Conservatives and Fiscal Responsibility - P.J. O'Rourke

[j19318]

This guy is speaking the truth!!! Anyone who says otherwise is in denial!!!

[talitakoomi]

What if America's "Civil Servants" ie: congress people, presidents, governor's etc. were actually "servants" during their term of office? In other words, what if they received NO pay, or at BEST, minimum wage while they "devote themselves to tackling the issues YOU care about" (yeah right)! Do you have ANY idea of the PERKS politicians get?! Free health insurance! Free transportation! And a pension for LIFE!! 99% are rich before even running! Kill their salaries- THEN we'll see who's devoted.

[j19318]

@talitakoomi Thats rediculous!!! Yea why don't we cut doctors saleries too!!! Then lets see what kind of doctors we get!!! The truth is that the problem is with the people not the politicians!!! Most of them do fight hard for what they believe is right!!! We have to force people to wake up and take responsibilities for theirselves!!! Far too many people in this country have everything handed to them!!! They are sucking this country dry!!! It has to stop!!!

[FRSFreeStateNow]

Fiscal Conservatism used to be before the Bush Administration about paying for things that you spend money on. And decentralizing Federal Power. But the Bush Administration changed that with they're Borrow and Spend Fiscal Policy.

[heixst]

I love conservatives... they point out problems but you never really hear sound solutions.

Like they say:

"If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."

[Uvissiet]

They always present a sound solution: limited government.

Channeling all these concerns through government only makes them worse because government is not the mechanism for them. It is too removed from risk and too prone to corruption, and a big government becomes too big to check.

[bmj121]

Solution: individual liberty.

[j19318]

@heixst Well im a conservative, and I have a solution for you!!! How about people who can't afford to support theirselves, don't have kids!!! The only reason this country is in such bad shape is because of people who have kids that they can't support in any way shape or form, then its up to everyone else to pay for the womans needs and all of her kids. That has to stop. That is the root of this countries problems!!! If you don't have a job, don't have a kid!!! Period!!!

[heixst]

I don't think its so much about being a conservative/liberal, but rather taking in all opinions and doing research. Sweden/Switzerland have reliable successful governments that serve their public. Why can't we? Why are we so quick to dismiss other ideas?

@j9318 Also I can't believe I'm replying about a 1 year old post :)

[j19318]

@heixst I agree that people should be open minded and do research in order to reach logical conclusions concerning the well being of a nation!!! I don't want to dismiss any idea that may be of some assistance in this matter!!! However , I believe there are obvious substantial differences in the population of sweeden and or switzerland when compared to that of the U.S.!!! The population of the U.S. Is far too large and imorral/ lazzy to survive in a welfare state.

[heixst]

@j19318

"Immoral and lazy" is that a reference to the poor that live on welfare? That's a stereotype and blatant generalization of a social class. Also do realize that 3/4 (%75) of all welfare recipients are white, not black welfare queens with 7 children.

[j19318]

@heixst I don't recall making a statement as to race!!! It dosen't matter the color!!! To me at least!!! Im talking about those who chose to have children knowing that its gona cost everyone else!!! The ones who do that are immoral, lazzy, and ignorant!!! That is a large percentage of the people on welfare!!! You call it a social class!!! I call it a classless group of idiots who will soon be faced with the cold hard consequences of decades of immorall and evil intentions!!! Truth hurts right!!!

[heixst]

@j19318

Well... this is a "far" from perfect society. Believe it or not, parents are the single most influential elements in the breath of human existence. They are the guides, the shepherds who know the pains of the world. But in this vindictive world, who do we turn to when our parents vindicate us? Community? Therein lies the problem of the aimless self-destructive poor. Let's be thankful our parents gave us even a "little" acknowledgement in this "age of apathy and reckless materialism."

[hayesism]

Dammit, PJ was in Australia?? Why do I always just miss everyone cool? Every time a band I like visits I hear about it a week later. I missed Tom Robbins (greatest writer ever) a couple years back and he's still showing no sign of coming back. Erg.

(Packs bags to move to America, where, for better or for worse, all the interesting people live.)

