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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:An example of

aiia wrote:

An example of socialism:

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.

What have you shown other than the Castro family are capitalists who follow communism as a political system?

Incidentally, communism blows as a political system. As an economic system it's not bad if it's run properly. No country has been able to do so.

 

"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
jcgadfly wrote:What have you

jcgadfly wrote:

What have you shown other than the Castro family are capitalists who follow communism as a political system?

Hypocracy. (I edited my post before you posted not knowing you were responding)

Quote:
Incidentally, communism blows as a political system. As an economic system it's not bad if it's run properly. No country has been able to do so.

 

Communism blows period

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You believe there should be

"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. "

A blatant lie.

"All they ever have to do is show up for work or at least apply for work."

Another blatant lie.

"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."

Blatant lie #3.

"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."

Blatant lie #4.

"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."

Blatant lie #5.

"What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?"

I told you already. But you just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA".

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"According wiki there are

"According wiki there are only 5 socialist countries."

Wikipedia is using a false definition of socialism. There are 0 socialist countries, there have always been 0 socialist countries. Your argument is meaningless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:" "What

Vastet wrote:
" "What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?" I told you already. But you just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA".

We're listening. What is it? The silence is deafening.

 

“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: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:"

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
" "What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?" I told you already. But you just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA".

We're listening. What is it? The silence is deafening.

 

No you aren't. Your yelling is deafening. You can't hear anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What have you shown other than the Castro family are capitalists who follow communism as a political system?

Hypocracy. (I edited my post before you posted not knowing you were responding)

Quote:
Incidentally, communism blows as a political system. As an economic system it's not bad if it's run properly. No country has been able to do so.

 

Communism blows period

Hypocrisy? Isn't that a capitalist virtue?

Why are you chastising Castro? you should be congratulating him for making loads of money in a system that is against such things.

Seems like a good Repub/libertarian to me - not letting the government get in the way of his freedom.

 

"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


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

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
" "What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?" I told you already. But you just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA".

We're listening. What is it? The silence is deafening.

 

No you aren't. Your yelling is deafening. You can't hear anything.

 

If anyone is hearing their own text... you have bigger problems then socialism...

What Would Kharn Do?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Vastet

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
" "What socialist policy do you support that does not amount to this?" I told you already. But you just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA".

We're listening. What is it? The silence is deafening.

 

No you aren't. Your yelling is deafening. You can't hear anything.

 

If anyone is hearing their own text... you have bigger problems then socialism...

And here I was expecting EXC to jump on that. Fucker....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"According wiki

Vastet wrote:
"According wiki there are only 5 socialist countries." Wikipedia is using a false definition of socialism.

 

Please enlighten me. What is the true definition of socialism?

Maybe the world would like to hear your version of socialism also. You can do this by editing the wiki page I provided or you could start a whole new wiki page to explain what socialism really is.

 

Quote:
There are 0 socialist countries, there have always been 0 socialist countries. Your argument is meaningless.

 

No my argument means socialism is a fantasy. That is probably why you can't find any socialist countries that approximates your definition of socialism. Maybe your version would work; I cannot know because I don't know what it is.

 

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Please enlighten me. What

"Please enlighten me. What is the true definition of socialism?"

From Wikipedia, ironically:

Socialismrefers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

From your link:
"This is a combined map of all countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under any definition"

Important text in bold. Self declaration does not equate to truth. Furthermore, the nations identified (which was not easy to discern, I might add, I could only identify four, not five) as socialist:
China: Socialist Republic: Single-party communist state: Dictatorship: Not Socialism.
North Korea: Socialist Republic: Single-party communist state: Dictatorship: Not Socialism.
Laos: Socialist Republic: Single-party communist state: Dictatorship: Not Socialism.
Vietnam: Socialist Republic: Single-party communist state: Dictatorship: Not Socialism.

Your argument is meaningless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No you aren't.

Vastet wrote:
No you aren't. Your yelling is deafening. You can't hear anything.

Still listening. You haven't said anything.

“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: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Socialismrefers

Vastet wrote:
Socialismrefers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

So the USA must be a socialist state then because there are no laws against the workers owning a business and administering the means of production of a business. There are pleanty of single proprietorship and small businesses where the owners do all the work. Others sometimes offer stock to the employees. No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily.

