Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an unwavering record of defending our Constitution and addressing the problems that our country is facing. He had the foresight to predict and warn about the consequences throughout the years and the knowledge to put us back on the right track to restore our Constitutional Republic to be yet again a great nation.The rest do not have a record to stand that mirrors what they now say - Ron Paul does.
@daveka2011 You should listen to him. He is a smart guy, and he is a Christian--he used to be a pastor. Just keep an open mind. Even if you don't think evolution is reconcilable with Christianity, you shouldn't assume he has nothing of value to say. I'm a Christian and Leonard Read is one of my favorite people.
That's a fine analogy at the end! The argument he's making is that it's better for individuals to co-operatively share their property rather to hoard it, thus benefiting all in the process - enlightened self-interest and mutual aid.
That's not Capitalism, that's Libertarian-Socialism/Communism (Anarchism).
Jesus Christ surely was an Anti-Agent, but he belongs on the opposite end of this chart. By marrying Plato's other-worldly-focused philosophy with the mysticism of Judaism, he and his followers brought about 1500 hundred years of cultural decline, marked by faith and force; and thereby they almost succeeded in destroying the achievements of the Ancient world and the unique qualities of Western Civilization.
@PhilosophyAtWork aha so thats why the Christian Monasteries recorded, protected, translated and educated greek and roman philosophy, litterature and history because they wanted to destroy it. haha you are a moron :D
I'm afraid your facts as well as your manners are completely off. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe sunk back into an anarchical nightmare of stagnation and misery, also known as Feudal Christendom. For 800 years all books except for the bible and other church texts were burned; with the exception of ornaments on church windows, depicting the glory of the afterlife, all forms of artistic expression were forbidden.
1000 years after the fall of the Roman Empire, the best roads one could find in mainland Europe, were roads build by the Romans. The Christians in Europe managed to destroy 2/3 of all the writings of Aristotle, who was arguably the most brilliant man of all time. It was the Arabs, who were much more moderate in their exercise of their monotheism than the Christians of the time, who saved the remaining third of Aristotle's work and got it reintroduced to European culture via Thomas Aquinas.
And after 1000 years of nothing but the fucking bible, even the Christian Scholastics were fed up with it and readily embraced the new ideas that they were introduced to. And only 100 years after Aquinas is when you get the Turtles: Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, Raphael and many others, or in one word: The Renaissance, which means "Rebirth". And no, it was not the Rebirth of Christianity. The people have had that and nothing else for a millennium.
It was the rebirth and rediscovery of a this-worldly philosophy, originated by the Greeks and carried forth to small extend by the Romans.
And if you don't believe me, then please show me one painting, one sculpture or one poem from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th century that does not deal in faith and/or force.
@PhilosophyAtWork I don't know what "unique qualities" of Western civilization you like the most, but the West was not all that dissimilar to the rest of the world in ancient times - yes, the Greeks had better logical outlook than most, but they degenerated into vice and empire and were conquered by Romans who ended up doing the same thing. I can't see how Christianity caused any cultural decline at all, in fact it is probably what saved Western Civ after the collapse of the Roman Empire :)
The unique qualities brought forth by Western Civilization (in particular the Greeks) are: Reason, Logic, Philosophy, Science, Art, Republicanism, Individualism.
Yes, the Greeks outside the few decades of the Athenian Golden Age were not a joyful sight. And after the Second Punic War, the Romans were very short-sighted and unprincipled hand-to-mouth Expansionists. But both were way better than any other of the countless stone-age tribes around the world.
And both were way better than any of the filth-ridden, empty-headed and faith-based swamps that would draw, and endlessly redraw the borders of Europe after the fall of Rome. I can guarantee you that ALL of the things you value today (even Christmas) were achieved in spite of the fierce resistance they got from all honest representatives of Christianity every time.
Ever since the late 1930's we have had more socialism in America than capitalism by far, yet elected officials continue to blame this false sense of free trade which furthers our move toward a Communist regime. We owe it to the world to keep at least one nation free.