[DBrownofdc]

P.J. O'Rourke = best conservative/republican ever - he needs a TV show

[sexlessparents]

i wore a t shirt today that said

don't blame me ! i voted for mccain !

i got nothing but cheers, and claps

but i was in the great great state of Texas

[ferrozm]

McCain is no worse than Obama. He voted for Corporate welfare and he voted to raise taxes with Tom Daschell. He votes for amnesty and against benfits for veterans. You and your friends are idiots.

Don't blame me I voted for ron paul

McCain is not a conservative.

[sexlessparents]

holy shit man it was just a shirt , dude i did not vote at all i am pro immigration but i want the best of mexico to come here ( white mexicans) there are white mexicans , dumbass not all look alike i am so depressed with it all i hate everybody obama, mccain,ron paul they all make me want to die

[AimiriZ]

The the richest 10% own 90% percent of the wealth,and this idiot doesn't want to tax them so thy can waste money on their cars and yachts and sh*t they don't even need.

[ferrozm]

so what they earned it. the other 90% of the people have no right to the money the richest 10% makes legitimately.

[AimiriZ]

I must point out two things,

1. Most of the rich people don't work for the money that they have,they inherit the money. look up the richest families in the world ,and you see that alot of them have been dominating the industries for centuries.

2.If we say money represents work, do you honestly believe that people like Philip Anschutz,bill Gates and that mother fucker Philip Knight have earned all their money and the guys who works in a coal mine or a sweat shop earn as much as they deserve?

[ferrozm]

So what if they have inherited it? Thats no justification for the govt to steal what their parents had worked so hard to give them. And besides when they save and invest they provide capital for entrepreneurs that will ultimately make life better off for the proletarian.

[liber8me]

actually a lot of people who are wealthy work for their money and stupid children lose their wealth pretty fast if they inherit it.

and yes, bill gates and people like him do deserve their money. know why? because he was smart enough to come up with something people wanted and were willing to pay him for. if he wasnt allowed to make money off of his invention there wtf is the incentive to work hard and invent anyway?

[charleshoskinson]

You are completely wrong. 80% of America's millionaires earn their money. Second, if you are doing labor that any person with little or no training can do, then yes the sweatshop working is earning a fair share because there isn't a shortage of people. Go back to Cuba Commie.

[FreeInquisition]

What's the quality of life like in Cuba do you know? Just generally asking. Never been to a socialist state myself.

[merdufer]

Ya with the embargo from the united states and everything.

France is much better example of a socialist state.

[AimiriZ]

Wow, I say we must tax the rich and suddenly Im a communist?

FYI, the more liberal countries like Denmark and Sweden,Canada etc have the happiest people, because of their universal health care, environmental friendly industries etc.

[Re5Publica]

"Wow, I say we must tax the rich and suddenly... "

I wouldn't say so, but it's usually based on the prejudice that rich people haven't earned or don't deserve to be rich. It's a policy which punishes success.

Canada does not have a happy population compared to the ones you mentioned. And, you can't say for sure that they're happy for those reasons; what about lifestyle?

Danes are happy because of enviro friendly business? lol Are you being serious?

[LeifEkstom]

"Danes are happy because of enviro friendly business? lol Are you being serious?"

I can't speak for Danes, but I am happy for my nation's socially responsible business ethics. There are many reasons we are happier though; we have guaranteed healthcare, much greater social mobility, nearly guaranteed higher education, far more leisure and vacation time, higher average wages, etc.

[Re5Publica]

Yeah, yeah, all I know is, when Canadians speak in front of Americans they praise universal healthcare, but when they're in the waiting room all they do is curse it.

Btw, the welfare state has been found to be unsustainable. It requires people to be taxed, and Europeans just aren't having children. Nevermind the immorality of taxing someone's income.

Your governments tax and spend, while all the medical research, and all those things you enjoy in your leisure time, comes out of America.

[LeifEkstom]

My Canadian family loves their medicare. Of course everyone complains, but so do Americans who love THEIR system. People will always complain. That's human. And the welfare state is not unsustainable. Our population grows the same way yours does: immigration. And I live in Malmo, which has seen its Arab population grow way out of control, so I see it first hand. What HAS been found unsustainable is the American way of life.

Taxation is the cost of citizenship. Plus, our R&D is world-class.

[Re5Publica]

"What HAS been found unsustainable is the American way of life."

Which half the world tries to emulate, especially Canada.

Look around your home, and you'll see almost nothing but products and devices invented in America, none of which were created by orders issued by the government, but through voluntary cooperation between consumers and private enterprise.

