Libertarian/Republican econ. ideology is based on a false dilemma that implies that you must choose between an ethical system which is based solely on individual liberty or an ethical system that is based solely on the needs of the group. Why not a combination? The top ten economies on the planet are all a mixture of private and public institutions. Conversely there are no historical examples of absolutist free markets advancing civilization.
@MrSteveSpears The American Free Market under a Constitutional Representative Republic using Democratic methods was doing quite well, but then people with influence created a situation in which the economy was no longer sustainable, and were able to convince the people that a monetary Division was needed.
And thus sprang the Federal Reserve in 1913-1914, and since then we've been adding debt with every dollar this Private Corporate entity has printed in the name of the average American citizen.
@MrSteveSpears "Conversely there are no historical examples of absolutist free markets advancing civilization." That is not what libertarians aim for. we acknowledge that there must be government inorder for a society to function. However wit a situation where the government has complete hands off with free trade. I don't think it has ever been fully tried yet. And why would it be when many bureaucrats like to get their hands on things.
And magic beans should be used for currency, screw the Fed. Guess what Libertarian's? What do you do when it happens, & massive discrimination WORKS in the public sector in business? You don't have an answer for that, just shrug saying, "Meh, guess the free markets spoke". Your fellow unenlightened citizens will let you down badly on this like historically have. No thanks, Title II of the CRA works just fine against hateful bigots. Not just wishing it away...
Since everyone has equal rights, and nobody may do anything that directly infringes upon the rights of another, and since people in general would have much more direct control at the local level to change polices to suite the interests of all the people, rather than groups of people, I fail to see what exactly you're suggesting.
Is it that by people taking charge of their destiny, the people will somehow let some minority of hateful bigots take control of the political side, even with no elite?
@dimeuno I'm suggesting reality. Nothing more. If you think the free markets will make racists go away by "looking bad", you clearly have no understanding of our horrible racial historyor De Facto racism(on their own) in America. You also don't go on-line much to see horrible racism everyday. I don't really care what you think man "might" do. I have a proven historical record of what we've done. That's enough for me
@Bolgernow - I can't speak on your personal experiences in life, but I can say that we live in a new age, and that understanding the past is very important in order to understand anything that I've said to you so far, in the ways I intended.
Racism is a manipulated form of hate that has been propagated by those families who've wished to have control over our nations, for generations, and without realizing how it's done, we'll never be rid of racism on this planet.
@dimeuno you totally ignored our historical reality in favor of "But Ron Paul can do it". Um, it's not UP TO DR. PAUL. It's up to society to overcome racism, & frankly they're not up to the challenge. Never have been, so you can gamble with others rights. Sorry, rejected
@Bolgernow - You ignored the fact that under the law all people are equal, as long as the Constitution is upheld. The difference between now and the past is that when there was slavery, the slaves were not considered citizens, they were slaves of the citizens.
Ever since black people were given the ability to be considered citizens, all that was left was the segregation intentionally created by those who wish division to exist in the first place.
And beyond that, in the public sector, when it comes to business, nobody is stupid enough to make everyone hate them by proclaiming that they will only sell their goods to white people, or black people. They are likely to, at minimum, have their businesses boycotted, not only at the local level, but at national and international levels.
The world has left racism so far behind in so many ways, that it would take a revolution to bring it back.
There is no hope left for racist tendencies today.
@dimeuno you're not only naive & grossly ignorant of history. You're dangerous. You can't "boycott" something that does "well" or "has an audience" & "impact". FOX news is one example of this type of thinking "doing well". You don't have an answer when it does well just "Aw shucks, I thought it woulda worked", yet the damage is irreversible...
@dimeuno a "white only" restaurant that does well terrorizes minorities in that community. Sorry if you don't comprehend this, it's not for debate anymore thanks to Title II of the CRA. You are willfully ignorant, or clinically insane. Either way, not my problem...
@Bolgernow If your town clearly despises such behavior, which I would assume is the popular belief, then why would a business risk doing such a thing on account of it's disapproval? That would not be a very wise economic decision I would say.
@nefariousD11 you didn't address my point. AGAIN, if you have a town filled with racists, then "Whites Only" restaurants will do VERY well. You don't have any answer when that happens, just shrug & say, "Welp, guess that's what the town wants". NO, that terrorizes & harasses any minorities living in that town. Thanks to Title II of the CRA act, that will never happen
@Bolgernow I am not blind sir. I am well aware of the horrific let alone tragic consequences of racism. You are correct that it is no obstacle to find such examples. However, you still are confusing federal intervention as a necessary component to eliminate this. As I said, do you honestly believe your state government would deny your own people these rights? The public outcry of such would hardly go unnoticed, I think you accredit too much control of this to the federal government.
@nefariousD11 I'm not. You're confusing "freedom" with "racial intolerance". I don't really care. You said, "do you honestly believe your state government would deny your own people these rights". YES, in fact FUCK YES. Pay the $ to get any Aryan elected like the past, or the current GOP Republican party & YES, they use the States to make racism legal. Public schmublic, the law was made, outcry would be heard, but those in power make the rules. The weak lose. Happens every day
@Bolgernow Unfortunately, "racial intolerance" is a set back of freedom. Those who partake in such are entitled to their opinion of this, and obviously neither you or I condone or promote such behavior. However, public perspective aside, they still subject themselves to the consequences of this isolated viewpoint. And lets face it, it is not to be taken lightly. If a state were to leave this untreated, they would condemn themselves as a whole to ridicule as well.
@nefariousD11 a "racial intolerance set back" isn't what we in rational society accept. Sorry, you are free to start nefariousD11 land, if you don't like it. Go screw. AGAIN, you NEVER address when it WORKS, you just say "It won't". BULLSHIT!
@Bolgernow Please keep typing in capital letters and resorting to childish name calling, Im sure that will make people take you seriously. Why not try to actually debate this logically instead of getting mad? You have very very very poor and immature debating skills I must say. I'm done. Good luck.
@nefariousD11 name calling? I'm addressing your argument. It's totally faulty. I explained rational society doesn't accept "racial intolerance" as a setback to freedom not matter how many times you type it buddy. If you can't accept it, go screw. LAST TIME, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN RACISM WORKS FOR RESTAURANTS? You can't, just shrug & say, "Welp, then that's their choice". According to Title II, it isn't...
@Bolgernow Alright, then you answer me your own question sir, and then I shall answer gladly it in return. I think we can both agree that is a reasonable approach to this. So let me ask you your own question. What would YOU personally do if you saw a business that is openly racist? Would go and buy from them anyway? Would you protest them? Would you get violent? Or would you ignore the problem? What would you do?
@nefariousD11 you can't answer the question because it exposes a massive flaw when racist unite together to create unsafe business environments against minorities. You have no ANSWER when it works. Fair enough. You can't answer with facts, just wishful conjecture that ignores our horrid racial past. That's not my issue, it's yours
@Bolgernow Fair enough, and that is YOUR opinion. Well here's mine: You're very ignorant when it comes to facts. You didn't answer my question either. I asked you, what you would personally do about racism in your local community? Albeit apparently nothing whatsoever, you would point fingers at free market capitalists such as myself, but you yourself would take no action regarding it anyway? I WILL answer your question. Just answer mine first. Government aside, what would YOU do?
@nefariousD11 not opinion, fact. Based on a the civil war, & a horrid history of race relations in our country. Hell the entire Republican party today is built on racial intolerance. All you have is irrational arguments not based in reality. You can't address when racist business's do well, you ignore that every time. Until you address it, I will not respond again
@Bolgernow You want to talk of reality? Please give me an example of how the Republican party is built on racial intolerance? I see both Republican and Democratic parties built on high taxes and endless spending for unsustainable wars. Can't you see were going bankrupt to the tune of 1 trillion per year? That is why I will vote for Ron Paul who will end all wars immediately. Do you think electing another war monger is going to help promote peace and universal tolerance among people?
@Bolgernow Also, believe it or not, but the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Slavery would have ended anyway because there were many movements back then setting out to achieve this. It was a popular growing belief that slavery was wrong. Abraham Lincoln did NOT free the slaves. He only freed them from the Confederates. The Union had plenty of slaves. Lincoln actually was a racist. The real reason of the Civil War was States right to sovereignty versus a Federal right to sovereignty.
@Bolgernow Also you have completely misinterpreted what I said before, when I said "racial intolerance is a setback to freedom"... Break that down and you will see it means, "freedom" is "held back" by "people who support racial intolerance"... I myself have never once advocated intolerance. Please read my arguments clearly next time.
@Bolgernow I have an answer for you brother.You really think your state government would let that happen? If your people don't want that, then it wont happen.
@nefariousD11 stroll around a factory, local bar, city streets, or the internet to see if their aren't massive amounts of racists. Start with any Yahoo political article. It could be about congress but there'll be over 2,000 racist comments about Obama. You're blind & that's sad
@Bolgernow Exposing racism in this modern era is a sentence in itself. Think of it. A company that exhibits racism is exposed. Without federal intervention, they have still doomed their reputation on apparent ignorance. They would be boycotted by both buyers and workers. Just look at any exposed "racist". They crucify themselves, there is no need for federal intervention. The states are more than capable of handling this. Your opinion seems heavily motivated by fear.