@esypooyou Great point. I always have a problem with the word capitalism. Since it is insufficient to make clear in one word what is meant. The Soviet Union was an ultimate "capitalist" society if we see capitalism in the literal sense of "using capital". It used capital to send probes to the moon, conquer other nations, oppress the citizenry... The difference was that the state had an ultra-monopoly over capital and manpower.
I suggest Collectivism/Statism vs. Freedom/individual Rights.
@Mars2O84 Are you joking me? Let us look at socialist nations....pick any of them. They have an extrodinarily high amount government telling owners of businesses that you have to pay them more and more because they are "entitled" to it. Wokers control is in a free market where the worker is paid for how much he/she does. The more you do, the more valuable you are therefore, you are less expendable. You control how much you make in a free market....lets debate anytime anywhere.
So the more useless commodity shit you can mass produce for the world, the more valuable you are - that's the perfect mentality for a sweatshop foreman or a slave-master. There's no freedom in being shackled to production quotas - besides, no matter how many goods workers produce, the owners and bosses take the majority of profits.
Don't argue against "socialist" states because I don't support that model. I advocate autonomy and decentralization of both economic and political power.
@Mars2O84 I work in a sweat shop...but in the US. Here they are called warehouses. Sweat shops are a great thing for socities to have. No one is forcing anyone to work there, if you want to make money go make some money..if not stop complaining and be poor, I don't care. The owners and bosses take majority of the profits sure, but if they didn't then what is there reason for opening the business in the first place..If I think I get paid too little, I will quit and find new employment.
"Sweatshop" has a negative connotation because it's an obvious form of exploitation. It's true that the warehouse you work at is economically no different than a sweatshop.
You're arguing in favor of your own exploitation, and you seem to be aware of it. You simply accept that your "higher-ups" are taking a cut off of your earnings. You produce the goods, while they merely own the equipment that you use.
You would get paid more if you and your fellow co-workers owned the machinery.
@Mars2O84 Dude are you kidding me? Have you ever read anything besides an Obama biography? I mean your points are so childish...I could earn more if my higher ups didn't "own me"....news flash they don't! If I wanted too, I could easily quit, I enjoy working there because I could paid very well, great benefits and paid time off....That is progress. Workers are not exploited if they choose to work. Free Marets are all about choice and diversity. Read something relevant, go to college like me.
If your grammar is any indication of education, I'll stick to my university. Your argument is weakened by mentioning Obama. He's just another Capitalist tool. Blinded by ideology, you probably think he's a got-daymn soshalyst!
You can quit, then find work for another Capitalist or go hungry - some choice! (wage slavery)
I didn't say the bosses own YOU (not far off though). I said they own the machinery - the means of production. This grants them power, control, and false authority.
And how do you think the US reached this level of "progress" with decent wages, paid time off, and a middle class?
Those benefits are the result of labor struggles from 100 years ago, when this country actually had a class consciousness. Your vacation time is the result of capitulations by industrialists and robber-barons who realized that they had to better give better scraps to the masses or risk riots and unrest.
You don't even know what socialism means - it's just something for you to fear.
I think that could be a likely eventual outcome of worker-owned businesses and widescale decentralization of power.
But the world seems to be too attached to money as it is now, and the pleasures that greed offers. Money is nothing but a shared illusion, but it would probably have to be something that mankind is gradually weaned off of.
@Mars2O84 I'd argue Capitalism offers works more control over their lives than Socialism. In Capitalism a worker chooses what he does, where he does it, and for how much. If the reality of the situation can't meet his needs he opts for the best he can do, in Socialism he is told where to work, how to work, and how much he is worth. The sad part is in Socialism no matter how hard you work you get nothing more thus destroying any chance of real world progress.
No. First off, you're thinking about top-down, authoritarian, state socialism (USSR). That model has proven to be a failure.