"Taxation is the cost of citizenship"

What's your alternative, prison or exhile? It's a contract you enter upon birth.

[LeifEkstom]

"Which half the world tries to emulate, especially Canada."

Yes, to their detriment. That's why canada isn't doing as well as we are in western europe.

"Look around your home, and you'll see almost nothing but products and devices invented in America...through voluntary cooperation between consumers and private enterprise."

I have nothing against private enterprise and I recognize the value of American contributions. But really, it's the least you could do for fucking most of the world over.

[Re5Publica]

"I have nothing against private enterprise and I recognize the value of American contributions. But really, it's the least you could do for fucking most of the world over."

Examples or it didn't happen....

[LeifEkstom]

Okay, radicalizing Islam with the Mujaheddin, enthroning and supporting fascism in Greece, Chile, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, overthrowing or attempting to overthrow democratically elected government who opposed US interests (Mossadeq, Arbenz, Allende, Sukarno, Castro, etc.), unleashing terror and mass slaughter in Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc., enforcing the Washington Consensus on every poor nation on the planet who requests aid, to their utter detriment, I could go on all day.

[Re5Publica]

"radicalizing Islam with the Mujaheddin"

What? You think giving anti-air missiles to the Mujahideen to repel Soviet annexation of Afghanistan radicalized Islam?

You refer to Castro as a democratically elected leader?

Unleashing terror in countries who were already in a state of war, were the U.S. intervened simply to stop communist expansion, in other words to stop the spread of totalitarianism?

I certainly don't agree with everything every administration has done.

[LeifEkstom]

"What? You think giving anti-air missiles to the Mujahideen to repel Soviet annexation of Afghanistan radicalized Islam?"

No, I know that training, arming, and funding an extreme reactionary Islamist force who opposed the only hope for modernization Afghanistan had (their incumbent government) against the Soviets (who the Afghans begged 11 times to help) legitimized and empowered Islamism as a major force in the region.

The Mujaheddin led to Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban directly.

[Re5Publica]

The problem is you think the mujahideen were one force. It was a hodge podge of Muslims from around the region, but mostly Afghans.

If you say arming them led directly to Al-Qaeda, you'd have to say it also led directly to the Northern Alliance lead by one of the most famous mujahids, ahmed shah massoud, who was assassinated by al-qaeda and fought the Taliban.

You have a shallow view of the root of Islamism, since the Khomeinite Revolution in Iran was before the Soviet invasion of Afghanstn

[LeifEkstom]

"The problem is you think the mujahideen were one force."

When did I say that?? They fought amongst themselves more than against the Soviets! They were ragtag bands of warlords and their Islamist supporters.

"...you'd have to say it also led directly to the Northern Alliance lead by...ahmed shah massoud, who was assassinated by al-qaeda and fought the Taliban."

Yes. So? They are still Islamists.

[LeifEkstom]

"You have a shallow view of the root of Islamism, since the Khomeinite Revolution in Iran was before the Soviet invasion of Afghanstn"

Yes, and that revolution overthrew who? The Shah, our favorite dictator in the Middle East. And how did HE get into power? Oh yeah that's right: by overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq. And who did that? The US and Britain.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Re5Publica]

The shah certainly wasn't their favourite dictator, they barely defended him by the end, they even called for his resignation, or abdication.

Your point was that the U.S. messed up the world. If it had a hand in putting the shah into power (who was a dictator, but Mickey Mouse compared to Khomeini) it doesn't make it responsible for Islamism. What about Syed Qutb, Hassan Al-banna, Maududi, Wahhab, and the barbary pirates who raided and enslaved infidels justifying it by verses of the Quran?

[LeifEkstom]

"You refer to Castro as a democratically elected leader?"

He was elected. Maybe not in an election that the almighty Americans deem "proper", but he was.

"Unleashing terror in countries who were already in a state of war, were the U.S. intervened simply to stop communist expansion, in other words to stop the spread of totalitarianism?"

The US intervened to flex its muscles against the Soviets and Chinese, and to protect its interests. The Vietnamese people overwhelmingly supported the North.

[Re5Publica]

"He was elected. Maybe not in an election that the almighty Americans deem "proper", but he was."

Or any democratic country deems proper.

Who was his opposition? It's a one party state..... they claim to be democratic, but no one but communists can run in elections.