“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
If the US is socialist, it

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

"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

jcgadfly wrote:

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

 

Now now, lets not assume he is intentionally desiring it. It is entirely possible that he is just confused and lashing out at everything around him.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If the US is

jcgadfly wrote:

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

 

o_O how far to the right... past fascism do you have to be... to view the US as socialist?

What Would Kharn Do?


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

The Doomed Soul wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

 

o_O how far to the right... past fascism do you have to be... to view the US as socialist?

 

Maybe the people calling Sarah Palin a liberal that uses socialist terminology?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If the US is

jcgadfly wrote:

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

The USA system is just whatever the men with the guns decide they want to do. But that's pretty much true in every country.

I don't know what to call any system anymore. All I know is lots of people(or their surrogates) want to put a gun to other peoples' head and force them to do things they would never otherwise do. Politics is just war by other means.

 

 

“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:jcgadfly wrote:If

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If the US is socialist, it goes a long way to explaining why you desire its destruction.

The USA system is just whatever the men with the guns decide they want to do. But that's pretty much true in every country.

I don't know what to call any system anymore. All I know is lots of people(or their surrogates) want to put a gun to other peoples' head and force them to do things they would never otherwise do. Politics is just war by other means.

 

 

So your only problem is you're not the guy with the gun?

"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:In this case, the

EXC wrote:

In this case, the war/overloards are acting as a socialist government. They are demanding payment of 'taxes' while providing no services.

Your argument is taking a turn for the hysterical, EXC, you know the above is not true. Can we return to reason please?

EXC wrote:

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.

This is not at all true.  Certain Historical Socialist leaders chose outrageous means of protecting their state, such as police-enforced conformity and other such extremes. But it is by no means necessary for socialism to impose itself by force and it never was.

 

EXC wrote:

In a truly free society all exchanges of property would be voluntary and the citizens would be armed to enforce these rules.

"In a truly free society all citizens will be armed to enforce" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

aiia wrote:

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.

Excuse me for not making it context-friendly enough for you. China is a big country and a player in a very complex world system. Naturally, not all rich Chinese live in Hong Kong, since someone has to run the government in Beijing and others have to run provinces, industry etc.

When you take Hong Kong out of this context, you get this "jewel in the jungle" libetal narrative, which of course is complete and utter bullshit. It's like looking at their Olympic grounds and assuming that nothing but Greek nobility live in that area of Beijing. Many paid dearly with their livelihoods and freedom for that "jewel in the jungle", and same is the case with Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is not "to blame" for slavery, its just a part of the system run by people who are to blame for slavery. Just like we are a part of the system run by people who are to blame for keeping African nations on the brink of war and starvation, middle eastern nations in constant turmoil, south american nations in dictatorships and poverty, etc.

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Your argument

Eloise wrote:

Your argument is taking a turn for the hysterical, EXC, you know the above is not true. Can we return to reason please?

Government is just whatever rules the men with the guns decide to enforce. If you went to Somalia, the local warlord would tell you he's in charge and you need to pay him to operate in his territory. Somalia would be a great place to do business and live if you didn't have armies of men with guns telling you they are in charge all the time. The Somalia pirates view themselves as toll collectors and not criminals.

A mafia boss does the same thing, he has his territory he shakes down the people with money and gives to poor and charity so he'll stay popular with the people. This is what democrats and socialist do, what's the difference?

And wasn't George Washington a warlord too? He became the official government when no one challenged him military anymore.

Eloise wrote:

This is not at all true.  Certain Historical Socialist leaders chose outrageous means of protecting their state, such as police-enforced conformity and other such extremes. But it is by no means necessary for socialism to impose itself by force and it never was.

OK so you are for 'voluntary' socialism? So am I. You socialists can form co-ops to provide yourselves with health insurance. You can have a business where the workers own and run it. Who is stopping you? I just don't want you to have your cop and tax collector surrogates put a gun to my head, take my earned money and force something on me that I don't want.

The bottom line with politics is this:

What do you want the men with the guns to force people to do and not do?

