Why libertarianism FAILS.

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why libertarianism FAILS.

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

 

The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Semantics for the fail.

Semantics for the fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What if it is

EXC wrote:

What if it is genetically engineered or given fertilizer, pesticides, etc..? What if I cook it with other stuff or juice it? What is carrot cake?

I'll go one further... i'll claim that the modern banana is an artificial food, decades of selective breeding, gene-manipulation, controlled environments...

they resemble nothing like that of a natural banana

 

EXC wrote:

Give me a criterion as to why? Why do companies market "natural" gummy bears?

The ingredients would be a good start... secondly the process needed in order to create such a food... and the fact that the food needs to be created in the first place... is a good indicator...   And some comical lawsuits could come about if "natural" gummybears are marketed

 

EXC wrote:

They add high fructose corn syrup and call it natural. Why is that natural?

I dont consider it to be natural... but what the world governments allows of food producers is out of my reach... for now...

What Would Kharn Do?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because it's easy..

Because it's easy..

Artificial:

contrived by art rather than nature; "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial ...artificially formal; "that artificial humility that her husband hated"; "contrived coyness"; "a stilted letter of acknowledgment"; "when people try to correct their speech they develop a stilted pronunciation" not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnMan-made; of artifice; False, misleading; Unnaturalen.wiktionary.org/wiki/artificial

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC, Have I been a

EXC,

Have I been a self-serving bastard? Yes.

Can self-serving bastards work towards a common goal? Not according to you because you don't believe anyone can work towards a common goal. See, that would mean there would be a desire to help others which you don't believe exost because we're all self-serving bastards.

Wouldn't having a common goal be socialist in your eyes?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:I'll

The Doomed Soul wrote:
I'll go one further... i'll claim that the modern banana is an artificial food, decades of selective breeding, gene-manipulation, controlled environments...

Eeehh, we've been breeding numerous animals and crops for hundreds or even thousands of years. Recently, we've begun to genetically modify them. If this makes the banana "artificial," then much if not most of what you eat is going to be articificial.

Edit: Woot! I can make intelligent comments when we're not talking about politics.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:The

butterbattle wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:
I'll go one further... i'll claim that the modern banana is an artificial food, decades of selective breeding, gene-manipulation, controlled environments...

Eeehh, we've been breeding numerous animals and crops for hundreds or even thousands of years. Recently, we've begun to genetically modify them. If this makes the banana "artificial," then much if not most of what you eat is going to be articificial.

Edit: Woot! I can make intelligent comments when we're not talking about politics.

If Iyou take "artificial" as man imposing his will on something then yes, I have no problem with saying GM/GE/mutant food is artificial.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Regardless of this, all of you still have cholera.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:CC, Vaset and

EXC wrote:

CC, Vaset and Eloise,

I want to understand how you think. I have a problem for you I'd like to see what your solution would be:

 

Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?

First I'd find out as much as I could about the kind of bears that lived in the area, in particular:

1. What comprises the bears food supply, what shape it is currently in and what factors would interfere with it being available in the future.

2. To what diseases are the bears susceptible, how are they transmitted/caused, how are they treated and how might they be initially prevented.

From there I would take the approach which made the most sense in light of the details.

 for example : If ensuring the bears food supply meant a need to reduce competition in the area, relocating or even eradicating a competing species that threatened the bears habitat, then I would do that. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Ridiculous..

Calling Somalia libertarian is like calling North Korea "tourist friendly." Silly at best...

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


esandy49
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
You're confusing Libertarians with Anarchists

Libertarian Anarchists get more pub, but really are intelectually irrelevant.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Because it's

Vastet wrote:
Because it's easy.. Artificial: contrived by art rather than nature; "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial ...artificially formal; "that artificial humility that her husband hated"; "contrived coyness"; "a stilted letter of acknowledgment"; "when people try to correct their speech they develop a stilted pronunciation" not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnMan-made; of artifice; False, misleading; Unnaturalen.wiktionary.org/wiki/artificial

What's strange is that gadfly is arguing that a 'natural' economic and social system is inferior to an 'artificial' one. While with food and other things 'natural' things, it usually implies superior quality.

Bears will die of hunger and disease because they live in a natural environment. While a socialist 'artificial' environment for humans could possible allow us to live without these problems. But I still don't see how this is the case.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Maybe a new analogy will

Maybe a new analogy will help. Think of a company that distributes shares to its employees. There are a few of them. These employees are doubly motivated over the standard minimum wage worker, because part of their income is dependant upon the success of the company, while the rest just details showing up and following the job description. The more successful the company is, the more bonus' the shareholders receive.
Throw in more shares for more and more valuable work. ie: 1 share for delivering newspapers or working fast food, 2 shares for cops and doctors, 3 shares for educators and administrators. If you teach and you are a doctor, and are active in both professions, then you get 5 shares.
Now replace company with country, and employee with citizen, and you have the basics of the socialism I'd like to see.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Can

jcgadfly wrote:

Can self-serving bastards work towards a common goal? Not according to you because you don't believe anyone can work towards a common goal.