"The US intervened to flex its muscles...."

You'll find that the interests of America are also in the interest of the people. North or South Korea, what would you pick? Is Vietnam doing great today since the North won?

[LeifEkstom]

"Or any democratic country deems proper."

It doesn't matter. Only the Cubans can have a say. Their party is divided into several factions, representing farmers, women, the elderly, etc. So they replace traditional parties. It's not perfect, but we will never know what Cuba could have been had you guys left them alone and not imposed your ridiculous embargo on them.

[LeifEkstom]

"You'll find that the interests of America are also in the interest of the people."

Hahaha! Good one. I needed a laugh.

"North or South Korea, what would you pick?"

Now? South Korea. But in the 70s the North had near-First World living conditions and was doing better economically than the South. Both had terrible, brutal, crushing military dictatorships, so that's a moot point.

"Is Vietnam doing great today since the North won?"

Actually, yeah! I went there for two months last year.

[LeifEkstom]

"What's your alternative, prison or exhile? It's a contract you enter upon birth."

Yes, if you don't contribute, you go to jail. That's how it works in America, too. You could leave, you know, and be a hermit. But don't expect to have anything NEAR an adequate life. Humans are social creatures. With such a complex society, everyone must contribute, unless we live in a communal, anarchist arrangement, which I don't oppose. But we are talking about nation states here, so yes, we pay our dues.

[Re5Publica]

"But we are talking about nation states here.."

Nation states have existed with no income tax. America was one for over 100 years, Canada was another, so was Britain, and so were others. Income tax was passed into law to pay for world wars, and they stuck, and the government then managed to convince future generations that it's the natural state of affairs and the price of citizenship.

The U.S. constitution actually barred the government from taxing income, but it was amended by congress.

[LeifEkstom]

Yes, but they were not as complex as they are now, and modern government is MUCH larger.

I said TAXES are the price of citizenship; that can be sales, VAT, income, property, whatever. But you mentioned taxing income, so that's why this came up.

[Re5Publica]

"Yes, but they were not as complex as they are now, and modern government is MUCH larger. "

They're just as complex... the institutions remain virtually the same.

Government is larger now, I agree, because it's been growing steadily, where do you think that's headed? It's the nature of government, since it's occupied by men, to want to grow more powerful.

[LeifEkstom]

No. Government is FAR more complex than before. A larger government is more complex, BY DEFINITION. How do you reconcile that contradiction?

[Re5Publica]

Ok, so you mean, the North Korean government is more complex than the American one?

You'd be right, and the bureaucracy is what causes all big government to be wasteful and incompetant.

[LeifEkstom]

"Ok, so you mean, the North Korean government is more complex than the American one?"

Yes.

"You'd be right, and the bureaucracy is what causes all big government to be wasteful and incompetant."

Government is at least AS wasteful and incompetent as private sector power. Difference is, government is accountable to the people, even if only in theory. Private power doesn't even pretend to be.

[Re5Publica]

"Difference is, government is accountable to the people, even if only in theory. Private power doesn't even pretend to be. "

Private industry is accountable to the consumer and investors. Entrepreneurs are the people, they are citizens, they're not government.

They're certainly not as wasteful as the government when managing education, natural resources and healthcare. The best hospitals and schools are NEVER government-run.

[LeifEkstom]

"Private industry is accountable to the consumer and investors."

That would be nice if it were true. Private power is so strong that they manipulate the consumers, through intensive advertising and the manufacture of demand. The investors are helpful, but not indispensable. There will always be others willing to go along with the execs.

"Entrepreneurs are the people, they are citizens, they're not government."

They are citizens with power. Private power. Government are the people, too.

[Re5Publica]

"through intensive advertising"

Explain what you mean by intensive? .. You mean they convince people to buy their products and services? That's fucking evil!

[LeifEkstom]

"They're certainly not as wasteful as the government when managing education, natural resources and healthcare."

Yes, they are. They just have more money to throw at it to make it look nice. My healthcare is better and more efficient than yours, and mine is state provided. My oil industry is state run, and is more efficient than yours. Because energy is guided by the state, we have a huge emphasis on alternative energy, so we manage our resources better.

[lockdown260]

Have you ever needed any serious health treatment or have you stayed pretty healthy?