The problem with you and Vasset is you never explain this. You only talk in general terms from socialist theory(aka propaganda). But you never get into the nasty details of how exactly it is implemented. Then you claim you've stated what your position when you haven't told me anything. Unless you answer this question, you haven't told me anything of substance.

What the men with the guns decide to enforce is the only thing that matters. For instance, you're angry that so many people hide their income illegally from the tax man. This is because it is difficult to enforce income and sales tax codes without an extreme invasion of our privacy. Most citizens would get angry about this invasion, so the men with the guns don't do a much to enforce the current tax code when it requires invasion of privacy.

Eloise wrote:

"In a truly free society all citizens will be armed to enforce" sounds like an oxymoron to me. 

I guess it depends on one's definition of freedom. I have my view of freedom, to others it is tyranny and visa verse. But is seems everyone wants to use force to impose their version of freedom. All that really matters is what the men with the guns and their bosses decide.

“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
EXC wrote:Vastet

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Socialismrefers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

So the USA must be a socialist state then because there are no laws against the workers owning a business and administering the means of production of a business. There are pleanty of single proprietorship and small businesses where the owners do all the work. Others sometimes offer stock to the employees. No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily.

Dude, there is no law against eating chairs in the US, yet no one would call US the country of chair-eaters. Direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production is only a fact if the laws on the books MANDATE worker ownership and administration AND society institutions IN PRACTICE SECURE this relation.

Now, as far as possibility to organize business in this manner in the US, a group of workers can do so, if they want to get fucked up the ass by the private industry. There is no way private business will condone any kind of worker organizing and will do anything they can to destroy it. The history of destruction of unions during the last 40 years in US is evidence of this. In south america and other parts of the world US and other private big business goes beyond just ordinary lawlessness and conducts instead assassinations, large scale community opression through bribe and cooperation with criminal govenments, terrorisation of indiginous population and even murder of entire villages.

I understand it can be hard to step out of the libertarian economic narrative, but looking at the big picture helps. If you want free trade, you first have to ensure everyone has equal access. Somehow this is not at all the focus of economic theory tought at the universities - I wonder why. Maybe it's because every auditorium in every major university carries the name of some huge international conglomerate that financed it's creation. Universities, much like the church back in the day, don't want to dissapoint their sugar-daddies. In US this has only gotten worse lately, simply because of the push for privatisation of educational institutions. You can look at the curious case of Norman Finkelsteins denial of tennure for info on this little marvel of private enterprise.

Luckily, all is not lost. Just like the church back in the day, universities produce odd-ball community conscious leaders. It is just as tough to organize as it was in the worst time of segragation, but challenges are different today and people survive them. And although you need a lot of money to study, you don't need a lot of money to learn.

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


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The problem with

EXC wrote:

The problem with you and Vasset is you never explain this. You only talk in general terms from socialist theory(aka propaganda). But you never get into the nasty details of how exactly it is implemented. Then you claim you've stated what your position when you haven't told me anything. Unless you answer this question, you haven't told me anything of substance.

What the men with the guns decide to enforce is the only thing that matters. For instance, you're angry that so many people hide their income illegally from the tax man. This is because it is difficult to enforce income and sales tax codes without an extreme invasion of our privacy. Most citizens would get angry about this invasion, so the men with the guns don't do a much to enforce the current tax code when it requires invasion of privacy.

I understand perfectly your doubt about "socialist theory", but we can come closer to common ground if we focus on priorities, rather than some overall "theory".

So, what are our priorities? If the answer is "profit", I bet you close to 100% of people will find this unacceptable as our common mission statement. So how do we justify allowing institutions that explicitly have this as their purpose of existence and even grounds on which they defend themselves in court (yes, common defense for a private company in a large number of court cases is simply that they exist to create profit and nothing else), to have huge influence on our government and even run all our vital community functions?

As soon as you understand the absurdity of this predicament, I think we can agree that first is first - get money out of politics right now and reconsider whether huge resources should be the domain of a few white golf enthusiasts.