Capitalism does not give us these choices. People often do whatever shit job they have to do to survive ("wage slavery"). The Nike sweatshop workers in Bangladesh didn't CHOOSE that job, same for millions and millions of Americans in dead-end office jobs.
Bottom-up, direct worker-owned businesses gives the workers a say in decisions that affect them.
@Mars2O84 So go ahead and tell all the poor people working in sweatshops that Capitalism is evil and they should all starve to death at home. Hey I got an idea, lets just make it impossible for workers to get jobs here too. We can start by passing ridiculous regulations that have negative effects and then slowly move to a government run monopoly. When no business can stay open because their customers can't afford to drive bullet proof cars, we can just force everyone to buy them.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument. I already said I'm against the model of authoritarian states, and you're presuming that exploitation is the one-and-only option for developing nations.
Just out of curiosity, what are your arguments against a government monopoly?
@Mars2O84 Government monopolies are worse than free market monopolies. They have the power to charge how ever much they want, they can force you into them, and they have no standards seeing how they don[t have to care for their customers. If you studied monopolies you'd know pretty much ever monopoly in history was government backed. It is nearly impossible to create them without government intervention. My argument is no straw man, I can cite examples if you'd like...
Private monopolies are created by government monopolies because that's what the state does. The state first arose as a way to protect private property (food & grain storage), codifying the division between the haves and the have-nots.
Your argument is a strawman because I'm not talking about any model in "third world" dictatorships.
You assume that exploitation is the only option for developing nations - this is elitist, imperialistic, and flat-out wrong. Exploitation means theft!
@Mars2O84 Imperialism is giving people that want jobs a job? I didn't know helping undeveloped countries to develop and raise capital was so evil. Then again what should I expect from you. You think everything is evil and this is why when people like you get in charge the economy goes down the shitter. Your "morals" are to praise the poor and your goal is to make everyone poor. You wonder why your ideal society falls apart when at the bottom of your ideology is human sacrifice for nothing.
I'll try one last time. Don't wrongly assume things and then misrepresent my position. I won't continue if you keep bringing up strawmen like that.
In a Libertarian Socialist model there is no single leader "in charge" of the economy (an impossible task to begin with). At its base, economic and political power is decentralized as much as possible. The workers directly own and control their businesses through democratic means. No human sacrifice necessary.
@Mars2O84 It's not a straw man, you actually believe we are exploiting the third world by giving them jobs. Maybe you do not realize this directly, but it is exactly what you think.
Libertarian and Socialism are almost completely mutually exclusive ideas. Libertarians don't even believe in direct democracy since it leads to oppression from society. You can't run a business democratically, that would lead to a bureaucratic mess that destroys itself.
What leads to a bureaucratic mess are middlemen, managers, administrators, enforcers...
When rulers are distant from the area they rule, they must rely on communication and control through large bureaucracies. When rule is localized and direct, shared equally among workers and community members, the need for impersonal bureaucratic institutions is significantly lessened.
Libertarianism = Anarchism = Socialism. "Libertarian Socialism" is redundant. Look it up, learn history.
@Mars2O84 It's not a straw man, you actually believe we are exploiting the third world by giving them jobs. Maybe you do not realize this directly, but it is exactly what you think.
Libertarian and Socialism are almost completely mutually exclusive ideas. Libertarians don't even believe in direct democracy since it leads to oppression from society. You can't run a business democratically, that would lead to a bureaucratic mess that destroys itself.
@Mars2O84 What you consider exploitation is actually progress. Keeping these people from having jobs doesn't help them, if they didn't want to work they wouldn't be working at these jobs. Your idea of helping them will guarantee they will be poor forever. Every third world country today applies similar thinking to what you are proposing and they can't seem to figure out why they can't reach full employment. You are literally making it impossible for them to achieve a higher standard of living.
@esypooyou I have often observed the same thing. Free markets and freedom in general is blamed for our condition but we have had neither for at least 100 years. So the slow steady creep to socialism and despotism continues year after year...