[LeifEkstom]

I stay pretty healthy, not only because of our emphasis on preventive medicine, but also because I am a pretty healthy person in general. The last time I needed serious treatment was when I broke my arm in Ireland last year. But since they have universal healthcare there as well, I was well taken care of, and quite speedily too.

Why do you ask?

[lockdown260]

I well I was going to make the case that any serious treatment like a surgery . The waiting lists might endanger your heath. I've heard some horror stories about Canada and the UK's UHC. Now preventive heath care is sometime the US could invest in more however If I needed a surgery soon I could get one now if I choose to. Can you say the same?

[LeifEkstom]

Yes, I can. I can't say the same for France; their system needs a LOT of work. And sure, people complain, but that's human. No system is perfect! But the evils of your system (to me, anyway) vastly outweigh the evils inherent in mine.

Beside, our coverage isn't compulsory. You can still get private care and insurance.

[lockdown260]

I wouldn't call it evil, more like a flaw. I know what ya mean .But your system actually sounds reasonable. of course I would not know for sure unless I got sick in Sweden .

[LeifEkstom]

Well come by anytime! Practically no barriers to immigration, just ask the muslims! LOL

But seriously, out of the systems I have experienced (France, Britain, Germany, Ireland, the US, Sweden, Denmark), ours seems best to me. Nobody should be forced to have public medical care; if you can afford better, then by all means! Of course, this must be limited as well, or doctors will flock to the private system, starving the public one of good doctors. You must have a balance, and I think we do.

[AimiriZ]

Im not saying rich people shouldn't be rich,Im saying that the richest 10% shouldn't be controling 90% of wealth. This gap has been increasing during the years, are you suggesting that it's because rich people have been working harder? because it should be obvious that this is not the case.

[Re5Publica]

"Im saying that the richest 10% shouldn't be controling 90% of wealth."

You don't control wealth, you earn it. Wealth is only controlled in planned economies, like under communism.

"The question isn't why are CEOs taking the money, but why is it being given to them."

Only states extract and control wealth by force through taxation. Rich people earn money through consentual transactions with consumers or investors.

[LeifEkstom]

Yes, you can control wealth. When it is used as a tool for leverage in society as it is today, it can be termed nothing BUT control. And when 90% of it is in the hands of 10% of the people, you have plutocracy.

Congratulations, you live in the Plutocratic States of America.

And come off it about the rich earning it. They either lie, cheat, steal, or gamble their way to the top or, more likely, they were born there.

Denying this is denying reality.

[Re5Publica]

"And come off it about the rich earning it. They either lie, cheat, steal, or gamble their way to the top or, more likely, they were born there.

Denying this is denying reality. "

That's unbelievably prejudiced left-wing bollocks.

Fraud and stealing is illegal, but gambling, I don't know what's wrong with gambling, taking risks is part of business sure.... if you're gambling with your own money, there's nothing wrong with that.

[AimiriZ]

you didn't answer my question,why the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing during the years? Is it beacause the rich have been working harder?

[kevintype]

It's because the rich work smarter, not harder.

For example, money goes farther when you know exactly which politicians to corrupt and which regulatory officials to bribe, in order to make sure the laws that apply to others will not hinder you from getting richer.

In the old days, rich people just spread their bribe money around willy-nilly. Some of that money even went to people who work for a living. Ha! Can you imagine?

Nowadays, you gotta bribe smarter, not harder.

See how it works?

[TheShankman]

Does it even matter that the gap between rich and poor has increased? Many people treat the issue as a class war between the idle rich and the indigent poor--however, most people who bring up the gap don't bring up what comes with it--people moving in and out of income gaps.

Most of the people in the top 20% of income last year aren't still there this year in the U.S.

Additionally, nearly half of income earners in the U.S. in the bottom 20% made their way to the top in the last decade.

[merdufer]

ya they've earned it. but they've earned it through a system that gives no guarantee for the basic qualities of those who work for them.

[ferrozm]

employment is a voluntary association not mandatory if they don't like the conditions under which they are working they are free to leave. The onus is on the employer to compete for employees by providing better conditions and wages. It called freedom of choice

[merdufer]

right, the workers in sweatshops choose to work for their employers, because otherwise their life would have been worse.

this "freedom of choice" argument is what allows businesses to capitalize on human misery.

the most profit can be gained by finding the most miserable who will "freely" choose bad employment conditions. and in free market, as long as there's profit, it's a good thing to do.