@nefariousD11 you'd think so, but it's not. While sunlight helps, I've run across many many many many YouTube folks here or Facebook people more than happy to shout their Aryan Nation racism. It's called White PRIDE for a reason. Your views of humanity while noble, fall grossly short from our history & reality today. AGAIN, Title II of the CRA act addresses this, you have NO ANSWER for when it works just shrug & go "Welp racism it is". NOT ACCEPTABLE
@Bolgernow You are right it is not acceptable. And thankfully for us, the internet is not complete reflection of human society as a whole. There is a libertarian solution though. Free market capitalism is demand. Demand decides what will and wont exist in a market. As many racists as there in today's world, I think we could agree that there's a majority that outnumbers them.
@nefariousD11 no, no, no, no, no, fucking no. YOU DON'T GET TO GAMBLE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ASSHOLE. Honestly, you are so lost logically, it's not remotely funny. It's sad, & intolerant...
@Bolgernow Look, you clearly have no concept on how to debate except to spew Ad Hominem and pointless references, I think you are the one who is a little lost. Federal Intervention will NOT stop racism. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!! Can you comprehend that in the small amount of gray matter you've been given? It never has and never will be the cause behind racial intolerance solution. So there's your answer. Ill keep saying it if you're too ignorant to see it.
@Bolgernow One other thing. Gambling other peoples rights? What is a right? Is this an object I can own? You dont get it. If there is a racist society then there is NOTHING you or I or any branch of government can do to change their minds. The civil rights movement came because there was a majority of support for them. The law does not shape a persons beliefs. It is the choice of the individual.
@Bolgernow so, intervention aside, squarely from a free market perspective, if a racist business opened in a town, then there would be a lack of appeal to those whom they are prejudice against. This would create a demand for a non racist competitor. If there is a demand for it, the market will appeal. And who could really see openly "racist" business competing well against an alternative anyway? I wouldn't have to ask you which you would preferably do business with.
@nefariousD11 WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS APPEAL? YOU HAVE NO ANSWER!!!!!! NOTHING!!!! BUT HISTORY, REALITY, & RACIAL PROBLEMS IN AMERICA DO YOU FUCKING IDIOT. YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE FACTS ISN'T OUR ISSUE, IT'S YOURS
@sfiorare You do realize that MLK Day is racist, right? Anything that isn't ignorant to the color of someone's skin, their sex, orientation, etc. is inherently racist. What if there was a national white person's day/month? The longer we separate people and put them into groups, the longer we prolong the rich and powerful's ability to control us. The true modern distinction between people is the 1% and the 99%. All other distinctions are merely ruses to confuse and dissuade the public.
@JackMcBama I know what you're saying, but I think of MLK day as a celebration of a great American thinker and civil rights activist. His ideas can benefit us all. I'm white, but when I listen to Dr.King I feel a tug on my heart and I know his message is one for all of humanity.Washington's Birthday and Columbus Day are also national holidays.
@ZOGcorp - lew probably wrote some, but ron paul definitely wrote articles, then he signed them
"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday." Ron Paul 1/1991 from: 'The Ron Paul Survival Report'
ron paul's claim that libertarians are incapable of being racist is a lie
@sfiorare Ron Paul's signature was carried out by a machine. He doesn't sit down and write his name on every single newsletter. A lot of big businesses will usually do this especially on checks, or at least where I worked they did.
I think he's just trying to say that libertarian principles are not compatible with racism, and that is indeed a factual statement. How well people follow through with that is another story.
what people dont realize is that Distribution of wealth has allready been happening. The wealth is being taken from the lower and middle class, and given to the rich. This happens through inflation, regulation and taxation
lets face it, socialism never works. You need to look at why our capitalistic system has failed, its because corporations own government, and government is too powerful. All we need to do is take the power away from government, problem solved
What a hypocrite. He is saying gays have rights yet vows to do nothing to fight for their rights? Claims he believes in womens rights yet is a prolifer?
@KayoteThunder You don't fight for rights you have them. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like everyone else. People don't have a right to everything they want. I would like all women to walk around naked but is it realistic to try and fight congressional battles to force that? no. All I would be doing is creating trouble. You have to learn at some point to be happy with what you have and look at everyone as a person with their own opinions and views.
@KayoteThunder If you want people to think differently or allow something you have to work with them. Talk to them on the level and over time they may come around.
@KayoteThunder he thinks it (gay rights) should be left to the state. that's his take on most (maybe all?) social issues. if new york and california, etc want to have gay rights and that's well accepted there it will pass. But if down in Georgia, Alabama or wherever they don't like it they don't have to have it. He does believe in womens rights. He believes every female baby has the right to live and not be aborted because the mother/parents weren't responsible for their actions.
@GoBucks2828 How the fuck is that fair to allow other to people decide whether a gay person can get married or not? How would you like it if your state allowed everyone to vote on whether or not you could get married or not? You think it is any of their business? It is your personal life and nobody elses. Ron Paul is nobody to demand whether or not a woman can or cannot do something with her own body. He claims to be about individual freedoms yet attempts to dictate the lives of others.
@KayoteThunder @ the abortion thing. libertarians philosophy is to protect life, abortion doesn't do that. we only go to war if it's to defend ourselves or our land. we don't endorse the death penalty, and we don't kill babies it's as simple as that. you don't have the personal freedom to kill your neighbor and you don't have the personal freedom to kill a baby.
@GoBucks2828 Abortion can protect life in the case the mother would die from birthing the child and even if that is not the case it cannot even be called a baby at that phase as it is merely a mass of cells multiplying at a constant rate. Past that abortions are done typically 9 weeks into the pregnancy and at that time there is not even brain activity in the thumbnail sized body of the fetus. It is no different than unplugging a brain dead persons life support. It cannot be called killing ababy
@KayoteThunder a woman can sue a physician for any information or disinformation that results in the loss of a baby or a deformation of a baby as soon as day one of conception....BECAUSE it's a life.
@GoBucks2828 You totally ignored the gay rights argument I sent you also. How the fuck is it fair and free for OTHER people to be able to decide whether YOU CAN OR CANNOT marry!? That is the exact opposite of what it means to be a libertarian.
@KayoteThunder relax. I didn't have enough room from the last comment to go into all that. And thanks for not arguing with my abortion statement -- I'll take that as you admitting I'm right. I'm not sure what you're looking for? Do you want what to hear what I think of gay marriage, what Ron Paul thinks, or how I interpret libertarianism's view on gay marriage?
@GoBucks2828 No dumbass I did argue your abortion claims. I don't really care what your views on gay marriage are I am telling you that Ron Pauls stance on it like his stance on every damn thing is. "Let's let the states decide." because he is playing it safe rather than expose his own opinions if he has any of his own opinions to begin with, I am saying that his stance is not libertarian and is unfair and unjust. OTHER people should NEVER be able to decide what rights you have and don;t have!
@KayoteThunder "You totally ignored the gay rights argument" "I don't really care what your views on gay marriage are" ....yet I'm the hypocrite. You're brilliant.
@GoBucks2828 I don't care what your views on gay marriage are because they are irrelevant because it should not be up to you or me whether two consenting adults marry eachother. We are no one to dictate what they do with their personal lives. That is a libertarian stance after all.
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions ... — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)
I don't support him because his philosophy--which is plutocracy. The KKK is against the war on terror. That doesn't mean you should support the KKK. A lot of people oppose the military-capitalist wars. However if it weren't for taxpayer funded government programs nobody would be arguing about it on youtube. Government funding created the internet. Look at the history of the internet. It was created by America's taxpayer funded military. So much for anarcho-capitalism & South Park Republicans.
Science and the proliferation of knowledge is behind every advancement in human rights, not capitalism. The Roman Catholic Church had a great capitalist racket until scientists and secular philosophers (Voltaire, Rousseau etc) broke it up through empiricism. Why do you think conservatives are capitalists and religious frauds? Sorry to burst your bubble lamborghini libertarians but secular humanism has done more than capitalism to advance humanity.
Well, that's capitalism. You think small businessmen don't get preferential treatment at the local level? Have you ever heard of Rotarians and Chambers of Commerce and country clubs and college alumni? You think a lightbulb just pops into someone's head and money just streams in? Are you really that naive?
How is corporatism not capitalism? Businessmen buy politicians and not vice versa. Politicians, being greedy capitalists, take their money to make laws beneficial to business (you might say politics is a part of the free market). When did Walmart cease to be an example of the success of free enterprise and become corporatist crony capitalists? Walmart is a corporation. The CATO Institute is funded by corporations.
Capitalism is a economic system. By itself, it's fine. But when government is corrupted with capitalism, we call it corporatism, and that is very dangerous. Another example is religion. By itself, religion is fine. But when it corrupts government, it becomes theocracy, and that's also very dangerous, as we have seen through history how destructive a theocracy can be to not just liberty, but also life (see Sharia Law).
That's why libertarians want to take away politicians' power to influence the market with laws beneficial to them. Just look at Monsanto (EVIL corn corporation that wants to grow, control, and own all the corn in the world). An FDA official influenced decisions within the FDA to help Monsanto's goals, then retired and went to get a huge salary from them.
The FDA, EPA, etc. don't care about the people, they care about getting rich with their cronies. Ron Paul wants to end that.
