the people. Sometimes this damages the economy, that is, the rich-man's economy. Working people are net beneficiaries. In a democratic system, socialism should be the common-sense result of political decision-making. However, in the USA, socialism is little understood by the population and is the subject of massive corporate propaganda, seeking to convince people that if the government passes laws and adjusts budgets to benefit working people, it will HURT rather than HELP them. That so many people fall for this propaganda is a fine testament to the power of the joint corporate-state propaganda system in the US.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 14:47
>>880
Even still, that is irrelevant from the discussion. Even if you think socialism is something "bad", thinking George W. Bush is socialist is simply retarded, there is no other way to spin it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 14:48
Socialism operates from the perspective of business on the labor side. That is, unlike other forms of capital (machinery, etc) labor is a living human being. Therefore, being that, laborers more than likely expect to be treated like one. And not as machinery programmed to do certain tasks.It's a very simple philosophy, and could be easily understood by just about anyone.
From an economic perspective, capitalism, when operated freely is destructive to our resources neccesary to survive. Because, well, no other species on the planet needs money to survive but humans. Sure, capitalism produces things that we need; clothes, food, cars, houses, etc... but it produces so many things that we DON'T need and really DON'T want like banks and law firms and media oligopies. Not to mention so much else.
You can't eat money, you can't breath or drink money, you can't use money as a house or shelter, money can't educate you or find you a lover. In fact, there are few things that money can do. I find it extraordinary that it was ever considered a determination of value in the first place!!
I'm a different person, George Bush is a fascist. The socialism thing I thought was relevant because a socialist would say that, whilst the reduction in the power of the state (a libertarian goal) might be a long-term aim, in the short to mid-term, the state can provide a vast array of services and policy choices that benefit a large majority of people.
>>891
Yep, socialists are stupid, I mean look at this grotesque exposure of ignorance about everything related to economics and politics, with no connection to factuality at all, making artificial claims which is ridiculous to everyone possessing a brain, but since they are so fucking stupid, they think their uneducated opinions are actually facts, like in >>875 or >>862 or >>832
>>893
By the way, samefaggotry is obvious, because there can't be two people retarded enough to think that in the same place, in the same century - that would result in the universe imploding.
If Bush, the most fascist faggot ruling a civilized country is socialist then I guess we in Finland should have achieved communist utopia or something.
...you say stuff like that, and then cry about why we think all Americans are fat and stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-10 11:13
If you socialist kiddies can stop jumping up and down and screaming for one second perhaps you would be able to entertain the fact that there are many government institutions, like the federal reserve, which have an enormous influence over the economy but are very distant from control by voters. Much of the status quo is already state socialist and a significant proportion of the economy, not involved with law enforcement, is planned.
>>898
Again, the retard still keeps on about his ignorant misconception, where he thinks STAAAYT means socialist, despite being shown countless times as wrong, where the only reply he could make was WELL ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION IT IS SO, yet unfortunately, we aren't discussing abstract art, so that's invalid. Enjoy your binary brain, which registers every capitalist state in the universe as socialist or communist or whatever.
...and in almost a hundred posts, retardation hasn't gone down a pint. I am impressed by the abilities of libertarians in expressing opinions even though they don't know anything about the subject, and after that ignoring contradicting evidence... Which draws horrendous parallels with creationist retards indeed.
>>904
-BUSH IS SOCIALIST
-no, retard
-BAWWW PERSONAL ATTACK, HE IS SOCIALIST BECAUSE MY DEFINITION OF SOCIALIST IS LIKE THAT
-your definition is wrong, and is exclusive to you because you are an uneducated idiot.
-I HAVE DISPROVED YOU
>>905
No, if you can IMAGINE it is correct - there are no wrong ideas, you don't need to know anything, everyone should formulate ideas on nuclear physics, economics or computer science. We need your imagination, or more likely spoon-fed ideas, and if you make a definition which contradicts with everything else, what you said must be true, because... well, that's how we do it.
Libertarian way of "thinking" funnily fits the caricatures of American liberals.
>>904
so by that, you mean thinking everything about economics is STAYT and !STAYT, and therefore classifying even fucking bush as socialist (which, by the way, is the most ridiculous idea I have EVER encountered, even on the internets), despite, well everything states that you're wrong, and then you think you "disproved" things - then enjoy your willful ignorance, in addition to the aforementioned stupidity.
>>905 >>906 >>908
The thing is I haven't said anything absurd.
From >>827
1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
That's the definition I used, there is nothing wrong with it. Bush advocates numerous state controls over the economy in the name of helping the people he represents.