 

Working at times toward a common goal is an intermediate step to work toward one's ultimate own 'selfish' goals. It's like in Survivor, they only give the money to one person, so everyone is working for themselves. But you have to go through the intermediate stages of cooperation with your competitors to get to that point.

All economic transactions are between "selfish bastards", but they still take place even though both parties are only interested in what they can get out of it.

But actually selfish and unselfish have no real meaning if everyone one is selfish and every action is selfish right. Words like 'selfish', 'coward', 'compassionate' really have no meaning other than tools to get people to conform the goals of the group or others.

jcgadfly wrote:

See, that would mean there would be a desire to help others which you don't believe exost because we're all self-serving bastards.

 

But by appearing to be compassionate and helping others, one can achieve our selfish goals. Plus helping others can feel good. But if you do something to feel good, how is that not still selfish? That's why socialism is so popular, one can appear compassionate and convince yourself you're compassionate. But it's without sacrifice, it's other people's money. So it's like a free drug.

jcgadfly wrote:

Wouldn't having a common goal be socialist in your eyes?

What is a corporation with a group of shareholders? What is the Republican party? Seems like they have a common goal.

It seems that socialism as it's proposed is just wealth redistribution, punishing success and rewarding failure in the marketplace. I'm a proponent of a form of social cooperation and social contracts that allows us to share the earth's resources. I think the other forms of socialism fail to acknowledge that we're all self- interested bastards at our core. They try to basically shame people into not being this way. But they will fail because they ignore the reality of human nature.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:First I'd find

Eloise wrote:

First I'd find out as much as I could about the kind of bears that lived in the area, in particular:

1. What comprises the bears food supply, what shape it is currently in and what factors would interfere with it being available in the future.

2. To what diseases are the bears susceptible, how are they transmitted/caused, how are they treated and how might they be initially prevented.

From there I would take the approach which made the most sense in light of the details.

 for example : If ensuring the bears food supply meant a need to reduce competition in the area, relocating or even eradicating a competing species that threatened the bears habitat, then I would do that. 

So you fix these problems and in a few years you have a lot more hungry cubs, the bears crowding out other species, then what?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Maybe a new

Vastet wrote:
Maybe a new analogy will help. Think of a company that distributes shares to its employees. There are a few of them. These employees are doubly motivated over the standard minimum wage worker., because part of their income is dependant upon the success of the company, while the rest just details showing up and following the job description. The more successful the company is, the more bonus' the shareholders receive. Throw in more shares for more and more valuable work. ie: 1 share for delivering newspapers or working fast food, 2 shares for cops and doctors, 3 shares for educators and administrators. If you teach and you are a doctor, and are active in both professions, then you get 5 shares. Now replace company with country, and employee with citizen, and you have the basics of the socialism I'd like to see.

I disagree because fear is a great motivator. With minimum wage and guaranteed healthcare, food and housing, the fear of death is gone or is equal among all employees. So once the fear is removed, there is a giant step function, the motivation is not double for double the income. The only motivation is luxury items. Also, you can't can't provide for the low without taking from those at the high end(that's why we have progressive income tax) which reduces their motivation even more.

The other thing socialist don't get is that nature puts a premium on conserving energy(mental and physical). So being lazy often pays off, so people will become content with doing the minimum to get by because you guarantee their survival and right to breed. Look at all the busy professionals, they have no time or energy for a social life or family.

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Malhalla wrote:Calling

Malhalla wrote:

Calling Somalia libertarian is like calling North Korea "tourist friendly." Silly at best...

I know. If you went to Somalia and tried to set up a business, the warlords would come with their armed men and tell you that you have to pay for their protection services whether you want to or not. How is that any different than the tax collectors that come around under socialism?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:First

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

First I'd find out as much as I could about the kind of bears that lived in the area, in particular:

1. What comprises the bears food supply, what shape it is currently in and what factors would interfere with it being available in the future.

2. To what diseases are the bears susceptible, how are they transmitted/caused, how are they treated and how might they be initially prevented.

From there I would take the approach which made the most sense in light of the details.

 for example : If ensuring the bears food supply meant a need to reduce competition in the area, relocating or even eradicating a competing species that threatened the bears habitat, then I would do that. 

So you fix these problems and in a few years you have a lot more hungry cubs, the bears crowding out other species, then what?

 

HUH? What kind of bait and switch bullshit is this, EXC?

Who says my method of protecting the bears in their environment will cause their population to explode and become unsustainable?

Who says I haven't already considered unsustainable numbers and factors that might cause that to happen within the framework of my initial plan as a threat to the species?

Who says I haven't already successfully prevented overpopulation?

You?

So you can move the goal posts and pretend it's a relevant point made against taking care of people?

Weak.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I disagree because fear is

"I disagree because fear is a great motivator. With minimum wage and guaranteed healthcare, food and housing, the fear of death is gone or is equal among all employees."

Fear is there as much as it is in our societies. No work = exile = probable death. The exact same conditions as today, without government handouts for people to avoid death if they don't work. Therefore the fear is greater and more real. Therefore the motivation is triple that of our societies.

"Also, you can't can't provide for the low without taking from those at the high end(that's why we have progressive income tax) which reduces their motivation even more."