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


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

EXC wrote:

The problem with you and Vasset is you never explain this. You only talk in general terms from socialist theory(aka propaganda). But you never get into the nasty details of how exactly it is implemented. Then you claim you've stated what your position when you haven't told me anything. Unless you answer this question, you haven't told me anything of substance.

What the men with the guns decide to enforce is the only thing that matters. For instance, you're angry that so many people hide their income illegally from the tax man. This is because it is difficult to enforce income and sales tax codes without an extreme invasion of our privacy. Most citizens would get angry about this invasion, so the men with the guns don't do a much to enforce the current tax code when it requires invasion of privacy.

I understand perfectly your doubt about "socialist theory", but we can come closer to common ground if we focus on priorities, rather than some overall "theory".

So, what are our priorities? If the answer is "profit", I bet you close to 100% of people will find this unacceptable as our common mission statement. So how do we justify allowing institutions that explicitly have this as their purpose for existence and even grounds on which they defend themselves in court (yes, common defense for a private company in a large number of court cases is simply that they exist to create profit and nothing else), to have huge influence on our government and even run all our vital community functions?

I think we can safely assume that a broader consensus would come up with better goals and methods to move in the right direction. I don't think that there is an end-game state of affairs or some overall sucessful theory as it were, but there is a myriad of things we can try and make it a work in progress type of thing. This only gets hampered by profit-for-the-sake-of-profit mission statement. We could for instance go for a perception of a "matter of course" on a lot of things that today are extremely contentious BECAUSE of the profit-based decision system. We could push healthcare debate into background, if we adopted the policy of healthcare-equals-water supply. We don't debate whether everyone should have water in their focets, we just find a way to make it so. We debate minimum quality of water, effects of impurities and how we can improve the pipelines, but not whether water should be a matter of pay-per-person. Putting healthcare into the background like this would allow us to focus on other more important issues. Leave healthcare policy to a mix of health worker representatives, people representatives and experts in the field. Keep a steady rotation on the representatives and hold economists in the mix ONLY as the enablers excluded from the decision process - how can we make decisions a reality, not whether we should. I don't see how this can be contestable, since economist track record as policy makers is one disaster after another. Worse yet - they think that's just fine.

This is just a suggestion and is far better than declaring profit as the #1 goal. As soon as you understand the absurdity of our predicament today, I think we can agree that first is first - get money out of politics right now and reconsider whether huge resources should be the domain of a few white golf enthusiasts.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:No

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No you aren't. Your yelling is deafening. You can't hear anything.

Still listening. You haven't said anything.

Still lying. My words are all over tne forum, you just aren't willing to read them.

EXC wrote:
So the USA must be a socialist state then because there are no laws against the workers owning a business and administering the means of production of a business.

Yet neither are there laws requiring that workers own the resources and means of production, so it cannot be Socialist.

EXC wrote:
There are pleanty of single proprietorship and small businesses where the owners do all the work.

Few and far between.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Others sometimes offer

"Others sometimes offer stock to the employees."

Few and far between.

"No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily."

Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
"Others sometimes offer stock to the employees." Few and far between. "No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily." Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

 

The problem with this is that society ends up having to help them to a degree anyway. Say he doesn't pay for universal healthcare, if he goes to the hospital they can't really refuse him treatment, and if he doesn't pay the cost is reflected on everyone else. It is the same as if he went into a retail store and stole a few big screen TVs.

 

If he doesn't pay for roads, short of him living in the middle of nowhere roads still have to be maintained.

 

Really, the only way what you say can work is segregating these people into communities, like the Amish.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

Vastet wrote:
"Others sometimes offer stock to the employees." Few and far between. "No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily." Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

Stock is such a good deal too. The execs do their insider trading things and sell out just before the company goes into the toilet. They reap the rewards, the price plummets and the employees who hold stock get raped.

So nice of those companies to do that.

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The problem with this is

"The problem with this is that society ends up having to help them to a degree anyway. Say he doesn't pay for universal healthcare, if he goes to the hospital they can't really refuse him treatment, and if he doesn't pay the cost is reflected on everyone else. It is the same as if he went into a retail store and stole a few big screen TVs."