[ferrozm]

In a free market there would be more employment to choose from and the worker could set up his own home-based business. Profits are made by giving workers incentives under exploitative conditions a worker will not be as productive and competing business who offer better pays and conditions will have a more efficient worker to beat out the exploitative one.  So it is a matter of free choice and freedom of association, the choices may not be easy but they are not coerced.

[liber8me]

exactly, that is why capitalism ie. competoition is always more free then socialism ie. cooperation.

because cooperation implies organization and it is impossible to organise people without forcing some to do what they would not of their own free will

[ferrozm]

So you admit socialism uses coercion and force to advance its agenda.

[liber8me]

what? that was the entire point of my statement. competition is the only free way an economy can function.

[Slug99]

Yes socialist countries use force in order to control it's population. However so does all governments/states, even the most peaceloving of democracies.

How?

We have these things called laws you see. The whole idea with laws is to control people. The government decides what the law is and then it enforces that law on the population. So unless you're promoting lawlessness, your argument is void of merit. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

[ferrozm]

just because it is a law doesn't mean it should be obeyed. Slavery was a law, conscription was a law, prohibition was a law but govt decree doesn't make it right. You have too much trust in government.

The law is only supposed to protect the liberties of the individual thats why we have a constitution

[Slug99]

Any state is going to have laws. no matter if they are socialistic or capitalistic. All laws have to be enforced by the states, thus all states use violence and coercion to advance their agenda.

The only differences between "capitalist states" and "socialist states" is their reasons for having they law which they happen to have. There is no law of nature which says that one reason is better than the other, only human morality can do that and the problem is that morality is subjective.

[liber8me]

yes, but capitalist democracies recognise there is a realm for the individual where the state cannot interfere.

socialist nations have a tendency to turn into totalitarian regimes because you give the government too power so there is no way to contain the influcence of the state over your lives.

[charleshoskinson]

You sir are an idiot using a red herring to support horrific policy that will undo America

[charleshoskinson]

Which is why unions form when sweatshops operate, unless the government kills the unions as is the case in socialist china

[ferrozm]

Unions try to close off competition from workers who are willing to work for less and try to get exorbitant benefits and wages for jobs that have no bargaining. They try to get the govt to legislate things in their favor getting the government involved in the voluntary association of employment.

[merdufer]

of course, capitalism runs off the idea that someone will work for less. that's why major capitalist powers have to go into less fortunate countries to take advantage of their situations.

[liber8me]

no, capitalism runs off the idea that peoples hard work is rewarded.

you know why every single socialist state that has been established has ended up a totalitarian dictatorship? because you give the government too much power.

[merdufer]

both france and japan are mostly socialist, and they don't end up in totalitarian dictatorship. it's true that government power needs to be in check. but the same goes for the power of greed.

[liber8me]

most governments are a mix, but the free market economy is left more or less to itself because it is the only proven means of generating wealth

[merdufer]

true. free market generates wealth. but government regulation is needed to make sure that the wealth generated from the free market will benefit humanity.

[ferrozm]

hahaha. What a ridiculous statement. Regulations only benefit corporations and politicians don't be naive.

[merdufer]

who's being naive? the one who believes that regulation can have some benefits to the people, or the one who believes that market forces themselves will take care of everything?

you believe in a fairytale and you call me naive? grow up.

[ferrozm]

market forces are economic law. You can't repeal them sorry. Its not naive its economics 101.

[merdufer]

you're probably mixing up two different definitions of "law":

1. it could refer to the legal system. but i don't think there's an item in the u.s. commercial law that just says "market forces".

2. if you meant "economic theory", then of course you can't "repeal" it. you can't "repeal" a theory. of course, you can challenge its claims by pointing out how it is not always consistent with empirical observation. in any case, "market forces" wouldn't be a theory. it's not even a complete sentence.

[ferrozm]

capital is limited, when government regulate choice is severly inhibited and monopolies are created. That has always happened throughout history.

Economic occurrences and phenomenon show that govt intervention even to a limited or so called mixed extent hurts economic growth and progress. You need to stop trusting the government so much.