I was going to ask how you think doling out shares to employees is taking from the high and giving to the low when it struck me that your response will crack open capitalism once and for all: It already happens. Employees are paid. That is by definition taking from the rich and giving to the poor. So what you want is a return to slavery, where the rich do what they like to everyone

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
and hoard all the resources

and hoard all the resources to themselves.

"The other thing socialist don't get is that nature puts a premium on conserving energy(mental and physical). So being lazy often pays off, so people will become content with doing the minimum to get by because you guarantee their survival and right to breed. Look at all the busy professionals, they have no time or energy for a social life or family."

Funny how capitalists don't get that this happens in capitalism. People get peanuts for work, so they have no motivation to work harder. It's natural. When work and work quality improves, income remains the same. Whereas socialism rewards more work and better quality of work. That doesn't mean everyone will want to, but it provides at least threefold more motivation than capitalism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Who says my

Eloise wrote:

Who says my method of protecting the bears in their environment will cause their population to explode and become unsustainable?

Who says I haven't already considered unsustainable numbers and factors that might cause that to happen within the framework of my initial plan as a threat to the species?

Who says I haven't already successfully prevented overpopulation?

How then?

You haven't explained how you keep the bears population from exploding. Please explain this then. So far you've only done things which make sure the bears don't go hungry and they don't die of disease. Doing only this will cause their population to explode until the put more pressure on the food supply and environment.

 

Eloise wrote:

So you can move the goal posts and pretend it's a relevant point made against taking care of people?

Weak.

Bears are our evolutionary cousins, so many of the same laws of biology that apply to bears must apply to humans. Sure there are differences, but to defend a socialist position, you need to explain exactly how we are different. Science tells us that if you supply food and medical treatment to bears, their population will soon grow to put more pressure on the environment. Just tell us how humans and how the socialist system you want doesn't have the same problem.

Getting angry at me for asking the question doesn't help your cause. How is a socialist system for humans going to produce better results than a socialist system for bears?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Funny how

Vastet wrote:

Funny how capitalists don't get that this happens in capitalism.

 

In some cases when monopolies are allowed.

Vastet wrote:

People get peanuts for work, so they have no motivation to work harder. It's natural.

 

And how does minimum wage law in combination with progressive income tax help the situation? With minimum wage you have enough to survive and little incentive to try to make more.

Vastet wrote:

When work and work quality improves, income remains the same.

And people need a motive to work more with more quality. Progressive income tax is a disincentive. A fine on more work and efficiency. We fine traffic violators and criminals to discourage this behavior. So why do so many socialist seem to have no problem with progressive income tax? Tax inefficiency and usage of government services and natural resources instead.

 

Vastet wrote:

Whereas socialism rewards more work and better quality of work.

Through minimum wage requirements and progressive income tax??? It's a reward for low job skills and a penalty on quality work.

Vastet wrote:

That doesn't mean everyone will want to, but it provides at least threefold more motivation than capitalism.

I'm in Alice in wonderland. What motivation does minimum wage and progressive income tax provide?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And how does minimum wage

"And how does minimum wage law in combination with progressive income tax help the situation? With minimum wage you have enough to survive and little incentive to try to make more."

Socialism would abolish taxes, as there is no need for it when the nation makes profit instead of small groups within the nation.

Intriguingly, that covers your entire response.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Socialism

Vastet wrote:
Socialism would abolish taxes, as there is no need for it when the nation makes profit instead of small groups within the nation.

 

Mind explaining how it can pay for all these free government services like healthcare? Why then do these socialist models like Denmark have extremely high progressive income and profit tax and VAT sales taxes. Do you agree that governments only source of revenue should be user fees for government provided services and resource usage?

Vastet wrote:
Intriguingly, that covers your entire response.

No you don't explain how you get the money to take care of those in need while still motivating people to work and pull themselves out of poverty.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC,I think I see your

EXC,

I think I see your problem. You believe America has a progressive income tax system. It doesn't.

The top pays next to nothing, the bottom pays next to nothing. Guess where it goes? Guys like me.

Of course, since you seem to speak as one at the top, I'm not sure what your problem is.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:Who

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Who says my method of protecting the bears in their environment will cause their population to explode and become unsustainable?

Who says I haven't already considered unsustainable numbers and factors that might cause that to happen within the framework of my initial plan as a threat to the species?

Who says I haven't already successfully prevented overpopulation?

How then?

You haven't explained how you keep the bears population from exploding.

You didn't ask me to explain how I would stop the bear population exploding.

You asked me what would be my plan if I was "given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease".

You've made no valid points here EXC, it's just one big informal fallacy exposing your piss weak argument.

 

EXC wrote:

Please explain this then. So far you've only done things which make sure the bears don't go hungry and they don't die of disease.

And if overpopulation makes the "cubs go hungry" then preventing overpopulation is mandated. Isn't it.

 

EXC wrote:

Doing only this will cause their population to explode until the put more pressure on the food supply and environment.

No, EXC.

You're just trying to put words into my mouth for me.

Fail.

 

EXC wrote:

Bears are our evolutionary cousins, so many of the same laws of biology that apply to bears must apply to humans.