It does explain it. The media is based in sensationalism and making money. Whatever you might think of his ideas he is boring (like Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader). It isn't a conspiracy thing it's a money thing. You use pretty women (Britney Spears) and jocks (Peyton Manning) to sell things not old men. The same goes with politicians. Is it fair? No. Does it make sense? Yes. That is why slick salesman like George W. Bush/Bill Clinton win. It's perfectly capitalist and it's perfectly American.
Sorry Dr Paul but you are very very wrong on this. Libertarianism allows for racism big style. One of your hard right ancestors actually voted against the civil rights act on libertarian grounds.
Do you think libertarians were against the civil rights act because they were racist? Or was it because they felt it was a major attack on private property rights?
@diggingforgold I think that they believed that outlawing obviously racist behaviour restricted property rights. In essence they wanted to defend the right of individuals to be racists in the economic sphere.
@hess6wi That's called thought crime. Actually it's telling people what they can or can't do on their own private property. Racism only lasts when it is institutionalized by the government.. the market corrects such behavior through social pressures and economic pressures.
@D34thSetX Yes I want their to be a degree of collectivism in respect of property. How braizen of me to think that private property should be subject to societal conditions. Never mind the various societies that have existed without any notion of private property or whether "your" property has been justly acquired. This has always been the case your factory is subject to public safety laws. You can't play your 5000W speaker system at full blast at 4am even if you pay the electric bill etc.
@hess6wi I disagree with you on the first part, I don't believe in any degress of collectivism in respect to property.. it leads to the tragedy of the commons.
I never said that private property owners aren't subject to societal conditions.. as a matter of fact people are more pressured by society than the government in behaviors most of the time.
We can debating the justness of current property all night. If there are claims going back, those claims can be settled in court.
@hess6wi Factories have not always been subject to public safety laws. The factories that had machines kill people or maim people saw that more of their workers moved to safer factories than the current one.
Sure, you can play your 5000w speaker system at full blast at 4am, it's called sound proofing.. you can minimize the amount of noise something makes even at full blast. Actually, various societies have existed where people respected each other's private property rights. (self-ownership.)
@D34thSetX Fine you can't play 5000w speaker system at full blast at 4am without any sound-proofing because you want to hear it outside your house. My point is you can't just do anything because you have to consider the impact it has on others. The fact that factories didn't use to have health and safety laws isn't a reason for them not to be a good thing. I challenge you to cite anything that shows it is more dangerous to work in a factory now than before the 1961 Factory Act.
@D34thSetX This is a specious argument based around the idea that I should support all kinds of freedom or none. Positive and negative freedoms are often contradictory. Given someone the freedom to exploit someone else gives them certain rights but if it occurs en mass takes away a great deal of freedom for a lot of individuals.
@D34thSetX By the way I'm still waiting on the "it's more dangerous to work in a factory now" evidence. Or is that you just spouting uninform, unsupported opinion too? Come on, show me the Factory Act made things worse. Show me the beef.
@hess6wi "The fact that factories didn't use to have health and safety laws isn't a reason for them not to be a good thing."
It's not a reason for them to be bad either.. what's you're point.. oh.. you mean "I challenge you to cite anything that shows it is more dangerous to work in a factory now than before the 1961 Factory Act." which compares apples to oranges.... you can't compare now to then.. things have changed and technology has gotten better. You compare factories of the time.
@D34thSetX This spammed for some reason comment shows up your ignorance. If the factory act made the situation worse as you contend, then you should easily be able to show that it made it worse near that time. So 1963 should see worse conditions than 1959. Factories do not change rapidly enough for such a comparison to be invalid.
@D34thSetX This spammed for some reason comment shows up your ignorance. If the factory act made the situation worse as you contend, then you should easily be able to show that it made it worse near that time. So 1963 should see worse conditions than 1959. Factories do not change rapidly enough for such a comparison to be invalid. In addition you have condicted yourself AGAIN by saying first that this regulation makes things worse and then saying you can't tell.
@hess6wi "In addition you have condicted yourself AGAIN by saying first that this regulation makes things worse and then saying you can't tell." I never said that, I said that you can't compare apples to oranges.. which is what you were doing. You talked about factories in the late 19th-early 20th centuries and that factories only got safe because of the 1961 factory act. The fact of the matter is factories were already trending in a position to the Act's standards.
@D34thSetX Oh and it isn't thought crime. I'm not trying to outlaw having racist views. I'm suggesting it is right to outlaw acting upon those racist views in a manner that prevents ethnic groups from being able to fully participate in the economic life of their community.
@hess6wi That's the logical conclusion of having such laws in the first place.. because you cannot tell if people are being racist in their motives.. you can't even tell what their motives are which is why in a court of law prosecution leads people to conclusions. Right now the laws on hand prevent millions of ethnic minorities from participating in the market with minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and drug laws hurt minorities more than 'whites'.
@D34thSetX Please do explain to me how having to serve customers of any race and having to not take account of someone's skin colour when making employment decisions leads to the creation of thought crime. I'd like you to join that one up for me. I really don't see it.
@hess6wi You're really that ignorant? If a business is composed of one race their can be no thought crime as everyone is the same race. When you are separated from other races you have more of a tendency to see them as similar to yourself. But when you are immersed in a plethora the differences are all around you and harsher divisions reemerge. This is why the North is more liberal than the South and West. Thought crimes area possible symptom of being around other races
@hess6wi You're confusing what I said which is the reason why I haven't answered you in the first place. If you don't know what a thought crime is then, the simple explanation for you is this.. since you cannot tell what the motives people are engaged in it will be assumed that if they don't hire or serve a particular customer that it will be on race basis. Which is exactly what I said.
@D34thSetX That is not the case. In order to convict someone (at least in western societies) it needs to be demonstrably the case. In the same way that premeditation needs to be proved for a murder rather than a manslaughter conviction.
@D34thSetX That's the point of a court of law, you can convict when it is knowable beyond reasonable doubt that something is the case. How else do you tell the difference between manslaughter and murder, between negligent and dnagerous driving etc. etc.? Do you not think these are valid distinctions?
@hess6wi "That's the point of a court of law, you can convict when it is knowable beyond reasonable doubt that something is the case."
Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't matter when people assume that the person in question is guilty. You are not innocent until proven guilty (in certain cases the prosecution lacks so much evidence that the defense will win).
@hess6wi "How else do you tell the difference between manslaughter and murder, between negligent and dnagerous driving etc. etc.?"
Motive is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between negligent driving and dangerous driving is again motive.. it all boils down to motive and opportunity. If you have thought crimes you won't even need opportunity anymore because it will always be there. After that you can cook up any motive you want for actions that never happened.
@D34thSetX This is riddiculous "motive" and "opportunity" are never enough for a conviction in a civilised society such evidence could only ever point the possibility that someone committed a crime, it could never be beyond all reasonable doubt based on this alone.
@hess6wi Actually, Motive, opportunity and evidence are enough to convict someone in a civilized society. The situation I described didn't have evidence in doubt.
@D34thSetX Motive, opportunity and evidence is not the same as motive and opportunity. Evidence is crucial and what causes your argument to fall flat on its face. Evidence needs to be beyond reasonable doubt (e.g. multiple eye witnesses, recorded evidence (e.g. CCTV), DNA evidence) at least that is the case where I live and I think you've got a pretty serious problem with your legal system if you don't have that, get it sorted. Perhaps you'd care to address all the contradictions you've made.
@hess6wi "the situation I described didn't have evidence in doubt." Please, if you want to critique when I was making examples of how things change with motive and opportunity (even when I said evidence was NOT in doubt at all) then.. what you've said here proves nothing about any contradictions. So, please tell me what is the difference between manslaughter and murder.
@D34thSetX I like the minimum wage, minimum wages far higher (e.g. in the UK) have been shown to have little to no impact on job numbers ( The employment effects of the national minimum wage, Mark B. Stewart) and removing legislation doesn't increase them either (see The Effects of Minimum Wages on Wage Dispersion and Employment: Evidence from the UK Wages Councils - by Machin & Manning). Turns out libertarians don't have a clue about economics - who knew?
@Luigi84289 Although this would be a massive simplification you could suggest a similar process as follows: The more you increase the wages of the poor, the more they spend (rather than when you increase the income of the rich who are not going short and therefore tend to save), the more demand is created, the more jobs you get. Virtuous circle. On the other hand I would point you to the academic papers I cited and ask you to read them.
@Luigi84289 It is my opinion that libertarianism (or at least the hard economic right that poses calls itself libertarianism) is a dangerous and morally bankrupt ideology. I generally try to oppose it. At present I do live in England, however, I chose not to "f*** off".
@hess6wi You can like it all you want, it has a major impact on job numbers because you can't see what jobs could have been created if there was no minimum wage. You can't judge based on what you have now and say it has no impact when the minimum wage itself cuts any labor that might have been paid at whatever is lower than the minimum wage. It turns out that you have no clue about economics because the choices you see aren't the only choices there are.
@D34thSetX "You can like it all you want, it has a major impact on job numbers" - the papers I have cited here are academically peer reviewed papers which directly contradict this statement. Please read them (or at least the methodlogy) before just flatly contradicting or at least cite some actual evidence to the contrary rather than your unsupported opinions.