[merdufer]

it's not just about growth. what about the economic depression? what about the sweatshops in third world countries? the pollution problems like the smog problem in london in the 50's? these are all misfortunes caused by the lack of government intervention.

i don't trust the government "so much". i don't think we can't hand the whole market over to the government. but i think government intervention is sometimes needed. on the other hand, you do seem to trust the free market too much.

[ferrozm]

I trust the free market more because the free market is what allows free individuals to make economic decisions for themselves.

The environment was harmed because of govt. not the free market. In a free market property rights are protected but during the gilded era UK's industrial revolutions govt would favor the big corporations and subsidize them. That is not free market at all. In a free market where property rights are protected no one is allowed to pollute another's property.

[merdufer]

monopoly is not a result of government regulation. it's resulted in two factors: 1. the natural advantage large companies have. 2. the aggressive strategies used by these large companies. it's the result of the lack of regulation.

did you think everyone was using windows because government wouldn't allow other platforms to be developed?

[ferrozm]

other platforms would develope anyway. All the monopolies were created because of govt regulation not because of the free market. Thats the reason why corporations lobbied for anti-trust laws. To make regulations so expensive to make entry into the market virtually impossible for smaller businesses. During the gilded era The Rockafellers, Morgans and standard oil had tons of politicians in their pocket to make regulations to benefit them and their re-election campaigns.

[merdufer]

all of these only says that we need to keep the business lobbyists out of the government regulation process, not that we can't have, or don't need government regulation.

[ferrozm]

The problem isn't that government abuses power but that government is given the power to abuse. Businesses will always find a way to lobby congress to get its regulations passed.

Politicians are not smart enough to foresee the unintended consequences of their regulations no matter how well intended they are that is why individuals should have the right to make any economic decision they wish to make.

[merdufer]

individuals can't foresee the unintended consequences of their decisions either. but these decisions can conflict with each other. politicians are elected to help coordinate these decisions.

[ferrozm]

when individuals do something though only they have to suffer the consequences of their actions. When politicians do it everybody has to suffer the consequences of his decision. Politicians don't coordinate anything. Asking them to coordinate is like treating everyone as a child who must be told what to do in order to "coordinate".ridiculous

[merdufer]

if you're a sailor on a ship, do you listen to the captain, or decides what you want to do yourself? if you're in an army, do you take orders or decides what you want to do yourself?

there are occasions when we need people to coordinate things. forming a society happens to be one of them.

[ferrozm]

A sailor and a soldier voluntarily subject themselves to the regiment so they obey their superior.

Government cannot "coordinate" my economic transaction, business, what i put into my body or steal from me. I don't consent to it and the government has no right to it.

[UncleSam13]

Congratulations, you're a libertarian.

[merdufer]

a question for you: do you think that the u.s. government should stop subsidizing farms in the united states, and let them go bankrupt in face of the competition from much cheaper third world country products?

[ferrozm]

the premise of your question is completely false. the farms would not go bankrupt. US farm technology makes agriculture cheaper and more efficient to produce but farm subsidies make the crops more expensive because govt will always guarantee to big corporate agriculture their welfare checks. The subsidies also tell the farms to under produce crop making the supply less and cost sky rocket. so once again govt is the problem the free market is the solution.

[merdufer]

cut farm subsidies, now that's a platform republicans in southern states would embrace.

i'm guessing you are what they call a libertarian?

[ferrozm]

If by libertarian you mean someone who loves liberty and freedom then yes I am a libertarian.

[merdufer]

no. by libertarian i mean someone who believes that if everybody does what he or she wants, and nobody needs to listen to anybody else, then the world will turn out to be the best it can be.

[ferrozm]

well that description is not what a libertarian is freedom entails individual responsibility not government responsibility.

[merdufer]

how do you ensure that individuals will adhere to their responsibilities? and who/what defines these responsibilities?

[ferrozm]

every individual has a responsibility to himself and he defines these responsibilities. Nobody is supposed to baby everybody to make sure they follow them but the consequences of not being responsible would dissuade a person from being neglectful of his responsibility.

[ferrozm]

Japans court systems are egregious. France's economic growth is terrible. Trying to establish a business there is very onerous.

[ferrozm]

But then the less fortunate countries are better off because there are more jobs, there's a more diversified economy, they don't have to rely on subsistence farming. Its not perfect but it lays the foundation for further investments that will ultimately be better. And besides if we didnt have unions or regulation those manufacturing jobs wouldn't be shipped abroad in the first place.