1+1=2
Discuss this when you are ready.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 11:56
Socialists see 'the people' as the mass of the population. So, while Bush may intervene in the economy, it isn't socialist, because he is doing it for the benefit of an elite group within society, rather than people in general. Sorry if I am feeding a troll, it can be hard to tell when the topic of socialism comes up.
>>910
Well, after hundreds of times of being told your definition was arbitrary and wrong in countless ways, it seems you still aren't getting it. Apparently your lack of knowledge stems from your lack of comprehension. Etatism =/= socialism.
Now, let's look at your stupid definition, which is held only by your retarded ass for a reason;
Socialism is statist
Bush is statist
therefore Bush is socialist
This, is a formal fallacy. You don't fail only in economics, politics, and common sense, but at simple logic too. Face this when you're ready.
>>911
If he's a troll, then he's an epic one - but I believe this to be a genuine retard.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 21:22
>>911
Corruption is an inevitable part of any political, social or economic system so judging systems by how they would work in a perfect world is ridiculous. The belief that things beyond the social contract should be decided collectively is the definition of socialism, in theory this is utilitarian but in practice it allows "George Bush"es to maintain and expand crony capitalism. Granted this does not apply to welfare, but it does apply to the federal reserve, regulations that lie outside law enforcement, heavy and overly complex regulation of the finance industry which resembles Qin dynasty China's legalist doctrine and an equally bizarre tax system with little logical basis.
>>912
You have made an error called the strawman fallacy.
My argument is not
Socialism is statist
Bush is statist
therefore Bush is socialist
If I gave you an apple and asked you to prove it is an apple and you said "it looks and tastes like an apple" I could just as easily say
"LOL OMG RETARD BUUUH
THE OBJECT IS APPLE-LIKE
APPLES ARE APPLE-LIKE
THE OBJECT IS AN APPLE
HAHA DUMBASS"
but it would not prove anything since there is a causal link. Since the object has all the properties of an apple then it is an apple. Bush supports policies involving the economy and not involving law enforcement and he believes he is representing the collective interests of the American people. Of course Bush does not believe the entire economy should be run collectively, but how many decisions does someone believe need to be made collectively before they are a socialist?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 23:20
After reading almost 900 posts of arguments that seem to go around in circles, I honestly don't see any major benefits switching to Libertarian governmental system to make it worthwhile. Libertarianism seems to rely on the belief that the free market can do no wrong so no regulation is necessary, also everyone who works for the government is fundamentally corrupt while among the fine chaps of business world corruption would be almost unheard of in world of libertarianism.
They say the purpose of a government in a world of libertarianism would be only to protect its people, but I'm curious about how an government with virtually no power would go about doing that being that everything is privatized such as the police force. I don't see why not even go as far as to privatized the military, as how I understand things a military force control by the government by libertarian standards would be army of corrupt madmen, so it would be better to trust things like military to businesses and just have the whole US military be composed of mercenaries.
While I like some of the points of libertarianism, an purely libertarian government doesn't seem like it would be a change for the better. Why don't we just cut to the chase and give everyone guns, leather clothes, and motorcycles, and just live Mad Max style with roving gangs making the laws of the land.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 0:02
>>913
That isn't the definition of socialism. Socialism would define the type of social contract, taking into account certain common goals, such as the pursuit of a free, equal society. So, take Rousseau's social contract. He talks about a general will, meaning, there are certain things everyone wants, and if they don't, they just don't know it yet and need a leader to slap some sense into them. Whilst the stuff about the leader isn't socialist, the idea of a general will has some resonance in socialist ideology. For example, socialists believe people are equal, and that under fair, equitable circumstances, everyone can succeed at something. That we would like a society in which everyone is free to exercise their full potential is surely something everyone believes in (well, you'd hope). Er it's hard to explain but there is something beyond the material that links all humans together and it can be the basis for the creation of a cooperative, progressive, productive society and this is like the general will. Sort of. No one is destined to be a failure, etc. So yeah I think you're misunderstanding socialism, because there is more to it than just the role of the state, it's the motivations behind the use of the state. So, a socialist might criticise Bush for using the state as an instrument to further the aims of what you called 'crony capitalism'. Not because he is intervening in the economy, disrupting its natural flow (a lot of mystic garbage in right-libertarian thought, imo), but because he is doing it for the benefit of an elite group, like what has been called the bourgeoisie. Republicans and democrats alike meddle with the economy, but never for the interests of the working man. A social democrat might intervene in it to even out the natural consequences of private accumulation of wealth. A socialist would intervene to drastically alter it in favour of the working class. An American democrat or republican will meddle in it to further benefit their important constituency, the uber-elite.