@hess6wi "the papers I have cited here are academically peer reviewed papers which directly contradict this statement."
The paper's you 'academically peer reviewed' ignores the fact that jobs cannot be created below the minimum wage of what the government sets.. as with your post below your argument and saying that my argument is self-contradictory proves to me you lack basic knowledge of economics required to even talk about the subject. (Hint: Opportunity Cost)
I'm astounded by your ignorance. It isn't me peer reviewing these papers, it's scholars of economics. You also clearly haven't read the papers I've cited, the possible reduction in jobs due to a minimum price cap is point one. It's even mentioned in the abstract of Stewart's paper. You haven't done your homework. If you can't get the papers, give me your email, I could send you a book worth of papers on this. A few papers give an increase in employment, one or two a reduction, most no impact.
@hess6wi " It isn't me peer reviewing these papers, it's scholars of economics." You're right, you didn't.. the 'evidence' you are using did. "You also clearly haven't read the papers I've cited," Actually I have read them.. they don't account for jobs that could have been created if there was no minimum wage. Because there is a law, it is ignored. He said empirical evidence is mixed.. the reason why is because if the government raises the minimum wage below the level at which the real wage
@hess6wi it will cause no effect or have zero impact. The fact of the matter is real wage rates change with time.. inflation plays a major factor into this role. You cannot take into account a few scholarly papers and have ignorance in the field of economics itself. I thought for you this would be self-evident.. I was wrong.
@D34thSetX I also thought it worth noting how self-contradictory your argument has now become. You are simultaneously arguing that the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available and that you can't know how many job would have been created without it
"you can't see what jobs could have been created if there was no minimum wage".
"Right now the laws on hand prevent millions of ethnic minorities from participating in the market [by] minimum wage laws..."
@hess6wi "I also thought it worth noting how self-contradictory your argument has now become."
Only to a supporter of a minimum wage law would find it self-contradictory. The fact of the matter is, you cannot see the costs of a minimum wage because the effect has already taken place. If you want to continue arguing in ignorance then.. Peace be with you.
@D34thSetX If it is possible for you to know that a minimum wage reduces jobs then how can you possibly say the effect is not measurable. It seems to me either you think economic modelling can be done or you don't. Either you can compare two situations (with and without a minimum wage) or you can't. But you can't say it would reduce it and then say you can't know what the effect would be.
@hess6wi " If it is possible for you to know that a minimum wage reduces jobs then how can you possibly say the effect is not measurable." Because you cannot know how many jobs would have been created by existing businesses, businesses that were created that would have hired more workers at a level below the minimum wage, or even potential businessmen that didn't go into the market at all because of the minimum wage. If you can't expand on a basic premise then I don't know what else I can say.
@D34thSetX I posited that it is possible that there is an increase in the number of jobs created because thee is a minimum wage. You have similtaneously argued that you can't measrue the effect but that it will be negative. Either you are making an assumption without evidence which can only come from your own belief system and therefore can be disregarded as unimformed or you are talking out of your backside which is it? You are more skewered than a prawn on a kebab.
@hess6wi "I posited that it is possible that there is an increase in the number of jobs created because thee is a minimum wage." It's not possible, there are various other factors for why jobs were created that is not caused in the slightest by a minimum wage increase. For example, new technology comes out. Skilled laborers are required to maintain it. The employers are willing to pay 10 dollars an hour for the work. The minimum wage is at 5. It's not because of the minimum wage those jobs
@hess6wi were created. They were created for an entirely different reason which is why the empirical evidence is such a mess because they simply don't know exactly what jobs were created 'because' of the minimum wage increase. Correlation is not causation. Especially with Economics where not any one thing is the sole cause, it could be a primary contributor though.
@hess6wi "You have similtaneously argued that you can't measrue the effect but that it will be negative." The reports you have presented yourself have argued that they cannot know for sure. To not take them at their word and misconstrue the words of the author then you are being dishonest and proving that you lack a basic understanding of economics. It's not an assumption.. it's reality.. For example.. if you raise the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour what do you think will happen?
@hess6wi Do you think more jobs will be created in that area? That it will have little to no impact? The fact of the matter is you will put everyone out of work that employers don't feel that the labor is worth anything at 20 dollars an hour.. jobs that are already over 20 dollars an hour won't feel much of an impact. So, what you are doing is cutting out all labor that employers would have paid less than 20 dollars an hour to, businesses would probably close down as well.
@D34thSetX The answer to why it is possible to increase jobs through introducing a minimum wage is to be found in the demand side of economics. The money which is most active is the pmoney of the poorest in a society, by increasing their income level the related demand increase is very high. There's only so much gibberish I can read in a day. You don't understand even understand the glazier fallacy. I feel like I'm wasting my time here. Maybe we can chat when you've got your Economics MSc.
@hess6wi "The money which is most active is the money of the poorest in a society, by increasing their income level the related demand increase is very high." You only increase the income of people who employers feel that their work is worth the increased cost of labor. You completely ignored a myriad of factors that could have led to an increase and you state that it's because of the minimum wage. The fact of the matter is you are wrong. If you aren't going to use logic then why bother.
@hess6wi "You don't understand even understand the glazier fallacy." Funny, you were the one that was supporting the fallacy in the first place.. which is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place.. and as I've explained to you before.. hidden costs of not being able to do an action that you otherwise could have done if x didn't happen is Opportunity cost. I've been talking about it this entire time and I've mentioned it over and over again.. yet you don't seem to get it.
@hess6wi "The answer to why it is possible to increase jobs through introducing a minimum wage is to be found in the demand side of economics" Again, it's not possible to answer why using demand side economics. What you are arguing is exactly what I said would happen if real income increase.. the minimum wage would have no effect. Demand of a highly specialized new goods would also not be effected by this minimum wage either.
@hess6wi Again, like I said you are ignoring a myriad of other reasons why a minimum wage has no effect on an economy in which the real wage is already about the minimum wage. You also ignore the fact that employers can't hire anyone under the minimum wage and therefore any jobs that would have been created under the minimum wage cannot be created because employers are forced to pay above it (like glazier fallacy aka The Broken Window Fallacy)
@D34thSetX Yeah you pretty much hang yourself here anyone reading this who does there research will see that no problem. I am happy to let you be damned by your own words.
@hess6wi Funny Hess6wi.. you've proven nothing.. you mentioned the broken window fallacy after I mentioned it and yet you have no clue what it means.. I'm happy to let you be damned by your own words as well, as your words have you comparing apples to oranges.. then you bring up a fallacy that you know nothing about. Please, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
@D34thSetX The glazier's fallacy is in essence a demonstration of opportunity costs. You have reached the conclusion that this means the minimum wage adds nothing to the economy because if it didn't exist then the money would be spent elsewhere. This is incorrect, as where money is spent can alter future demand: for example putting money in a bank that thinks nothing of massive leverage is not as economically active as spending it on goods/services or using it to grow business. Take Econ 101.
@hess6wi The minimum wage does add nothing to the economy. If the minimum wage was so great why is it only at 7.25 in the US (federally).. Why not 10? Why not 20? Because economists that advocate the minimum wage are not stupid enough to support something that high because they know it would kill businesses. " if it didn't exist then the money would be spent elsewhere." Actually, what I said is that if it didn't exist people that were previously unemployed would be able to get a job because
@hess6wi their labor that was previously undervalued and the jobs that they had before the minimum wage went over their average rate can now get a job. I think you don't understand how hard it is for teenagers to get a job and keep it and people who currently have little to no experience working. "This is incorrect, as where money is spent can alter future demand" I never said anything to the contrary, you've tried to take my argument out of context and then apply it to a different argument.
@hess6wi "for example putting money in a bank that thinks nothing of massive leverage" Mmoney that is saved is lent out for interest by bankers themselves to say that it is not economically as active spending it on goods/services or using it to grow a business (disregarding the fact that starting up a business and keeping it alive when most start-ups fail in 5 years.. cannot be ignored.) If everyone is spending and no one is saving there is no investment or borrowing opportunities unless you
@hess6wi have a fiat currency with a central bank that can print up money (inflate) in order to facilitate those transactions. However, I digressed.. I reached the conclusion that the minimum wage adds nothing to the economy because it cuts out.. immediately, everyone that is under that rate. I'm also against the minimum wage because I'm against the government involvement in the market. How I tried to explain it to you, yet you obviously didn't realize about potential wealth lost because of
@hess6wi actions that are forced upon people. It isn't an opportunity cost when someone is forcing you to take something you don't like for something you like. There is no cost at all because there is no choice in the matter. So again, like I've said for the upteenth time.. The potential wealth, jobs, and businesses that could have been created and are not because of the costs will never come to be because of it. Also, a myriad of other regulations too but, that's a different topic.
@D34thSetX Once again you damn yourself for me. I couldn't make someone sound more stupid from not understanding what an opportunity cost is (in this case the choice exists between having an broken window and doing *insert the set of other options here* ) to having no concept of the variety of problems with the glazier fallacy (measurment problem of net wealth versus productivity, the differing utility or replacement versus non-replacement etc. etc.) You damn yourself for me. Get educated.