I answered this point on the previous page. The logistic growth equation is not a biological law that we must abide by no matter what. It's just a differential model of how a highly extrapolated population will behave given a few parameters.

We are not bound to it.  It doesn't represent the entire system. It doesn't even necessarily represent any of the system at all.

 

EXC wrote:

Sure there are differences, but to defend a socialist position, you need to explain exactly how we are different.

No, you need to explain how you suddenly know that the assumptions of population growth models are absolutely and unquestionably the final authority on real world populations.

EXC wrote:

Science tells us that if you supply food and medical treatment to bears, their population will soon grow to put more pressure on the environment.

But I never said I was going to "supply food and medical treatment" to the bear population.

EXC wrote:

 

Getting angry at me for asking the question doesn't help your cause.

I'm not angry, EXC. But I am getting a bit sick of the crap.

EXC wrote:

How is a socialist system for humans going to produce better results than a socialist system for bears?

You don't know the answer to that because your idea of a socialist system is a Straw Man, and you are stubbornly unwilling to let go of him.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Mind explaining how it can

"Mind explaining how it can pay for all these free government services like healthcare?"

Again with your strawmen. How is healthcare free?
It would pay for it easily. It runs all business, remember? Application of supply and demand at a greater efficiency.

"Why then do these socialist models like Denmark have extremely high progressive income and profit tax and VAT sales taxes."

Denmark is capitalist, in case you forgot. They simply have more socialist programs within that capitalism than you have in yours.

"Do you agree that governments only source of revenue should be user fees for government provided services and resource usage?"

Bingo. And when the government provides all services, it has plenty of income to provide them.

"No you don't explain how you get the money to take care of those in need while still motivating people to work and pull themselves out of poverty."

Actually I did. You just either can't comprehend it or are unwilling to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Since you are otherwise

Since you are otherwise intelligent, I must assume the latter. Work or gtfo = motivation. If work, then no poverty. It's really quite simple.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:You didn't ask

Eloise wrote:

You didn't ask me to explain how I would stop the bear population exploding.

You asked me what would be my plan if I was "given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease".

You've made no valid points here EXC, it's just one big informal fallacy exposing your piss weak argument.

You're angry because I'm pointing out a flaw in the system. You can't prevent bears from being hungry and dieing of curable diseases without either a population explosion or some form of birth control you force on the bears. So your strategy is attack the questioner rather than answer the critics.

The scientific method is you answer the critics with evidence, with a logical plan. How do socialists ever hope to implement a socialist utopia if you don't answer the critics and only attack them for asking a question.

 

Eloise wrote:

And if overpopulation makes the "cubs go hungry" then preventing overpopulation is mandated. Isn't it.

So then how is this done for bears? How would this be done in a socialist utopia for humans?

Eloise wrote:

No, EXC.

You're just trying to put words into my mouth for me.

Fail.

OK then you have a plan to prevent overpopulation what is it?

Eloise wrote:

I answered this point on the previous page. The logistic growth equation is not a biological law that we must abide by no matter what. It's just a differential model of how a highly extrapolated population will behave given a few parameters.

We are not bound to it.  It doesn't represent the entire system. It doesn't even necessarily represent any of the system at all.

When has there ever been a species that did not increase in population until the environment could not sustain more members? Can scientists demonstrate this in an experiment so we could see this and not just take your word for it? What are the circumstances under which a species would not populate until lack of food and other resources prevented further growth? How is this transferable to humans?

Eloise wrote:
 

No, you need to explain how you suddenly know that the assumptions of population growth models are absolutely and unquestionably the final authority on real world populations.

You're proposing a different economic/social system be implemented that would be a socialist utopia where no one would ever go hungry or suffer from curable diseases, right? So, you should follow a scientific method. First do this experiment with mice, then if successful move on to higher animals such as dogs, bears, monkeys. Then if successful do the experiment with humans on a small scale first.

The fact is, these fantasies of a socialist or communist utopia without mandatory birth control just are fantasies. That's why we rarely see groups of people like yourself going off and starting this utopia in small colonies. And when they do, they are colossal failures.

 

Eloise wrote:
 

But I never said I was going to "supply food and medical treatment" to the bear population.

Then how do you prevent any bear from going hungry or dieing of a disease as they've been doing for millions of years in the wild? 

Eloise wrote:
 

You don't know the answer to that because your idea of a socialist system is a Straw Man, and you are stubbornly unwilling to let go of him.

You don't explain how it works. All I know is that if someone is hungry or needs healthcare, the government will supply it unconditionally and there is no mandatory birth control. What else is there? What does your system do that is doesn't just cause overpopulation and promote laziness, education in areas the economy does not need and inefficiencies? It seems nothing is mandatory in your system except taking away income from the rich. Where am I wrong?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: "Do you agree

Vastet wrote:
"Do you agree that governments only source of revenue should be user fees for government provided services and resource usage?" Bingo.

 

OK then, the financing of the Canadian health care system is wrong, because it depends on income tax and not a user fee, right?

Vastet wrote:
And when the government provides all services, it has plenty of income to provide them. "No you don't explain how you get the money to take care of those in need while still motivating people to work and pull themselves out of poverty." Actually I did. You just either can't comprehend it or are unwilling to.