This is one of the main reasons for why most people think libertarians are nuts, because they allways talk about "socialism". But there are many more economic isms than just capitalism and socialism.
Please don't missunderstand me. I prefer capitalism over any of them
@ToxinalX I know there are many different economic systems, almost countless if you count technical differences, however, Capitalism or Free-Enterprise has created more wealth and a greater standard of living along with more technological creations that anyother system in the history of mankind. We have not had Capitalism in America since the early 1920's. This fact alone will be the downfall of our nation.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an unwavering record of defending our Constitution and addressing the problems that our country is facing. He had the foresight to predict and warn about the consequences throughout the years and the knowledge to put us back on the right track to restore our Constitutional Republic to be yet again a great nation.The rest do not have a record to stand that mirrors what they now say - Ron Paul does.
mrearlygold 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th*
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+5500 pledges so far!!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just in case of interest:
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is out
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6W07bFa4TzM
Ron Paul 2012
ToxinalX 5 months ago
I find that when a grown man begins by spouting fairytails like evolution, he usually has nothing of value to say.
daveka2011 5 months ago
@daveka2011 You should listen to him. He is a smart guy, and he is a Christian--he used to be a pastor. Just keep an open mind. Even if you don't think evolution is reconcilable with Christianity, you shouldn't assume he has nothing of value to say. I'm a Christian and Leonard Read is one of my favorite people.
BagofHay 5 months ago 3
I find that when a grown man begins by spouting fairytails like evolution, he usually has nothing of value to say.
daveka2011 5 months ago
Four fools. Somebody get them a candle.
imrnlil 5 months ago
That's a fine analogy at the end! The argument he's making is that it's better for individuals to co-operatively share their property rather to hoard it, thus benefiting all in the process - enlightened self-interest and mutual aid.
That's not Capitalism, that's Libertarian-Socialism/Communism (Anarchism).
Mars2O84 5 months ago
I think YouTube has proven that ignorance does have resistance to enlightenment.
DougShatter 5 months ago 6
Awesome!
TheBullionBull 5 months ago
@8:00 I think Glenn Beck ripped this idea off. He is known for intellectual copyright infringement. (if there was such a thing)
KingDingaLing090 5 months ago
Thanks for posting. Intend to watch full video.
carcabe 5 months ago
Jesus Christ surely was an Anti-Agent, but he belongs on the opposite end of this chart. By marrying Plato's other-worldly-focused philosophy with the mysticism of Judaism, he and his followers brought about 1500 hundred years of cultural decline, marked by faith and force; and thereby they almost succeeded in destroying the achievements of the Ancient world and the unique qualities of Western Civilization.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
@PhilosophyAtWork aha so thats why the Christian Monasteries recorded, protected, translated and educated greek and roman philosophy, litterature and history because they wanted to destroy it. haha you are a moron :D
killerbee2k 5 months ago
@killerbee2k
I'm afraid your facts as well as your manners are completely off. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe sunk back into an anarchical nightmare of stagnation and misery, also known as Feudal Christendom. For 800 years all books except for the bible and other church texts were burned; with the exception of ornaments on church windows, depicting the glory of the afterlife, all forms of artistic expression were forbidden.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
1000 years after the fall of the Roman Empire, the best roads one could find in mainland Europe, were roads build by the Romans. The Christians in Europe managed to destroy 2/3 of all the writings of Aristotle, who was arguably the most brilliant man of all time. It was the Arabs, who were much more moderate in their exercise of their monotheism than the Christians of the time, who saved the remaining third of Aristotle's work and got it reintroduced to European culture via Thomas Aquinas.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
And after 1000 years of nothing but the fucking bible, even the Christian Scholastics were fed up with it and readily embraced the new ideas that they were introduced to. And only 100 years after Aquinas is when you get the Turtles: Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo, Raphael and many others, or in one word: The Renaissance, which means "Rebirth". And no, it was not the Rebirth of Christianity. The people have had that and nothing else for a millennium.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
It was the rebirth and rediscovery of a this-worldly philosophy, originated by the Greeks and carried forth to small extend by the Romans.