@hess6wi Hess, you try to make yourself sound educated the reality is, we were never talking about opportunity cost in the first place. There is no choice in the broken window fallacy. The baker HAS to get a new window for his place. The other side of the story is if he didn't have to pay for that window what could he have spent it on. Again, you don't seem to get this. It's ironic that you're telling me that I'm damning myself and I need to get educated when you miss this basic concept.
@D34thSetX You will have to pay for further tutorage. Originally we were talking about whether or not libertarianism was racist which you took us off by bringing us onto economics. You could easily have schooled me on American history (mine's very shaky), you could have talked about a lack of understanding of political systems (I'm better at this but not excellent). But you thought you knew more about economics, this was your error and may even remain so.
@hess6wi Also, like you've said before, you did not want to get into the other concepts of the problems so I left them alone.. which is why I go with the assumption of the fallacy itself that the window will be replaced. It was YOU that did not want to talk about the variety of other problems in the fallacy itself so I focused you onto two of the problems which are relevant to the conversation. Again, the concept I'm trying to show you is missed on you.
@D34thSetX In addition there are some fairly iffy notions in the glazier's fallacy but frankly that would take a very very long time to explain to someone who from their writings doesn't understand basic propositional logic. I will try to refrain from responding further as this is an utter waste of time at the moment. I genuinely advise you to do some logic and economics courses, if you come to Manchester, I might teach you. At the moment I'm embarassed for you.
@hess6wi It's not 'iffy' notions.. you mentioned opportunity costs yet, you forget that if the glazier didn't have his window broken he could have spent money on other things like getting more yeast for the baker's break. This seems lost on you ie negative chain of 'creation' vis-a-vis a positive chain of creation. You don't see any of the potential wealth created because it will never be created because the baker has to get a window from the glazier. Logic.
@hess6wi I'm embarrassed that you call yourself someone that teaches yet you don't know the entirety of the broken window fallacy. It's not just about 'Opportunity Cost'. Other questions are does destruction create wealth, if so the little boy should break multiple windows or realistically we should be at war in at all times. Conversely, it tells you that destruction only benefits a few at the expense of many others that could have gotten money from the baker. Potential, like I've stated.
@D34thSetX One of the major problems with the broken window fallacy (as I already mentioned) is that it deals in asset related wealth and not in either productivity or utility. This is what Adam Smith was railing against. This severely undermines the argument to the degree that it is useless in determining whether destruction creates wealth (which it doesn't but the glazier's fallacy does not tell you this). You may pay for further info but I'm not wasting my time on you any more.
@hess6wi The fallacy itself deals with economic terms so simplistically that other people can understand it. "(which it doesn't but the glazier's fallacy does not tell you this)." It says that a negative chain of wealth is not preferable to a positive chain of wealth. Destruction can create wealth.. is that wealth preferable to Peace time wealth creation? Yes it is. If you cannot see this for yourself then we are both wasting our times as you will never get it.
@hess6wi btw, the fallacy itself tells you from the argument of one of the actors involved that it will create wealth for the glazier as he wouldn't have had the baker's business without the glass breaking. Again, as I've said many times on here.. it completely disregards the fact that the money that has to be spent on the glass cannot be spent anywhere else. Thus denying others what would have come about if the window wasn't broken. You see this action every day.
@hess6wi Btw, I know it's difficult because pride gets in the way of telling you if you are right or wrong but, bringing up subjects that we dropped long ago generally isn't a good way of debating. Nor were we talking about productivity or utility. However, if you want to debate that as well, then by all means lead the way.
@hess6wi "It seems to me either you think economic modelling can be done or you don't." Modelling can show you how things 'should' be with everything else being equal.. the fact of the matter is modelling cannot (and will never) account for everything all at once.. there are simply too many choices and alternatives to those choices to calculate.
"But you can't say it would reduce it and then say you can't know what the effect would be." The Broken Window Fallacy.
@D34thSetX Oh and what on Earth are you talking about "Racism only lasts when it is institutionalized by the government"? Why is there still racism today? Why do we see racism in for example Russia against the peoples of central asia living in their borders? Where's the state racism there? How does racism start if the government is only made of people in the first place?! People are racist because it is a way of creating "in" and "out" groups: an inate human tendency and one to be discouraged.
@hess6wi "How does racism start if the government is only made of people in the first place?!"
Exactly.. it's made up of people.. you are arguing my point for me.. thank you.. "People are racist because it is a way of creating "in" and "out" groups: an inate human tendency and one to be discouraged."
Racism is also discouraged by inate human tendency to discourage people from being racist again.. creating a group that are racist and others that are not... again.. people.
“The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.” ~Ron Paul
This has been flagged as spam show
thier is no such thing as a libatarian on the right, as john stweart mill said teh conservative party is the stupid party
rictorn 2 weeks ago
Libertarian/Republican econ. ideology is based on a false dilemma that implies that you must choose between an ethical system which is based solely on individual liberty or an ethical system that is based solely on the needs of the group. Why not a combination? The top ten economies on the planet are all a mixture of private and public institutions. Conversely there are no historical examples of absolutist free markets advancing civilization.
MrSteveSpears 3 weeks ago
@MrSteveSpears The American Free Market under a Constitutional Representative Republic using Democratic methods was doing quite well, but then people with influence created a situation in which the economy was no longer sustainable, and were able to convince the people that a monetary Division was needed.
And thus sprang the Federal Reserve in 1913-1914, and since then we've been adding debt with every dollar this Private Corporate entity has printed in the name of the average American citizen.
dimeuno 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSteveSpears "Conversely there are no historical examples of absolutist free markets advancing civilization." That is not what libertarians aim for. we acknowledge that there must be government inorder for a society to function. However wit a situation where the government has complete hands off with free trade. I don't think it has ever been fully tried yet. And why would it be when many bureaucrats like to get their hands on things.
tehatemachine 2 weeks ago
And magic beans should be used for currency, screw the Fed. Guess what Libertarian's? What do you do when it happens, & massive discrimination WORKS in the public sector in business? You don't have an answer for that, just shrug saying, "Meh, guess the free markets spoke". Your fellow unenlightened citizens will let you down badly on this like historically have. No thanks, Title II of the CRA works just fine against hateful bigots. Not just wishing it away...
Bolgernow 1 month ago
Since everyone has equal rights, and nobody may do anything that directly infringes upon the rights of another, and since people in general would have much more direct control at the local level to change polices to suite the interests of all the people, rather than groups of people, I fail to see what exactly you're suggesting.
Is it that by people taking charge of their destiny, the people will somehow let some minority of hateful bigots take control of the political side, even with no elite?
dimeuno 1 month ago
@dimeuno I'm suggesting reality. Nothing more. If you think the free markets will make racists go away by "looking bad", you clearly have no understanding of our horrible racial historyor De Facto racism(on their own) in America. You also don't go on-line much to see horrible racism everyday. I don't really care what you think man "might" do. I have a proven historical record of what we've done. That's enough for me
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow - I can't speak on your personal experiences in life, but I can say that we live in a new age, and that understanding the past is very important in order to understand anything that I've said to you so far, in the ways I intended.
Racism is a manipulated form of hate that has been propagated by those families who've wished to have control over our nations, for generations, and without realizing how it's done, we'll never be rid of racism on this planet.
Ron Paul will see us through.
dimeuno 1 month ago
@dimeuno you totally ignored our historical reality in favor of "But Ron Paul can do it". Um, it's not UP TO DR. PAUL. It's up to society to overcome racism, & frankly they're not up to the challenge. Never have been, so you can gamble with others rights. Sorry, rejected
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow - You ignored the fact that under the law all people are equal, as long as the Constitution is upheld. The difference between now and the past is that when there was slavery, the slaves were not considered citizens, they were slaves of the citizens.
Ever since black people were given the ability to be considered citizens, all that was left was the segregation intentionally created by those who wish division to exist in the first place.
If you can answer who benefits, you understand.
dimeuno 1 month ago
And beyond that, in the public sector, when it comes to business, nobody is stupid enough to make everyone hate them by proclaiming that they will only sell their goods to white people, or black people. They are likely to, at minimum, have their businesses boycotted, not only at the local level, but at national and international levels.
The world has left racism so far behind in so many ways, that it would take a revolution to bring it back.
There is no hope left for racist tendencies today.
dimeuno 1 month ago
@dimeuno you're not only naive & grossly ignorant of history. You're dangerous. You can't "boycott" something that does "well" or "has an audience" & "impact". FOX news is one example of this type of thinking "doing well". You don't have an answer when it does well just "Aw shucks, I thought it woulda worked", yet the damage is irreversible...
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@dimeuno a "white only" restaurant that does well terrorizes minorities in that community. Sorry if you don't comprehend this, it's not for debate anymore thanks to Title II of the CRA. You are willfully ignorant, or clinically insane. Either way, not my problem...