Basically you tell people just show up for work at a low skill minimum wage job, and you get quality health care, food and shelter, right? So to survive and support as many kids as I want to have, all I got to do is get out of bed in the morning.

And you don't explain how you support the low skill people with out taking from the rest of society. So you're just doing wealth redistribution, no matter how you try to mask it.

 

Vastet wrote:
Since you are otherwise intelligent, I must assume the latter. Work or gtfo = motivation. If work, then no poverty. It's really quite simple.

OK then, so if you don't work then healthcare, food stamps, housing can no longer be supplied by the government? Fear for one's survival is still a motivator? So then ClockCat is wrong when stating that healthcare must be a human right? And Canada should let some people die for lack of medical treatment if they've refused to work or get training?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"OK then, the financing of

"OK then, the financing of the Canadian health care system is wrong, because it depends on income tax and not a user fee, right?"

The whole capitalist framework is wrong. Socialist healthcare is a bandaid. The system itself needs to change. But until it happens, I observe ways to protect people from the excesses of capitalism. Healthcare is such a method. It is cheaper than the alternative solution per person by half. It caters to everyone without risk of bankruptcy to the individual or the group or the nation. It raises the overall quality of life. And a healthier society is a more productive one.

"Basically you tell people just show up for work at a low skill minimum wage job, and you get quality health care, food and shelter, right?"

Basically.

"So to survive and support as many kids as I want to have, all I got to do is get out of bed in the morning."

Not exactly, you have to get out of bed and have a job. And long before that, you'll have gone to school. Where you'll have figured out what you want

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
to do and what you're good

to do and what you're good at. Some of your work you might choose for yourself completely, other work you'll choose from what is available and necessary, based at least partially on your capabilities and work effort.

"And you don't explain how you support the low skill people with out taking from the rest of society. So you're just doing wealth redistribution, no matter how you try to mask it."

So you think the average minimum wage worker doesn't accomplish enough to support themselves. You'd like to see them all enslaved, living in shacks and caves with no ammenities. Fighting for food and water while the rich throw scraps to see what happens.

"OK then, so if you don't work then healthcare, food stamps, housing can no longer be supplied by the government?"

You don't work and you're on your own. Though I wouldn't prevent charitable actions by the members of society. Maybe someone will feel sorry for you and give you some money or a room to stay.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Fear for one's survival is

"Fear for one's survival is still a motivator?"

Yes.

"So then ClockCat is wrong when stating that healthcare must be a human right? And Canada should let some people die for lack of medical treatment if they've refused to work or get training?"

I'm not ClockCat. And you are also attempting to mix the issue. Canada isn't a socialist country, it's a capitalist one. And as I previously mentioned why I back healthcare a number of times already, I don't see the need to do so again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:You

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

You didn't ask me to explain how I would stop the bear population exploding.

You asked me what would be my plan if I was "given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease".

You've made no valid points here EXC, it's just one big informal fallacy exposing your piss weak argument.

You're angry because I'm pointing out a flaw in the system.

You're insufferable because you can't see, after five or six posts, you haven't pointed out anything except that your own position is so weak you can't make a straight argument for it.

EXC wrote:

You can't prevent bears from being hungry and dieing of curable diseases without either a population explosion or some form of birth control you force on the bears.

I suppose since these are your hypothetical bears, they'll do what you imagine them to do.

EXC wrote:

So your strategy is attack the questioner rather than answer the critics.

Where have I attacked you? I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your argument for what it is, so damn weak and shallow that you have to move the goal posts and throw red herrings repeatedly to make it sound worth even saying.

You're the one using ad hominem, seeing as though I've answered all your questions and shown this ridiculous pretend debate far more respect than it ever deserved already.

EXC wrote:

The scientific method is you answer the critics with evidence, with a logical plan.

WTF.

Just a few things to say about that:

1. We're not talking science here EXC, we're talking politics. (The scientific method? What the hell? )

2. I have answered every single question you've asked about Socialism, and in every answer demonstrated a logical plan, which you, obviously, must have ignored or you wouldn't feel the need to ask for it. 

3. You brought science into this with the argument that since the solution curve of the logistic equation rises sharply toward K, Biological law (sic) dictates that all species will overpopulate given the chance. I have corrected your science mistake and that's as scientific as I'm going to bother getting on the matter. Ya dig?

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And if overpopulation makes the "cubs go hungry" then preventing overpopulation is mandated. Isn't it.

So then how is this done for bears? How would this be done in a socialist utopia for humans?

I'm no expert on Bears, EXC, and moreover, as I said before, these are your hypothetical bears, no matter what I say you'll just move the goal posts again, right?

At any rate, this isn't even about bears at all, it's about humans and overpopulation, that's the direct question you're trying to ask without directly asking, since you've already asked the direct question and I've already answered it and you'd rather not admit that you're asking the same question over and ignoring a perfectly valid answer, already given, to which you have no reply. (page 3 post# 132)

 

EXC wrote:

You're proposing a different economic/social system be implemented that would be a socialist utopia where no one would ever go hungry or suffer from curable diseases, right? So, you should follow a scientific method. First do this experiment with mice, then if successful move on to higher animals such as dogs, bears, monkeys. Then if successful do the experiment with humans on a small scale first.