>>913
Your argument is exactly that, you have repeatedly claimed socialism was etatism, which is plain and simple wrong. The fact that you think like that was proved by you representing state capitalism and bush as socialist, and your fallacious definition - what you have repeated now only serves to confirm it, but you are too stupid to realize again. Your definition of socialism is wrong, not only that, but you tried to confirm your fallacy in a pathetic way, I guess again due to your ignorance. It is more like, apple is red, apple is a fruit, therefore bricks are fruits due to them being red. What was repeatedly told here was that you did not understand what socialism is (and before, that you didn't understand macroeconomics, all which you could only respond with various patters of ignoring evidence and crying). I have said this several times now, but really, this is pathetic.
>>920
if you hadn't said it, no one would have given a fuck, but hey, thanks a lot faggot, now we'll have another hundred posts by a retard claiming hitler was communist and several other idiots seriously replying to it.
>>924
Yeh, that's right -- blame that >>920 fucker. Now this thread will be resurrected once 999GET happens. Look forward to MOAR months of this festering shit. Blame yourselves for tempting a demon. Don't taunt Happy Fun Ball! How many times have you turds been schooled on that, anyway? HOW! MANY! TIMES!
That's all I've got to say on the matter (at least until 999GET, that is).
I've laughed hard and long at all the resistance that Libertarianism has received on this fagboard. A lot of people are afraid of the base design of the American Republic.
So, we've got to get to 1000GET, folks, so I can restart this thread. Only 63 more entries to go. DO IT.
>>935
Yeah, like BAWWWWWWWWWWWW BUSH IS COMMUNIST BAWWW THAT IS MY RETARDED DEFINITION SO IT MUST BE TRUE BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, yeah, real intelligent these libertarians are...
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-19 18:30
Calling people you don't like communist is so 80's.
Now you should call them muslim.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-19 21:59
I think that obama and hi pastor only showed how racist he was and other I quote "niggers" as i believe they call themselves nowadays.Also how we supposed "white people" put the black man down
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-19 22:23
We must reserve the right to bomb niggers
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-19 22:30
I would advise you all to read the novel Sphere by Michael Crichton. Or rather, here's the ending. Everyone must stop thinking about giant squids. Everyone must stop thinking about how their thoughts create things. Everyone must stop about thinking. Stop thinking about thinking. Once everyone stops thinking at once, the threat is no longer present. Or is it? No, it's not. Now stop. On the count of three. One. Two. Three.
>>944
Awesome iz RITE! One moar poast ahcheevd. An dats 945GET, me brudder! FIDDY FOAR MOAR!
Keep bumping this thread, shitsauce. You're only helping me. And if you don't? Fuck, I'll BUMP IT MYSELF. So my plan will still work. You're POWERLESS to stop me. I'm going to WIN, and that's a WINNY kind of WIN ... a WINFUL WIN, a WINNING WIN, a WINSOME WIN.
I am too powerful for you. You cannot succeed. And why is that? Because fucking Libertarianism is fucking infallible.
>>945
We have established that libertarianism is as infallible as Bush is communist.
Also, OH MY GOD, DID I BUMP IT!?? DID I MAKE ANOTHER POST!?? I DIDN'T REALIZE IT ONE BIT, I GUESS THE REFERENCE ABOUT NO ONE GIVING A SHIT, AND THE "HEY LOOK ONE MORE POST" WAS REFERRING TO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
FIDDY TU MOAR! I'm pwning you jerkoffs all over this bitch.
And Libertarianism's infallibility has a self-contained truth that has no connection to the Emperor. People should be allowed to do their own thing without constantly resorting to using the power of government. People like to harp on the monopoly issue, but in fact those monopolies depend upon government itself to secure their positions. One of the root causes is how government tries to secure property "rights" to an extent that far exceeds what one many ought to own. If a man can't defend his property -- much less work it -- he should not "own" such an expanse. Government allows such huge accumulations of wealth to be centralized under the power of ONE MAN. Kill that government protection process, then you kill those concentrations of power, hence you kill those monopolies. The man who dares to build too big will lose control of his own creation, which is natural and right -- as power will spread along with a slumping pile of resources, and more people will naturally take up those resources and put them to use as they deem fit.