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow If your town clearly despises such behavior, which I would assume is the popular belief, then why would a business risk doing such a thing on account of it's disapproval? That would not be a very wise economic decision I would say.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 you didn't address my point. AGAIN, if you have a town filled with racists, then "Whites Only" restaurants will do VERY well. You don't have any answer when that happens, just shrug & say, "Welp, guess that's what the town wants". NO, that terrorizes & harasses any minorities living in that town. Thanks to Title II of the CRA act, that will never happen
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow I am not blind sir. I am well aware of the horrific let alone tragic consequences of racism. You are correct that it is no obstacle to find such examples. However, you still are confusing federal intervention as a necessary component to eliminate this. As I said, do you honestly believe your state government would deny your own people these rights? The public outcry of such would hardly go unnoticed, I think you accredit too much control of this to the federal government.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 I'm not. You're confusing "freedom" with "racial intolerance". I don't really care. You said, "do you honestly believe your state government would deny your own people these rights". YES, in fact FUCK YES. Pay the $ to get any Aryan elected like the past, or the current GOP Republican party & YES, they use the States to make racism legal. Public schmublic, the law was made, outcry would be heard, but those in power make the rules. The weak lose. Happens every day
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow Unfortunately, "racial intolerance" is a set back of freedom. Those who partake in such are entitled to their opinion of this, and obviously neither you or I condone or promote such behavior. However, public perspective aside, they still subject themselves to the consequences of this isolated viewpoint. And lets face it, it is not to be taken lightly. If a state were to leave this untreated, they would condemn themselves as a whole to ridicule as well.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 a "racial intolerance set back" isn't what we in rational society accept. Sorry, you are free to start nefariousD11 land, if you don't like it. Go screw. AGAIN, you NEVER address when it WORKS, you just say "It won't". BULLSHIT!
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow Please keep typing in capital letters and resorting to childish name calling, Im sure that will make people take you seriously. Why not try to actually debate this logically instead of getting mad? You have very very very poor and immature debating skills I must say. I'm done. Good luck.
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@nefariousD11 name calling? I'm addressing your argument. It's totally faulty. I explained rational society doesn't accept "racial intolerance" as a setback to freedom not matter how many times you type it buddy. If you can't accept it, go screw. LAST TIME, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN RACISM WORKS FOR RESTAURANTS? You can't, just shrug & say, "Welp, then that's their choice". According to Title II, it isn't...
Bolgernow 5 days ago
@Bolgernow Alright, then you answer me your own question sir, and then I shall answer gladly it in return. I think we can both agree that is a reasonable approach to this. So let me ask you your own question. What would YOU personally do if you saw a business that is openly racist? Would go and buy from them anyway? Would you protest them? Would you get violent? Or would you ignore the problem? What would you do?
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@nefariousD11 you can't answer the question because it exposes a massive flaw when racist unite together to create unsafe business environments against minorities. You have no ANSWER when it works. Fair enough. You can't answer with facts, just wishful conjecture that ignores our horrid racial past. That's not my issue, it's yours
Bolgernow 5 days ago
@Bolgernow Fair enough, and that is YOUR opinion. Well here's mine: You're very ignorant when it comes to facts. You didn't answer my question either. I asked you, what you would personally do about racism in your local community? Albeit apparently nothing whatsoever, you would point fingers at free market capitalists such as myself, but you yourself would take no action regarding it anyway? I WILL answer your question. Just answer mine first. Government aside, what would YOU do?
nefariousD11 4 days ago
@nefariousD11 not opinion, fact. Based on a the civil war, & a horrid history of race relations in our country. Hell the entire Republican party today is built on racial intolerance. All you have is irrational arguments not based in reality. You can't address when racist business's do well, you ignore that every time. Until you address it, I will not respond again
Bolgernow 4 days ago
@Bolgernow You want to talk of reality? Please give me an example of how the Republican party is built on racial intolerance? I see both Republican and Democratic parties built on high taxes and endless spending for unsustainable wars. Can't you see were going bankrupt to the tune of 1 trillion per year? That is why I will vote for Ron Paul who will end all wars immediately. Do you think electing another war monger is going to help promote peace and universal tolerance among people?
nefariousD11 4 days ago
@Bolgernow Also, believe it or not, but the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Slavery would have ended anyway because there were many movements back then setting out to achieve this. It was a popular growing belief that slavery was wrong. Abraham Lincoln did NOT free the slaves. He only freed them from the Confederates. The Union had plenty of slaves. Lincoln actually was a racist. The real reason of the Civil War was States right to sovereignty versus a Federal right to sovereignty.
nefariousD11 4 days ago
@Bolgernow Also you have completely misinterpreted what I said before, when I said "racial intolerance is a setback to freedom"... Break that down and you will see it means, "freedom" is "held back" by "people who support racial intolerance"... I myself have never once advocated intolerance. Please read my arguments clearly next time.
nefariousD11 5 days ago
Comment removed
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@Bolgernow I have an answer for you brother.You really think your state government would let that happen? If your people don't want that, then it wont happen.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 stroll around a factory, local bar, city streets, or the internet to see if their aren't massive amounts of racists. Start with any Yahoo political article. It could be about congress but there'll be over 2,000 racist comments about Obama. You're blind & that's sad
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow Exposing racism in this modern era is a sentence in itself. Think of it. A company that exhibits racism is exposed. Without federal intervention, they have still doomed their reputation on apparent ignorance. They would be boycotted by both buyers and workers. Just look at any exposed "racist". They crucify themselves, there is no need for federal intervention. The states are more than capable of handling this. Your opinion seems heavily motivated by fear.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 you'd think so, but it's not. While sunlight helps, I've run across many many many many YouTube folks here or Facebook people more than happy to shout their Aryan Nation racism. It's called White PRIDE for a reason. Your views of humanity while noble, fall grossly short from our history & reality today. AGAIN, Title II of the CRA act addresses this, you have NO ANSWER for when it works just shrug & go "Welp racism it is". NOT ACCEPTABLE
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow You are right it is not acceptable. And thankfully for us, the internet is not complete reflection of human society as a whole. There is a libertarian solution though. Free market capitalism is demand. Demand decides what will and wont exist in a market. As many racists as there in today's world, I think we could agree that there's a majority that outnumbers them.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 no, no, no, no, no, fucking no. YOU DON'T GET TO GAMBLE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ASSHOLE. Honestly, you are so lost logically, it's not remotely funny. It's sad, & intolerant...
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@Bolgernow Look, you clearly have no concept on how to debate except to spew Ad Hominem and pointless references, I think you are the one who is a little lost. Federal Intervention will NOT stop racism. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!! Can you comprehend that in the small amount of gray matter you've been given? It never has and never will be the cause behind racial intolerance solution. So there's your answer. Ill keep saying it if you're too ignorant to see it.
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@Bolgernow One other thing. Gambling other peoples rights? What is a right? Is this an object I can own? You dont get it. If there is a racist society then there is NOTHING you or I or any branch of government can do to change their minds. The civil rights movement came because there was a majority of support for them. The law does not shape a persons beliefs. It is the choice of the individual.
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@Bolgernow The majority of people want civil rights. No state would risk being isolated from trade and tourism by allowing racism.
nefariousD11 5 days ago
@Bolgernow so, intervention aside, squarely from a free market perspective, if a racist business opened in a town, then there would be a lack of appeal to those whom they are prejudice against. This would create a demand for a non racist competitor. If there is a demand for it, the market will appeal. And who could really see openly "racist" business competing well against an alternative anyway? I wouldn't have to ask you which you would preferably do business with.
nefariousD11 6 days ago
@nefariousD11 WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS APPEAL? YOU HAVE NO ANSWER!!!!!! NOTHING!!!! BUT HISTORY, REALITY, & RACIAL PROBLEMS IN AMERICA DO YOU FUCKING IDIOT. YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE FACTS ISN'T OUR ISSUE, IT'S YOURS
Bolgernow 6 days ago
@sfiorare You do realize that MLK Day is racist, right? Anything that isn't ignorant to the color of someone's skin, their sex, orientation, etc. is inherently racist. What if there was a national white person's day/month? The longer we separate people and put them into groups, the longer we prolong the rich and powerful's ability to control us. The true modern distinction between people is the 1% and the 99%. All other distinctions are merely ruses to confuse and dissuade the public.
JackMcBama 1 month ago
@JackMcBama I know what you're saying, but I think of MLK day as a celebration of a great American thinker and civil rights activist. His ideas can benefit us all. I'm white, but when I listen to Dr.King I feel a tug on my heart and I know his message is one for all of humanity.Washington's Birthday and Columbus Day are also national holidays.
chromanin 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarian: Sidious, Vader
Conservative: Luke Skywalker
I-am-the-center-of-the-universe-ism: Han Solo
:p
dfdtdfdx 1 month ago
ron paul is a liar
sfiorare 1 month ago
@sfiorare are you going to bring some proof to the table or are you talking out your ass.
imchris5000 1 month ago
@imchris5000 - read his newsletters
and google "ron paul don black"
sfiorare 1 month ago
@sfiorare
Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters. Lew Rockwell wrote them.
ZOGcorp 1 month ago
@ZOGcorp - lew probably wrote some, but ron paul definitely wrote articles, then he signed them
"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday." Ron Paul 1/1991 from: 'The Ron Paul Survival Report'
ron paul's claim that libertarians are incapable of being racist is a lie
sfiorare 1 month ago
@sfiorare A true liberatarian cannot be a racist! That's in emphasis. "liberatarian" And that is what Paul was in refference to.
