Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Why is libertarianism so infallible?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-04 7:05 ID:qJENOkNb

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: Anonymous 2007-08-16 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.

Name: RedCream 2007-08-16 4:58 ID:65qedYqL

>>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.

Name: RedCream 2007-08-16 5:14 ID:65qedYqL

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: Anonymous 2007-08-16 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.

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-16 9:28 ID:Heaven

this is the gayest thread

Name: RedCream 2007-08-16 9:54 ID:LnHe37JG

>>405
What, too many words for you?  Go get the fucking Cliff's Notes on it, then.

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-16 10:04 ID:Heaven

Italics make me cool!

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-16 10:14 ID:rS/NXepY

    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.

404 Name: Anonymous : 2007-08-16 07:25 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.

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.

407 Name: Anonymous : 2007-08-16 10:04 ID:Heaven

    Italics make me cool!

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-16 19:05 ID:OosEDhWY

http://freedomkeys.com/medigraph3.jpg

Fuck government "help" and "solutions"

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-17 2:36 ID:xQgPIfdZ

>>409
Uh... wow? Could you pick a worse site?

They're trying to sell some weird electrotherapy to remove wrinkles, for fuck's sake. Quack, quack, quack!

Name: RedCream 2007-08-17 3:39 ID:48kjt1Or

>>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: Anonymous 2007-08-17 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: Anonymous 2007-08-17 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: Anonymous 2007-08-17 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: Anonymous 2007-08-20 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: Anonymous 2007-08-21 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.

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-21 15:45 ID:itpO9+lI

>>7
I hate the FDA, the FAA, and the EPA.


Why? Because they don't work. Forced wealth redistribution doesn't work.

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-21 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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 1:06 ID:HKREH2/V

>>415
Actually, R&D costs basically nothing compared to marketing and government lobbying.

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-22 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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 13:11 ID:gIIJvNdT

>>422
yeah, because the only alternative to a free market is communism. -__-

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-22 15:07 ID:ZShKsRtL

>>423
Yes.
?

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-22 18:24 ID:gIIJvNdT

>>424
mercantilism, protectionism, corporatism?

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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 20:25 ID:J0JDnTd4

this thread is just like Ron Paul's supporters.  Obese, intellectually lazy and hollow at the core.

Name: RedCream 2007-08-22 22:19 ID:LenUkXh4

>>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: Anonymous 2007-08-22 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: Anonymous 2007-08-23 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

Name: Anonymous 2007-08-23 6:15 ID:nEJ97gib

>>425
Communism, communism, communism.

>>425, >>426

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: Anonymous 2007-08-23 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: Anonymous 2007-08-24 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: Anonymous 2007-08-24 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.

Name: RedCream 2007-08-24 11:30 ID:KRPWn9QX

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: Anonymous 2007-08-24 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.

Name: RedCream 2007-08-24 11:38 ID:KRPWn9QX

>>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: Anonymous 2007-08-24 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: Anonymous 2007-08-24 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: Anonymous 2007-08-25 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.

Newer Posts