And if you don't believe me, then please show me one painting, one sculpture or one poem from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th century that does not deal in faith and/or force.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
@PhilosophyAtWork I don't know what "unique qualities" of Western civilization you like the most, but the West was not all that dissimilar to the rest of the world in ancient times - yes, the Greeks had better logical outlook than most, but they degenerated into vice and empire and were conquered by Romans who ended up doing the same thing. I can't see how Christianity caused any cultural decline at all, in fact it is probably what saved Western Civ after the collapse of the Roman Empire :)
TheBullionBull 5 months ago
@TheBullionBull
The unique qualities brought forth by Western Civilization (in particular the Greeks) are: Reason, Logic, Philosophy, Science, Art, Republicanism, Individualism.
Yes, the Greeks outside the few decades of the Athenian Golden Age were not a joyful sight. And after the Second Punic War, the Romans were very short-sighted and unprincipled hand-to-mouth Expansionists. But both were way better than any other of the countless stone-age tribes around the world.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
And both were way better than any of the filth-ridden, empty-headed and faith-based swamps that would draw, and endlessly redraw the borders of Europe after the fall of Rome. I can guarantee you that ALL of the things you value today (even Christmas) were achieved in spite of the fierce resistance they got from all honest representatives of Christianity every time.
PhilosophyAtWork 5 months ago
Read exudes whiteguyness.
MrBWB 5 months ago
brilliant ending
sonnybrown 5 months ago 24
i hit "like" like the second i turn on one of your videos, great stuff
pinegrove33 5 months ago 3
He says huh and heh to much.
greenghost2008 5 months ago
@greenghost2008 Perhaps, but you don't know the difference between 'to' and 'too.'
TomKaren1994 5 months ago
Leonard Read is the genius that brought us the essay I, pencil. You've given me some more homework. :)
BTW that FEE video "How to Advance Liberty" is also on YouTube.
watch?v=9UE3JeowaaE
justintempler 5 months ago 3
@justintempler: "BTW that FEE video ...is also on YouTube."
Thanks for the heads up! :D
PoliticallyBlazed 5 months ago 2
Ever since the late 1930's we have had more socialism in America than capitalism by far, yet elected officials continue to blame this false sense of free trade which furthers our move toward a Communist regime. We owe it to the world to keep at least one nation free.
esypooyou 5 months ago 44
@esypooyou Great point. I always have a problem with the word capitalism. Since it is insufficient to make clear in one word what is meant. The Soviet Union was an ultimate "capitalist" society if we see capitalism in the literal sense of "using capital". It used capital to send probes to the moon, conquer other nations, oppress the citizenry... The difference was that the state had an ultra-monopoly over capital and manpower.
I suggest Collectivism/Statism vs. Freedom/individual Rights.
scepticsteve 5 months ago
@esypooyou
Socialism means worker's control, not government intervention.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 Are you joking me? Let us look at socialist nations....pick any of them. They have an extrodinarily high amount government telling owners of businesses that you have to pay them more and more because they are "entitled" to it. Wokers control is in a free market where the worker is paid for how much he/she does. The more you do, the more valuable you are therefore, you are less expendable. You control how much you make in a free market....lets debate anytime anywhere.
esypooyou 5 months ago 2
@esypooyou
So the more useless commodity shit you can mass produce for the world, the more valuable you are - that's the perfect mentality for a sweatshop foreman or a slave-master. There's no freedom in being shackled to production quotas - besides, no matter how many goods workers produce, the owners and bosses take the majority of profits.