WHat ARE YOu ON ExC? ! ?

We should test our political and economic theories on Mice now?

This just proves how utterly irrational your right wing prejudice truly is, don't you think?  Do you even hear yourself?

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:
 

But I never said I was going to "supply food and medical treatment" to the bear population.

Then how do you prevent any bear from going hungry or dieing of a disease as they've been doing for millions of years in the wild? 

There could be innumerable ways of doing this that did not include direct supply of food and medical benefit, but these are your bears and Oh look you moved the goalposts again - it was prevent them dying of curable diseases, now it's just dying of diseases.

The only real answer to your question is as I have been saying all along. Population growth models are generally built on simplistic assumptions. This is not because biologists are simplistic, but because the dynamics of interacting populations are enormously complex. You can't generalise how to protect all species of organisms, you need to know the particular species that you want to protect, and your plan needs to be particular to that species.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:
 

You don't know the answer to that because your idea of a socialist system is a Straw Man, and you are stubbornly unwilling to let go of him.

You don't explain how it works. All I know is that if someone is hungry or needs healthcare, the government will supply it unconditionally and there is no mandatory birth control. What else is there?

You've been told innumerable times what else there is, and you are just being obstinate pretending that you haven't.

EXC wrote:

What does your system do that is doesn't just cause overpopulation and promote laziness, education in areas the economy does not need and inefficiencies?

I've answered these questions too.

Socialism does not "promote laziness", this has been methodologically investigated, fear is a bullshit motivator and capitalists are wrong to assume that they have the monopoly on motivational systems. Did you even read the abstracts of the papers i linked?*

Socialism is not inefficient, (this argument was debunked in 1930 FFS where's your head at EXC?) All of the countries currently enjoying socially provided services attest to it's efficiency, as has been pointed out to you at least a thousand times in the last three months.

And as for "education in areas the economy does not need" What does that even mean?

 

*ASIDE: this fear of other people being lazy is just a sad hypocritical control issue, aren't you supposed to be arguing for libertarianism? For free will? Why do all the so-called libertarians feel such a need to impose their personal standards on everyone else, why do you need a system that controls others with fear and how can you call your self libertarian when you do? You're actually advocating a dictatorship, the demands for control over everyone else are just hidden behind the socially acceptable prejudices and bigotries of the times, as is done in dictatorships.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:And you don't

EXC wrote:

And you don't explain how you support the low skill people with out taking from the rest of society.

 

Gotcha Covered EXC!

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/425/american-excess.html

Wall Street Trader Tell-all

Philipp Meyer wrote:

So while derivatives, and the financial industry more broadly, had started out serving industry, by the late 1990s the situation had reversed. The Market had become a near-religious force in our culture; industry, society, and politicians all bowed down to it.

It was pretty clear what The Market didn’t like. It didn’t like being closely watched. It didn’t like rules that governed its behaviour. It didn’t like goods produced in First-World countries or workers who made high wages, with the notable exception of financial sector employees. 

Philipp Meyer wrote:

My first job out of Cornell was on the trading floor at UBS. So when news would hit the wire about an American company closing a domestic factory, I felt a good deal of conflict as I watched the company’s stock price go up as a result. Those sorts of factory closings had ruined my neighbourhood, my city, and many of the people I’d grown up with. I was not alone in this feeling, but there were not many of us, either. One of my British friends from the training programme, who later became a currency trader, once told me: “I mean Christ, mate, every time they close a factory in Wales the goddamn market goes up. The whole system’s a little fucked, don’t you think?” And of course it was.

Philipp Meyer wrote:

We tended to look down on chains like Morton’s and Ruth’s Chris-they were for car dealers or stock brokers, not traders. Regardless of where we ate, we ate in quantity. My standard strategy was to order half a dozen appetisers, plus a steak and lobster, plus a few desserts and much wine as I could drink, as long it was under a few hundred dollars a bottle. Followed by a digestif, typically a 30-year-old port. There’s not any way to justify this except to say I was trying to catch up to my colleagues. We would treat those restaurants like Roman vomitoriums. And it wasn’t the food so much as the wine. Being a junior employee, I couldn’t really order bottles that cost more than a few hundred dollars, but the senior guys could get nicer stuff - Opus One, Chateau Latour. As long as we were out with a client, the bank paid. I remember being stunned the first time I saw a dinner bill for ten grand. But that was just the beginning.

What it boiled down to was austerity for everyone else and rampant consumption for ourselves. I never saw anyone literally set fire to money, but I did drink most of a bottle of 1983 Margaux ($2,000).

The mornings after, with our thousand-dollar hangovers, my colleagues in corporate finance would set up deals and make a few hundred factory workers redundant. I helped build derivatives that funnelled income to offshore holding companies so rich people and big corporations didn’t have to pay taxes. We had lawyers on retainer in the Cayman Islands and Jersey – a quick phone call and it was all set, no more taxes. My guilt from doing this became so intense that on a whim I once went to a protest against the World Bank. I got sprayed with a little pepper gas and it felt good.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:WTF.Just a few

Eloise wrote:

WTF.