[merdufer]

china runs under state capitalism. it's not socialist.

[charleshoskinson]

Excuse me?! So Microsoft is a sweatshop?

[merdufer]

they work under the same economic principles. these principles don't have to turn out to be bad in every case, but we have seen their harmful effects enough to be skeptical when people say "unregulated free market will always end up being beneficial to humanity".

[whoo689]

I know that CapnOAwesome (Kevin), who used to be on Youtube, was a libertarian, although for some reason he referred to himself as a conservative. TJ (TheAmazingAtheist) is at least a social libertarian, although I don't know how economically libertarian he is anymore. He admitted in an internet interview he's become more of a Marxist.

The funny thing about ideologies is that the only TRULY consistent one is libertarianism. We favor freedom across the board. We don't pick and choose.

[whoo689]

Socialists tend to favor at least a good chunk of social freedom (liberal) but are against economic freedom. Communists are even worse. Greens are almost as bad. Republicans favor social restrictions but economic freedom, and Dems are the opposite. I'm a big fan of Ron Paul, too. Unfortunately, ther'es really no one on the Democratic side that's comparable, esp. in Congress. There's the Democratic Freedom Caucus, but they're not all that visible and even less known than the RLC.

[whoo689]

PJ actually is against stem cell research??? O jeez

[whoo689]

Peace kills America's fun new imperialism. ;)

Btw, I'm pretty sure O'Rourke is a libertarian, NOT a conservative, Fora. Just pointing that out.

[ForaTv]

After reading the comments here, we've decided to just go with "political satirist." Description has been changed. Thanks for the comment.

[freesk8]

PJ is great!

I always thought of him as a libertarian, not a conservative.

It is true that he is a fiscal conservative, but I do not think he is a social conservative or a foreign policy hawk.

That means libertarian in my book.

"Eat the Rich" by PJ is a great book!

[wlee55]

Wow! I thought  satire was just to amuse and provoke thought. Seems folks take Peej seriously, at least that's what the comments imply.

[jvittetoe]

The reason satire amuses...is because its usually so true.

[jvittetoe]

@ ScepticalPenguin

[jvittetoe]

Beyond your ignorant, pro-socialist ideology, maybe re-watch the first several seconds of the video.

Also, it amazes me why there are not more atheists who subscribe to the small government, anarcho-capitalist philosophy. You're a skeptic right? But, when it comes to the state, you put your blinders on and worship it as your lord. Your put your faith in big government politicians who don't give a flying fuck about you or anybody else. After all, they aren't spending their own money.

[freesk8]

I'm an atheist and a minarchist!

Just like my favorite author, Ayn Rand!

[whoo689]

I'm a libertarian agnostic. :)

[2xtream]

The rich do NOT like a Flat tax because there are no loop holes. A flat tax is the only tax that is equal across all income levels.

[openyourmind678]

yea, unless they decide to raise it. Then a year later they need to raise it again, and the trend goes on...

[LeifEkstom]

So why is it the wealthy that want it so bad?

[truemonolith]

it isnt.

ITs those that think they are wealthy.

contrary to popular belief...joe the plumber isnt rich.

[LeifEkstom]

Who is joe the plumber? I know the Moderates here in Sweden talk about it every few years, and they are mostly the wealthy white-collar folks. I have never heard a less-than-upper-middle class person espouse it here.

[truemonolith]

upper middle class arent upper class.

The really wealthy dont want flat tax because they pay lower tax rates than the 2nd highest earners.

[LeifEkstom]

Well I can't speak for the states, but here "upper middle class" is pretty wealthy. Keep in mind we have a MUCH smaller gap between the rich and poor here, too, so maybe it is just differences in what we consider "wealthy". But still, I have never heard anyone (in person) advocate this tax who is below upper-middle-class. It is a phenomenon of the wealthy.

[truemonolith]

it doesnt matter where you are the "upper-middle class" arent the wealthy, they're the ones that think they are wealthy.

IF they were wealthy, they would fit into the upper class.

This appears to be a difference of opinion over what wealthy is.

[2xtream]

Anyone that opposes this Tax is taking advantage of the loop holes that exist. There is no option but all to pay equal. If you don't like that then you not paying your part!

[ScepticalPenguin]

What a moron.

I wonder if he can spell oversimplification?