Don't argue against "socialist" states because I don't support that model. I advocate autonomy and decentralization of both economic and political power.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 I work in a sweat shop...but in the US. Here they are called warehouses. Sweat shops are a great thing for socities to have. No one is forcing anyone to work there, if you want to make money go make some money..if not stop complaining and be poor, I don't care. The owners and bosses take majority of the profits sure, but if they didn't then what is there reason for opening the business in the first place..If I think I get paid too little, I will quit and find new employment.
esypooyou 5 months ago
@esypooyou
"Sweatshop" has a negative connotation because it's an obvious form of exploitation. It's true that the warehouse you work at is economically no different than a sweatshop.
You're arguing in favor of your own exploitation, and you seem to be aware of it. You simply accept that your "higher-ups" are taking a cut off of your earnings. You produce the goods, while they merely own the equipment that you use.
You would get paid more if you and your fellow co-workers owned the machinery.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 Dude are you kidding me? Have you ever read anything besides an Obama biography? I mean your points are so childish...I could earn more if my higher ups didn't "own me"....news flash they don't! If I wanted too, I could easily quit, I enjoy working there because I could paid very well, great benefits and paid time off....That is progress. Workers are not exploited if they choose to work. Free Marets are all about choice and diversity. Read something relevant, go to college like me.
esypooyou 5 months ago
@esypooyou
If your grammar is any indication of education, I'll stick to my university. Your argument is weakened by mentioning Obama. He's just another Capitalist tool. Blinded by ideology, you probably think he's a got-daymn soshalyst!
You can quit, then find work for another Capitalist or go hungry - some choice! (wage slavery)
I didn't say the bosses own YOU (not far off though). I said they own the machinery - the means of production. This grants them power, control, and false authority.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
And how do you think the US reached this level of "progress" with decent wages, paid time off, and a middle class?
Those benefits are the result of labor struggles from 100 years ago, when this country actually had a class consciousness. Your vacation time is the result of capitulations by industrialists and robber-barons who realized that they had to better give better scraps to the masses or risk riots and unrest.
You don't even know what socialism means - it's just something for you to fear.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 Actually, what if money didn't exist?
EltonJThe 5 months ago
@EltonJThe
I think that could be a likely eventual outcome of worker-owned businesses and widescale decentralization of power.
But the world seems to be too attached to money as it is now, and the pleasures that greed offers. Money is nothing but a shared illusion, but it would probably have to be something that mankind is gradually weaned off of.
Why do you ask, what do you think?
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 That's syndicalism, not socialism.
Audiofalcon7 5 months ago
@Audiofalcon7
Yes, that's right. But Syndicalism (and anarcho-Syndicalism) are branches of Socialism.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 I'd argue Capitalism offers works more control over their lives than Socialism. In Capitalism a worker chooses what he does, where he does it, and for how much. If the reality of the situation can't meet his needs he opts for the best he can do, in Socialism he is told where to work, how to work, and how much he is worth. The sad part is in Socialism no matter how hard you work you get nothing more thus destroying any chance of real world progress.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@thebestsumo
No. First off, you're thinking about top-down, authoritarian, state socialism (USSR). That model has proven to be a failure.
Capitalism does not give us these choices. People often do whatever shit job they have to do to survive ("wage slavery"). The Nike sweatshop workers in Bangladesh didn't CHOOSE that job, same for millions and millions of Americans in dead-end office jobs.
Bottom-up, direct worker-owned businesses gives the workers a say in decisions that affect them.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 So go ahead and tell all the poor people working in sweatshops that Capitalism is evil and they should all starve to death at home. Hey I got an idea, lets just make it impossible for workers to get jobs here too. We can start by passing ridiculous regulations that have negative effects and then slowly move to a government run monopoly. When no business can stay open because their customers can't afford to drive bullet proof cars, we can just force everyone to buy them.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@thebestsumoeva
That's a ridiculous strawman argument. I already said I'm against the model of authoritarian states, and you're presuming that exploitation is the one-and-only option for developing nations.
Just out of curiosity, what are your arguments against a government monopoly?