Just a few things to say about that:

1. We're not talking science here EXC, we're talking politics. (The scientific method? What the hell? )

You are the one that trotted out an equation that is somehow supposed to convince me that overpopulation is not a problem. That is science and you are the one trying to use science to defend you position that Socialism will work. So I want to see an experiment where the animals are given all the food they want and cured of disease but not given birth control where the population does not explode and the animals do not become dependent on the providers.

Since we're not talking science, why are you trotting out an equation that is supposed to convince people that overpopulation is not a problem under your socialist utopia? And where is the verification of this population growth model?

Eloise wrote:

3. You brought science into this with the argument that since the solution curve of the logistic equation rises sharply toward K, Biological law (sic) dictates that all species will overpopulate given the chance. I have corrected your science mistake and that's as scientific as I'm going to bother getting on the matter. Ya dig?

 

Where's the experimental results then that verify your version of socialism does not produce overpopulation and dependency? There is none so we can all assume your science is BS. If you give mice unconditional food and healthcare, you have a population growth. This is such common sense the experiment is not even worth doing.

What the hell does your socialism do except guarantee entitlements for doing nothing? There is no point in debating you unless you spell out exactly what you do.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

WTF.

Just a few things to say about that:

1. We're not talking science here EXC, we're talking politics. (The scientific method? What the hell? )

You are the one that trotted out an equation that is somehow supposed to convince me that overpopulation is not a problem. That is science and you are the one trying to use science to defend you position that Socialism will work. So I want to see an experiment where the animals are given all the food they want and cured of disease but not given birth control where the population does not explode and the animals do not become dependent on the providers.

Since we're not talking science, why are you trotting out an equation that is supposed to convince people that overpopulation is not a problem under your socialist utopia? And where is the verification of this population growth model?

Que? I did what now?

Lets just get this cleared up right now EXC. You are the one who attempted to use science to defend your position.

namely:

EXC wrote:

Even if this goal could be met, the laws of biology tell us that any species including humans will multiply until a lack of resources is the limiting factor,

Now either you are referring to the Logistic growth equation here or you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about and shouldn't have brought it up at all.

 

EXC wrote:

Where's the experimental results then that verify your version of socialism does not produce overpopulation and dependency? There is none so we can all assume your science is BS.

You're confused, EXC. I am under no obligation to provide you any scientific data on anything, you are yet to demonstrate that you even understand the science of this allegation you are levelling against socialism.

EXC wrote:

If you give mice unconditional food and healthcare, you have a population growth. This is such common sense the experiment is not even worth doing.

And yet Human populations in these same circumstances decay. It's not so cut and dried as you'd wish it to be.

EXC wrote:

What the hell does your socialism do except guarantee entitlements for doing nothing? There is no point in debating you unless you spell out exactly what you do.

Oh you are an infuriatingly obtuse person sometimes EXC. I have spelled out exactly what the Socialist model I subscribe to is in no less than 5 threads debating you already. Don't be such a damn liar.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I really would have

Wow, I really would have liked to get involved in this thread, but it would take me a day to read it. I guess I'll just have to stay a Libertarian and love it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Wow, I really

Big E wrote:

Wow, I really would have liked to get involved in this thread, but it would take me a day to read it. I guess I'll just have to stay a Libertarian and love it.

Feel free to start a new one. Eye-wink
But be warned, it could easily get bigger than this. Some of the previous political topics have been twice as long, and usually only end when enough people vanish for a period of time long enough to bury the topic. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Where's the experimental

"Where's the experimental results then that verify your version of socialism does not produce overpopulation and dependency?"

Show me your studies that say an educated (comparable to highschool graduation in North America) and healthy human population has uncontrolled growth.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eeehh,

butterbattle wrote:

Eeehh, we've been breeding numerous animals and crops for hundreds or even thousands of years. Recently, we've begun to genetically modify them. If this makes the banana "artificial," then much if not most of what you eat is going to be articificial.

Welcome to Doomy's Theory of Artificial Evolution...

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Show me your

Vastet wrote:
Show me your studies that say an educated (comparable to highschool graduation in North America) and healthy human population has uncontrolled growth.

But I've never seen a version of socialism that requires one to get an education and to get an education in a field that is in demand. If someone doesn't want to make the effort to study, you can just get minimum wage with healthcare and subsidies and get by with having a many kids as one can conceive. And if you get an education you just go into a higher tax bracket. And the leftist don't want to improve schools with competition and privatization. So the schools suck because of teacher's unions and no private vouchers.

So socialism is rewarding a low education and punishing a high education. If this is not your version of socialism, it seems your biggest enemy should be leftist that promote this and not the conservatives and capitalists you seem to hate so much.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Oh you are an

Eloise wrote:

Oh you are an infuriatingly obtuse person sometimes EXC. I have spelled out exactly what the Socialist model I subscribe to is in no less than 5 threads debating you already. Don't be such a damn liar.

What have you spelled out? Just make everyone have pretty much the same wealth. Take away the incentives to work hard, get an education, innovate and take risks. Reward lack of education and poor job skills, reward people for having lots of babies they can't afford to take care of themselves. Maybe you can sugar coat it better than me but this is pretty much what it amounts to.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Eloise

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

 

Guess which nation has the freest economy?