BeantownJim 1 month ago
Comment removed
BeantownJim 1 month ago
@sfiorare Ron Paul's signature was carried out by a machine. He doesn't sit down and write his name on every single newsletter. A lot of big businesses will usually do this especially on checks, or at least where I worked they did.
h3rr0isitm3 1 month ago
I think he's just trying to say that libertarian principles are not compatible with racism, and that is indeed a factual statement. How well people follow through with that is another story.
chromanin 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
i have no one to @ reply
ruthannbh 1 month ago
@ruthannbh You can reply to me if you'd like.
jlettuce07 1 month ago
@jlettuce07 thank you.
ruthannbh 1 month ago
Distribution of wealth is theft
what people dont realize is that Distribution of wealth has allready been happening. The wealth is being taken from the lower and middle class, and given to the rich. This happens through inflation, regulation and taxation
lets face it, socialism never works. You need to look at why our capitalistic system has failed, its because corporations own government, and government is too powerful. All we need to do is take the power away from government, problem solved
muchookees 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ONLY STUPID NEED TO ASK RON PAUL ANY MORE QUESTIONS AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO END TO THEIR QUESTIONS
BECAUSE THEY ONLY WANT TO HEAR THAT RON PAUL IS EVEN MILDLY AS CORRUPT AS THEY THEMSELVES ARE AND THEY'RE WASTING THEIR TIME
TIME TO 'MAKE SURE' HE WINS ,IN THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM VOTING MAY NOT REALLY BE ENOUGH
WORLD IS WATCHING AND ♥ INDIA SUPPORTS RON PAUL ! ♥
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
What a hypocrite. He is saying gays have rights yet vows to do nothing to fight for their rights? Claims he believes in womens rights yet is a prolifer?
KayoteThunder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayoteThunder You don't fight for rights you have them. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like everyone else. People don't have a right to everything they want. I would like all women to walk around naked but is it realistic to try and fight congressional battles to force that? no. All I would be doing is creating trouble. You have to learn at some point to be happy with what you have and look at everyone as a person with their own opinions and views.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayoteThunder If you want people to think differently or allow something you have to work with them. Talk to them on the level and over time they may come around.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@KayoteThunder he thinks it (gay rights) should be left to the state. that's his take on most (maybe all?) social issues. if new york and california, etc want to have gay rights and that's well accepted there it will pass. But if down in Georgia, Alabama or wherever they don't like it they don't have to have it. He does believe in womens rights. He believes every female baby has the right to live and not be aborted because the mother/parents weren't responsible for their actions.
GoBucks2828 3 months ago
@GoBucks2828 How the fuck is that fair to allow other to people decide whether a gay person can get married or not? How would you like it if your state allowed everyone to vote on whether or not you could get married or not? You think it is any of their business? It is your personal life and nobody elses. Ron Paul is nobody to demand whether or not a woman can or cannot do something with her own body. He claims to be about individual freedoms yet attempts to dictate the lives of others.
KayoteThunder 3 months ago
@KayoteThunder @ the abortion thing. libertarians philosophy is to protect life, abortion doesn't do that. we only go to war if it's to defend ourselves or our land. we don't endorse the death penalty, and we don't kill babies it's as simple as that. you don't have the personal freedom to kill your neighbor and you don't have the personal freedom to kill a baby.
GoBucks2828 2 months ago
@GoBucks2828 Abortion can protect life in the case the mother would die from birthing the child and even if that is not the case it cannot even be called a baby at that phase as it is merely a mass of cells multiplying at a constant rate. Past that abortions are done typically 9 weeks into the pregnancy and at that time there is not even brain activity in the thumbnail sized body of the fetus. It is no different than unplugging a brain dead persons life support. It cannot be called killing ababy
KayoteThunder 2 months ago
@KayoteThunder a woman can sue a physician for any information or disinformation that results in the loss of a baby or a deformation of a baby as soon as day one of conception....BECAUSE it's a life.
GoBucks2828 2 months ago
@GoBucks2828 It's a life. No argument there. The argument there is it cannot be called a HUMAN LIFE!
KayoteThunder 2 months ago
@GoBucks2828 You totally ignored the gay rights argument I sent you also. How the fuck is it fair and free for OTHER people to be able to decide whether YOU CAN OR CANNOT marry!? That is the exact opposite of what it means to be a libertarian.
KayoteThunder 2 months ago
@KayoteThunder relax. I didn't have enough room from the last comment to go into all that. And thanks for not arguing with my abortion statement -- I'll take that as you admitting I'm right. I'm not sure what you're looking for? Do you want what to hear what I think of gay marriage, what Ron Paul thinks, or how I interpret libertarianism's view on gay marriage?
GoBucks2828 2 months ago
@GoBucks2828 No dumbass I did argue your abortion claims. I don't really care what your views on gay marriage are I am telling you that Ron Pauls stance on it like his stance on every damn thing is. "Let's let the states decide." because he is playing it safe rather than expose his own opinions if he has any of his own opinions to begin with, I am saying that his stance is not libertarian and is unfair and unjust. OTHER people should NEVER be able to decide what rights you have and don;t have!
KayoteThunder 2 months ago
@KayoteThunder "You totally ignored the gay rights argument" "I don't really care what your views on gay marriage are" ....yet I'm the hypocrite. You're brilliant.
GoBucks2828 2 months ago
@GoBucks2828 I don't care what your views on gay marriage are because they are irrelevant because it should not be up to you or me whether two consenting adults marry eachother. We are no one to dictate what they do with their personal lives. That is a libertarian stance after all.
KayoteThunder 2 months ago
Hope Ron Paul Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman run togheter.
Saura74 3 months ago
laughing_elf_man.gif
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions ... — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)
bobmuffins 3 months ago
I don't support him because his philosophy--which is plutocracy. The KKK is against the war on terror. That doesn't mean you should support the KKK. A lot of people oppose the military-capitalist wars. However if it weren't for taxpayer funded government programs nobody would be arguing about it on youtube. Government funding created the internet. Look at the history of the internet. It was created by America's taxpayer funded military. So much for anarcho-capitalism & South Park Republicans.
perdondaris 3 months ago
Science and the proliferation of knowledge is behind every advancement in human rights, not capitalism. The Roman Catholic Church had a great capitalist racket until scientists and secular philosophers (Voltaire, Rousseau etc) broke it up through empiricism. Why do you think conservatives are capitalists and religious frauds? Sorry to burst your bubble lamborghini libertarians but secular humanism has done more than capitalism to advance humanity.
perdondaris 3 months ago
That coming from Ron Paul is hilarious.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
@TheForwardGaze what the hell does that mean?
Scottylong969 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scottylong969 Paul has a long history of racism. Google, "Ron Paul racist."
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
Well, that's capitalism. You think small businessmen don't get preferential treatment at the local level? Have you ever heard of Rotarians and Chambers of Commerce and country clubs and college alumni? You think a lightbulb just pops into someone's head and money just streams in? Are you really that naive?
perdondaris 3 months ago
How is corporatism not capitalism? Businessmen buy politicians and not vice versa. Politicians, being greedy capitalists, take their money to make laws beneficial to business (you might say politics is a part of the free market). When did Walmart cease to be an example of the success of free enterprise and become corporatist crony capitalists? Walmart is a corporation. The CATO Institute is funded by corporations.
perdondaris 3 months ago
@perdondaris
Capitalism is a economic system. By itself, it's fine. But when government is corrupted with capitalism, we call it corporatism, and that is very dangerous. Another example is religion. By itself, religion is fine. But when it corrupts government, it becomes theocracy, and that's also very dangerous, as we have seen through history how destructive a theocracy can be to not just liberty, but also life (see Sharia Law).
diggingforgold 3 months ago
@perdondaris
That's why libertarians want to take away politicians' power to influence the market with laws beneficial to them. Just look at Monsanto (EVIL corn corporation that wants to grow, control, and own all the corn in the world). An FDA official influenced decisions within the FDA to help Monsanto's goals, then retired and went to get a huge salary from them.
The FDA, EPA, etc. don't care about the people, they care about getting rich with their cronies. Ron Paul wants to end that.
Tezcatlepocatl 3 months ago
It does explain it. The media is based in sensationalism and making money. Whatever you might think of his ideas he is boring (like Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader). It isn't a conspiracy thing it's a money thing. You use pretty women (Britney Spears) and jocks (Peyton Manning) to sell things not old men. The same goes with politicians. Is it fair? No. Does it make sense? Yes. That is why slick salesman like George W. Bush/Bill Clinton win. It's perfectly capitalist and it's perfectly American.
perdondaris 3 months ago
Sorry Dr Paul but you are very very wrong on this. Libertarianism allows for racism big style. One of your hard right ancestors actually voted against the civil rights act on libertarian grounds.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi
Do you think libertarians were against the civil rights act because they were racist? Or was it because they felt it was a major attack on private property rights?
diggingforgold 3 months ago
@diggingforgold I think that they believed that outlawing obviously racist behaviour restricted property rights. In essence they wanted to defend the right of individuals to be racists in the economic sphere.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi That's called thought crime. Actually it's telling people what they can or can't do on their own private property. Racism only lasts when it is institutionalized by the government.. the market corrects such behavior through social pressures and economic pressures.
D34thSetX 3 months ago
@D34thSetX Yes I want their to be a degree of collectivism in respect of property. How braizen of me to think that private property should be subject to societal conditions. Never mind the various societies that have existed without any notion of private property or whether "your" property has been justly acquired. This has always been the case your factory is subject to public safety laws. You can't play your 5000W speaker system at full blast at 4am even if you pay the electric bill etc.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi I disagree with you on the first part, I don't believe in any degress of collectivism in respect to property.. it leads to the tragedy of the commons.