Libertarianism is the great missing element in the US today. All the worthless jellyspines are afraid of what it means. It means great liberty for all, and then a natural limit is reached for all. No kings, no serfs ... any who fall into those categories will merit their standing. The kings would only be able to use persuasion, since any of his bodyguards would be able to kill him otherwise. And the serfs would only have themselves to blame for their slavery, since they could just leave the area and seize excess resources for themselves.
It'll all work out -- in the world that Libertarianism can build. Sure, a few eggs would break at first in order to serve up so many delicious omelets, but those will all be eggs that deserve to break as the system changes.
(Now I've so severely scared all you yuppie pieces of shit, that you're busily copying this posting to report@homelandsecurity.gov. You sick fucks really can't do anything for yourselves, can you? You need Big Daddy Government to come along and rape you for at least half your wealth, just to fund it to make sure people like me don't live in your heavily-mortgaged neighborhoods.)
>>950 lrn2read Once you get Big Daddy Government to STOP protecting the properties of wealthy men, those men will have to stop RULING their fellow men (under the auspices of state-sponsored violence) and will have to start PERSUADING them. The king-serf trend will be become anemic.
P.S. FOARTEE ATE MOAR. I'm restartin' this bitch like a muthafucka.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-23 3:30
>>951
lol what state sponsored violence? The last time people were hosed down in the streets was the 60s and that was during a time when Communism was a real threat, so it was understandable.
>>952
The violence the state will perform on your behalf when you use the courts and police to secure your excessive rights to far more property than you should own. The implied use of force is still force, dipshit.
All law is secured through the use of force, or its implication. Such force can be considered violence. At any rate, it's an intimidation against your natural right to seize assets that you can personally control.
No wonder you post anonymously. You're so stupid or uneducated that you must sense the embarrassment you're liable for, in spouting off your childish nonsense.
RedCream, You really are starting to sound like some butthurt lib whose pissed off because he doesn't have as much as his neighbor.
You're sounding very anti-private property.
We used to have a minimum of government with focused regulations that could at least address this great problem. But we exchanged that for a HUGE government that does ZERO regulation of the excesses of wealth.
If my neighbor first wants to have more than I do, he should not demand that the government realign all social policy to support what he does to get that wealth. In short, we should not run the society only for the rich. If you keep that up, civil war is the only result.
P.S. THURDEE NYN MOAR.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-23 15:43
>>959
That doesn't mean anything. At least >>958 identified a character flaw instead of just going "FAGIT" and thus was more funny. In b4 insult as cliched as "retard alert" or "cry harder".
>>961
Retarded organism butthurt over the exposure of the quality he thought he hid so well, and then resorted to make the inanely stupid post comparing two equally stupid posts and claiming one was better because it "identified a character flaw", but ironically that identification was completely wrong, and the latter was correct. Sad but true, now you may presume your activities of crying, possibly harder.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-23 18:11
>>963
Can you come up with something more witty against >>959?
Most people don't really get libertarianism. It's because a libertarian can be a total commie, committed to equality, democracy, popular ownership of the means of production etc, just like a libertarian can be a money-loving, super-capitalist with loads of crazy money-making schemes up their sleeve. The term, by itself, doesn't mean much. You have to justify your libertarianism by referring to what kind of social and economic organisation you believe is best for peaceful, productive living.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-28 6:20
>>40
You either dont know what libertarianism is or youre being sarcastic I cant tell.
The main argument posited thus far has been "How does libertarianism help the helpless?", if it has been communicated in a random anarchic manner. For a start libertarianism believes justice is the preservation of liberty and must be enforced, this covers those who are truly helpless such as children. The able bodied will just have to work. BAAAWWW
Well there is the definition of liberty, some view private ownership as a restriction of their liberty with all the evil factory owners exploiting workers as they often cite word for word straight from "das kapital". In truth people obtain enormous wealth usually by exploiting loopholes in the state, whether you call it crony capitalism or state socialism the political institutions in place are always the same, those which force dubious and unnecessary state intervention in the economy.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2008-04-04 2:24Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies. You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-12 13:38
There are no democracies, just republics. The Internet makes it possible for the first time to have a democracy, one person - one vote, no limitations on age or felon or whatever. No need for governments at all, we are not all sheep and need shepherds.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2010-12-12 13:38Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies. You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2012-05-12 15:04
In capitalism nothing is regulated.
Therefore nothing is guaranteed.
Therefore nothing is earned.
Therefore nothing involves merit.
Therefore nothing is fair.
Name:
Over 1000 Thread2012-05-12 15:04Over 1000
This thread has over 1000 replies. You can't reply anymore.