They would be refused service. If one is unwilling to contribute to society, then one gets no benefits from it. Only if a person(s) were charitable on their behalf would they be treated, or if they entered into a contract to begin contributing. Failure to comply with a contract would be an offense, and society would see return on their investment through prison work. Failure to work in prison would result in self starvation. Criminals don't have freedom, so while the rules are the same, they are more severe in consequence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Stock is such

jcgadfly wrote:
Stock is such a good deal too. The execs do their insider trading things and sell out just before the company goes into the toilet. They reap the rewards, the price plummets and the employees who hold stock get raped.

So nice of those companies to do that.

 

True enough. Even if management is caught, employees are never compensated, and management spends a forced year or two in hotels before being released to do it again. Transparency could greatly impact such strategies, reducing their effect significantly. But not all such companies do that. I work for one that gives shares, and is only foreseeably likely to have such a problem if all income taxes were rescinded.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
"The problem with this is that society ends up having to help them to a degree anyway. Say he doesn't pay for universal healthcare, if he goes to the hospital they can't really refuse him treatment, and if he doesn't pay the cost is reflected on everyone else. It is the same as if he went into a retail store and stole a few big screen TVs." They would be refused service. If one is unwilling to contribute to society, then one gets no benefits from it. Only if a person(s) were charitable on their behalf would they be treated, or if they entered into a contract to begin contributing. Failure to comply with a contract would be an offense, and society would see return on their investment through prison work. Failure to work in prison would result in self starvation. Criminals don't have freedom, so while the rules are the same, they are more severe in consequence.

 

I think I would rather segregate or deport them rather than watch people too stupid to help themselves suffer in front of me.

 

I don't think I like the idea of people dieing on the streets out of their own stupidity. Put them in their own society/hovels if they don't want to participate in the one they are in.

 

Maybe we can deport them to South Carolina.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Iceland just sunk

ZuS wrote:

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.

 

 Iceland's problems was the result of criminal activitiy.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Iceland:_what_ugly_secrets_are_waiting_to_be_exposed_in_the_meltdown

 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ZuS wrote:Iceland

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

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.

 

 Iceland's problems was the result of criminal activitiy.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Iceland:_what_ugly_secrets_are_waiting_to_be_exposed_in_the_meltdown

 

Conservatives opening a branch office in Iceland?

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I think I would rather

"I think I would rather segregate or deport them rather than watch people too stupid to help themselves suffer in front of me. I don't think I like the idea of people dieing on the streets out of their own stupidity. Put them in their own society/hovels if they don't want to participate in the one they are in. Maybe we can deport them to South Carolina."

There are a number of possible scenarios. One thing for certain is they would not be permitted to live on streets paid for by society. The remains of abandoned capitalist cities may be a good place to start.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
"I think I would rather segregate or deport them rather than watch people too stupid to help themselves suffer in front of me. I don't think I like the idea of people dieing on the streets out of their own stupidity. Put them in their own society/hovels if they don't want to participate in the one they are in. Maybe we can deport them to South Carolina." There are a number of possible scenarios. One thing for certain is they would not be permitted to live on streets paid for by society. The remains of abandoned capitalist cities may be a good place to start.

 

 

So you want to send them to Detroit?


Isn't that a bit close to you?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

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.

 

 Iceland's problems was the result of criminal activitiy.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Iceland:_what_ugly_secrets_are_waiting_to_be_exposed_in_the_meltdown

A hilarity quote from the website you just posted: "But Dr Jon Danielsson, an Icelander who teaches economics at the London School of Economics, believes that while the timing of the crash was dictated by the global banking crisis, the scandal is unique among European financial institutions. He believes the root of Iceland's problems that have now decimated its economy appear to have started when the government decided to privatise the banks in the early 1990s."

And the criminals are the few "free men" I mentioned. Free to move capital as they please, free to speculate on currency, realestate and business, free to be unbridled capitalists. For years before the crash they hooked up with foreign speculators and were called visionaries and business promises of Iceland, the land on the rise.

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

And as long as you are looking into "extraordinary meltdowns", take a peak at Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala and a host of other capitalist rape victims of the Chicago school projects for the past 50 years or so. I am sure you will agree that free-movement capital and speculation really are pretty ordinary after all and that criminal activity is an essential part of each of those collapses.