 

Go ahead and guess!

 

 

Yep, Hong Kong

 

 

Look at these nations  with the highest economic freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2003-2006

 

We all know that those Icelandic warlords are really causing a fuss!

Hong Kong is a nation? roflmao

Hong Kong is an island of capitalism ripping flesh from the bones of the rest of China. Hong Kong has all the rights of spending, while the rest of China has the right to work the skin off their backs and go fuck themselves afterwards. And all of it is only possible with full cooperation from the government in the capital. Hong Kong has about as much to do with libertarian ideas and "values" as dingle berries have to do with fruit.

Iceland just sunk beneath the waves of economic idiocy and exploitation by the few "free men" and officially went bancrupt a year ago, or did you miss that? As long as cretenous and economically illiterate fucktards like you write praise to policies in places mentioned, its to be expected that half your population will retain shit-for-brains attitude well into the 21st century. Yes offense.

 

The rest of you excuse my language.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But I've never seen a

"But I've never seen a version of socialism that requires one to get an education and to get an education in a field that is in demand."

A blatant lie. You have been exposed to such a socialism from the day I first started posting in the political forum. More accurately, the day you first joined the site, as I had already been posting for quite some time when you joined. I repeat my request for studies to back up your naked assertions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:And precisely

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

In this case, the war/overloards are acting as a socialist government. They are demanding payment of 'taxes' while providing no services. They point a gun at your head and take it if you don't accede. That's what the socialist and communist parties have to do to stay in power.

In a truly free society all exchanges of property would be voluntary and the citizens would be armed to enforce these rules. So the citizens would eliminate anyone that tries to shake you down to take your earned property whether it's mafias, warlords, socialists or communists.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A blatant lie.

Vastet wrote:
A blatant lie. You have been exposed to such a socialism from the day I first started posting in the political forum. More accurately, the day you first joined the site, as I had already been posting for quite some time when you joined. I repeat my request for studies to back up your naked assertions.

 

You believe there should be a class of people in society that basically don't have to get an education and they can make minimum wage. All they ever have to do is show up for work or at least apply for work. The government subsidizes them so they can get by with enough food, shelter and health care and no restriction of how many kids one can have. If one decides not to get an education in a field in demand, you can still survive. There is no fear for one's survival without an education.

So you can call it what you want, sugar coat a pile of shit. But this is what the policies amount to. I'm just cutting through the BS of socialist propaganda and calling it what it is. What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:A

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
A blatant lie. You have been exposed to such a socialism from the day I first started posting in the political forum. More accurately, the day you first joined the site, as I had already been posting for quite some time when you joined. I repeat my request for studies to back up your naked assertions.

 

You believe there should be a class of people in society that basically don't have to get an education and they can make minimum wage. All they ever have to do is show up for work or at least apply for work. The government subsidizes them so they can get by with enough food, shelter and health care and no restriction of how many kids one can have. If one decides not to get an education in a field in demand, you can still survive. There is no fear for one's survival without an education.

So you can call it what you want, sugar coat a pile of shit. But this is what the policies amount to. I'm just cutting through the BS of socialist propaganda and calling it what it is. What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?

You're projecting your view of a position onto others - stop.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Hong Kong is a

ZuS wrote:

Hong Kong is a nation? roflmao

? Hong Kong is indeed a nation.

Quote:
Hong Kong is an island of capitalism ripping flesh from the bones of the rest of China. Hong Kong has all the rights of spending, while the rest of China has the right to work the skin off their backs and go fuck themselves afterwards. And all of it is only possible with full cooperation from the government in the capital. Hong Kong has about as much to do with libertarian ideas and "values" as dingle berries have to do with fruit.

Iceland just sunk beneath the waves of economic idiocy and exploitation by the few "free men" and officially went bancrupt a year ago, or did you miss that? As long as cretenous and economically illiterate fucktards like you write praise to policies in places mentioned, its to be expected that half your population will retain shit-for-brains attitude well into the 21st century. Yes offense.

 

The rest of you excuse my language.

 

China has 70 billionaires and thousands of millionaires.

The 400 Richest Chinese

Hong Kong only has 19 billionaires

Hong Kong's 40 Richest

I dont think Hong Kong is to blame for "slave labor" in China.

 

 

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:And precisely

Eloise wrote:

And precisely how do you propose a libertarian capitalist economy can possibly exist without war/overlords who take your property and freedoms from you if you resist their will? enlighten all us poor ignorant socialists how it is at all possible to ensure democratic freedoms after you take away all democratic power.

"libertarian capitalist"? I've never heard of that before. Is it different from capitalism?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
An example of

According wiki there are only 5 socialist countries

There were at one time or another 27 other socialist countries THAT FAILED!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

 

An example of socialist hypocracy:

Forbes Magazine listed Castro as the world's seventh wealthiest ruler, estimating his personal fortune at $900 million, almost double the $500 million personal net worth of Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth II.

In 2005, Forbes estimated Castro's secret fortune at $550 million. The Cuban caudillo threatened to sue the magazine.

 

 

 Most countries have a  mixture of economic processes transpiring

 

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.