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 Government monopolies are worse than free market monopolies. They have the power to charge how ever much they want, they can force you into them, and they have no standards seeing how they don[t have to care for their customers. If you studied monopolies you'd know pretty much ever monopoly in history was government backed. It is nearly impossible to create them without government intervention. My argument is no straw man, I can cite examples if you'd like...
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@thebestsumo
Private monopolies are created by government monopolies because that's what the state does. The state first arose as a way to protect private property (food & grain storage), codifying the division between the haves and the have-nots.
Your argument is a strawman because I'm not talking about any model in "third world" dictatorships.
You assume that exploitation is the only option for developing nations - this is elitist, imperialistic, and flat-out wrong. Exploitation means theft!
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 Imperialism is giving people that want jobs a job? I didn't know helping undeveloped countries to develop and raise capital was so evil. Then again what should I expect from you. You think everything is evil and this is why when people like you get in charge the economy goes down the shitter. Your "morals" are to praise the poor and your goal is to make everyone poor. You wonder why your ideal society falls apart when at the bottom of your ideology is human sacrifice for nothing.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@bestsumo
I'll try one last time. Don't wrongly assume things and then misrepresent my position. I won't continue if you keep bringing up strawmen like that.
In a Libertarian Socialist model there is no single leader "in charge" of the economy (an impossible task to begin with). At its base, economic and political power is decentralized as much as possible. The workers directly own and control their businesses through democratic means. No human sacrifice necessary.
Yes, imperialism is evil.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 It's not a straw man, you actually believe we are exploiting the third world by giving them jobs. Maybe you do not realize this directly, but it is exactly what you think.
Libertarian and Socialism are almost completely mutually exclusive ideas. Libertarians don't even believe in direct democracy since it leads to oppression from society. You can't run a business democratically, that would lead to a bureaucratic mess that destroys itself.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@tbestsumo
What leads to a bureaucratic mess are middlemen, managers, administrators, enforcers...
When rulers are distant from the area they rule, they must rely on communication and control through large bureaucracies. When rule is localized and direct, shared equally among workers and community members, the need for impersonal bureaucratic institutions is significantly lessened.
Libertarianism = Anarchism = Socialism. "Libertarian Socialism" is redundant. Look it up, learn history.
Mars2O84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mars2O84 It's not a straw man, you actually believe we are exploiting the third world by giving them jobs. Maybe you do not realize this directly, but it is exactly what you think.
Libertarian and Socialism are almost completely mutually exclusive ideas. Libertarians don't even believe in direct democracy since it leads to oppression from society. You can't run a business democratically, that would lead to a bureaucratic mess that destroys itself.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@Mars2O84 What you consider exploitation is actually progress. Keeping these people from having jobs doesn't help them, if they didn't want to work they wouldn't be working at these jobs. Your idea of helping them will guarantee they will be poor forever. Every third world country today applies similar thinking to what you are proposing and they can't seem to figure out why they can't reach full employment. You are literally making it impossible for them to achieve a higher standard of living.
thebestsumoeva 5 months ago
@esypooyou I have often observed the same thing. Free markets and freedom in general is blamed for our condition but we have had neither for at least 100 years. So the slow steady creep to socialism and despotism continues year after year...
sublimetrance 5 months ago
@esypooyou Corporativism, not socialism.
This is one of the main reasons for why most people think libertarians are nuts, because they allways talk about "socialism". But there are many more economic isms than just capitalism and socialism.
Please don't missunderstand me. I prefer capitalism over any of them
ToxinalX 5 months ago
@ToxinalX I know there are many different economic systems, almost countless if you count technical differences, however, Capitalism or Free-Enterprise has created more wealth and a greater standard of living along with more technological creations that anyother system in the history of mankind. We have not had Capitalism in America since the early 1920's. This fact alone will be the downfall of our nation.
esypooyou 5 months ago 2
@esypooyou Totally agree with you, my friend.
ToxinalX 5 months ago
What year is this from?
qtutoringhelps 5 months ago