You don't even have to take a detailed look at the money flow during the crysis we are not even half way through at this point, and you will see that its nothing different - build a bubble, cash in on the down side - mergers, buyouts, zero regulation free-for-all. Some of the "investors" are even blatantly speculating in the open, like Goldman Sachs pulling out of realestate an mass just before the crash, even though they knew bailout would not be denied. After all, H. Poulson was the secretary of treasury, fresh out of GS.

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Conservatives

jcgadfly wrote:

Conservatives opening a branch office in Iceland?

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

Conservative
–adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate. 
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit. 

Distinctly different. There are criminal liberals also.

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different. There are criminal socialists also.
 

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


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

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Conservatives opening a branch office in Iceland?

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

Conservative
–adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate. 
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit. 

Distinctly different. There are criminal liberals also.

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different. There are criminal socialists also.
 

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

"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

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yes but it

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

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
ZuS wrote: Hong Kong is not

ZuS wrote:

Hong Kong is not "to blame" for slavery, its just a part of the system run by people who are to blame for slavery.

I put the term 'slave labor' in quotations because it is subjective. China is over populated, so much overpopulated that the government had to regulate the number of children women were permitted to birth. Because of overpopulation people are lucky to get any work let alone 'slave labor'. People flock to the cities to get one of these ‘slave’ jobs.

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


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

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

 

This is going to confuse anyone who actually goes by the real definition of these words.

 

Conservatism being status quo and tradition, and progressivism being changing that. Those two are opposing ideologies.

 

The only part that could be said of conservatism that is opposing to liberalism, is social conservatism (In the United States).

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

Please tell the prominent criminals who espouse the philosophy

"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

jcgadfly wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

Please tell the prominent criminals who espouse the philosophy

 

I am also curious how people believing others should have the rights to do what they please with their own personal lives so long as it does not directly harm others, is an ideology that supports criminal behavior the same way capitalism (which I'm assuming is referred to by conservatism, since it is the traditional status quo) does (Which with public goods, puts self interest in a direct conflict with public welfare).

 

I can't wait to see how these are linked.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

jcgadfly wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

Please tell the prominent criminals who espouse the philosophy

Criminals espouse the philosophy of criminality

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
ClockCat wrote:aiia

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

 

This is going to confuse anyone who actually goes by the real definition of these words.

 

Conservatism being status quo and tradition, and progressivism being changing that. Those two are opposing ideologies.

 

The only part that could be said of conservatism that is opposing to liberalism, is social conservatism (In the United States).


There are no purely conservative people any more then there are purely progressive people.

Part of the definition of conservative is "to limit change". There are ironically progressive conservatives.

 

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


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

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

 

This is going to confuse anyone who actually goes by the real definition of these words.

 

Conservatism being status quo and tradition, and progressivism being changing that. Those two are opposing ideologies.

 

The only part that could be said of conservatism that is opposing to liberalism, is social conservatism (In the United States).


There are no purely conservative people any more then there are purely progressive people.

Part of the definition of conservative is "to limit change". There are ironically progressive conservatives.

 

 

So you say they are believing in the "ideology of change to improve" and the "ideology of not changing, keeping the status quo"

 

These are mutually exclusive ideologies. You  cannot have both a progressive and conservative viewpoint on a subject. You either want it to change, or do not want it to.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ClockCat

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

 

This is going to confuse anyone who actually goes by the real definition of these words.

 

Conservatism being status quo and tradition, and progressivism being changing that. Those two are opposing ideologies.

 

The only part that could be said of conservatism that is opposing to liberalism, is social conservatism (In the United States).


There are no purely conservative people any more then there are purely progressive people.

Part of the definition of conservative is "to limit change". There are ironically progressive conservatives.

 

Then why are the current crop of conservatives not interested in the status quo but regression?

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"So you want to send them to

"So you want to send them to Detroit?Isn't that a bit close to you?"

Lol. I'd rather they find their own place in the woods or something, but if they persist in intruding on property that belongs to society, then Detroit is as good a place as any. Until we demolish and recycle it anyway...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.