I never said that private property owners aren't subject to societal conditions.. as a matter of fact people are more pressured by society than the government in behaviors most of the time.
We can debating the justness of current property all night. If there are claims going back, those claims can be settled in court.
D34thSetX 3 months ago
@hess6wi Factories have not always been subject to public safety laws. The factories that had machines kill people or maim people saw that more of their workers moved to safer factories than the current one.
Sure, you can play your 5000w speaker system at full blast at 4am, it's called sound proofing.. you can minimize the amount of noise something makes even at full blast. Actually, various societies have existed where people respected each other's private property rights. (self-ownership.)
D34thSetX 3 months ago
@D34thSetX Fine you can't play 5000w speaker system at full blast at 4am without any sound-proofing because you want to hear it outside your house. My point is you can't just do anything because you have to consider the impact it has on others. The fact that factories didn't use to have health and safety laws isn't a reason for them not to be a good thing. I challenge you to cite anything that shows it is more dangerous to work in a factory now than before the 1961 Factory Act.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi "Fine you can't play 5000w speaker system at full blast at 4am without any sound-proofing because you want to hear it outside your house."
If you are violating the property rights of other people then yes you can't.. if not then go ahead.. you can sound-proof your own property too.
"My point is you can't just do anything because you have to consider the impact it has on others."
That's exactly what you don't consider at all when you only see what is in front of you.. minimum wage law.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX This is a specious argument based around the idea that I should support all kinds of freedom or none. Positive and negative freedoms are often contradictory. Given someone the freedom to exploit someone else gives them certain rights but if it occurs en mass takes away a great deal of freedom for a lot of individuals.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@D34thSetX By the way I'm still waiting on the "it's more dangerous to work in a factory now" evidence. Or is that you just spouting uninform, unsupported opinion too? Come on, show me the Factory Act made things worse. Show me the beef.
hess6wi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hess6wi "The fact that factories didn't use to have health and safety laws isn't a reason for them not to be a good thing."
It's not a reason for them to be bad either.. what's you're point.. oh.. you mean "I challenge you to cite anything that shows it is more dangerous to work in a factory now than before the 1961 Factory Act." which compares apples to oranges.... you can't compare now to then.. things have changed and technology has gotten better. You compare factories of the time.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX This spammed for some reason comment shows up your ignorance. If the factory act made the situation worse as you contend, then you should easily be able to show that it made it worse near that time. So 1963 should see worse conditions than 1959. Factories do not change rapidly enough for such a comparison to be invalid.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@D34thSetX This spammed for some reason comment shows up your ignorance. If the factory act made the situation worse as you contend, then you should easily be able to show that it made it worse near that time. So 1963 should see worse conditions than 1959. Factories do not change rapidly enough for such a comparison to be invalid. In addition you have condicted yourself AGAIN by saying first that this regulation makes things worse and then saying you can't tell.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "In addition you have condicted yourself AGAIN by saying first that this regulation makes things worse and then saying you can't tell." I never said that, I said that you can't compare apples to oranges.. which is what you were doing. You talked about factories in the late 19th-early 20th centuries and that factories only got safe because of the 1961 factory act. The fact of the matter is factories were already trending in a position to the Act's standards.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX Oh and it isn't thought crime. I'm not trying to outlaw having racist views. I'm suggesting it is right to outlaw acting upon those racist views in a manner that prevents ethnic groups from being able to fully participate in the economic life of their community.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi That's the logical conclusion of having such laws in the first place.. because you cannot tell if people are being racist in their motives.. you can't even tell what their motives are which is why in a court of law prosecution leads people to conclusions. Right now the laws on hand prevent millions of ethnic minorities from participating in the market with minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and drug laws hurt minorities more than 'whites'.
D34thSetX 3 months ago
@D34thSetX Please do explain to me how having to serve customers of any race and having to not take account of someone's skin colour when making employment decisions leads to the creation of thought crime. I'd like you to join that one up for me. I really don't see it.
hess6wi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hess6wi You're really that ignorant? If a business is composed of one race their can be no thought crime as everyone is the same race. When you are separated from other races you have more of a tendency to see them as similar to yourself. But when you are immersed in a plethora the differences are all around you and harsher divisions reemerge. This is why the North is more liberal than the South and West. Thought crimes area possible symptom of being around other races
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@Luigi84289 This argument appears to be based on the idea that the north (of the USA?) is racially segregated. Jokes.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi You're confusing what I said which is the reason why I haven't answered you in the first place. If you don't know what a thought crime is then, the simple explanation for you is this.. since you cannot tell what the motives people are engaged in it will be assumed that if they don't hire or serve a particular customer that it will be on race basis. Which is exactly what I said.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX That is not the case. In order to convict someone (at least in western societies) it needs to be demonstrably the case. In the same way that premeditation needs to be proved for a murder rather than a manslaughter conviction.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@D34thSetX That's the point of a court of law, you can convict when it is knowable beyond reasonable doubt that something is the case. How else do you tell the difference between manslaughter and murder, between negligent and dnagerous driving etc. etc.? Do you not think these are valid distinctions?
hess6wi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hess6wi "That's the point of a court of law, you can convict when it is knowable beyond reasonable doubt that something is the case."
Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't matter when people assume that the person in question is guilty. You are not innocent until proven guilty (in certain cases the prosecution lacks so much evidence that the defense will win).
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "How else do you tell the difference between manslaughter and murder, between negligent and dnagerous driving etc. etc.?"
Motive is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between negligent driving and dangerous driving is again motive.. it all boils down to motive and opportunity. If you have thought crimes you won't even need opportunity anymore because it will always be there. After that you can cook up any motive you want for actions that never happened.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX This is riddiculous "motive" and "opportunity" are never enough for a conviction in a civilised society such evidence could only ever point the possibility that someone committed a crime, it could never be beyond all reasonable doubt based on this alone.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi Actually, Motive, opportunity and evidence are enough to convict someone in a civilized society. The situation I described didn't have evidence in doubt.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX Motive, opportunity and evidence is not the same as motive and opportunity. Evidence is crucial and what causes your argument to fall flat on its face. Evidence needs to be beyond reasonable doubt (e.g. multiple eye witnesses, recorded evidence (e.g. CCTV), DNA evidence) at least that is the case where I live and I think you've got a pretty serious problem with your legal system if you don't have that, get it sorted. Perhaps you'd care to address all the contradictions you've made.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "the situation I described didn't have evidence in doubt." Please, if you want to critique when I was making examples of how things change with motive and opportunity (even when I said evidence was NOT in doubt at all) then.. what you've said here proves nothing about any contradictions. So, please tell me what is the difference between manslaughter and murder.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX I like the minimum wage, minimum wages far higher (e.g. in the UK) have been shown to have little to no impact on job numbers ( The employment effects of the national minimum wage, Mark B. Stewart) and removing legislation doesn't increase them either (see The Effects of Minimum Wages on Wage Dispersion and Employment: Evidence from the UK Wages Councils - by Machin & Manning). Turns out libertarians don't have a clue about economics - who knew?
hess6wi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hess6wi The more you increase the wage the less jobs there are and the bigger the workload on the employed.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@Luigi84289 Although this would be a massive simplification you could suggest a similar process as follows: The more you increase the wages of the poor, the more they spend (rather than when you increase the income of the rich who are not going short and therefore tend to save), the more demand is created, the more jobs you get. Virtuous circle. On the other hand I would point you to the academic papers I cited and ask you to read them.
hess6wi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're from England why are sticking your nose in American Affairs? Fuck off.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@Luigi84289 It is my opinion that libertarianism (or at least the hard economic right that poses calls itself libertarianism) is a dangerous and morally bankrupt ideology. I generally try to oppose it. At present I do live in England, however, I chose not to "f*** off".
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi You can like it all you want, it has a major impact on job numbers because you can't see what jobs could have been created if there was no minimum wage. You can't judge based on what you have now and say it has no impact when the minimum wage itself cuts any labor that might have been paid at whatever is lower than the minimum wage. It turns out that you have no clue about economics because the choices you see aren't the only choices there are.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX "You can like it all you want, it has a major impact on job numbers" - the papers I have cited here are academically peer reviewed papers which directly contradict this statement. Please read them (or at least the methodlogy) before just flatly contradicting or at least cite some actual evidence to the contrary rather than your unsupported opinions.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "the papers I have cited here are academically peer reviewed papers which directly contradict this statement."
The paper's you 'academically peer reviewed' ignores the fact that jobs cannot be created below the minimum wage of what the government sets.. as with your post below your argument and saying that my argument is self-contradictory proves to me you lack basic knowledge of economics required to even talk about the subject. (Hint: Opportunity Cost)
D34thSetX 2 months ago
I'm astounded by your ignorance. It isn't me peer reviewing these papers, it's scholars of economics. You also clearly haven't read the papers I've cited, the possible reduction in jobs due to a minimum price cap is point one. It's even mentioned in the abstract of Stewart's paper. You haven't done your homework. If you can't get the papers, give me your email, I could send you a book worth of papers on this. A few papers give an increase in employment, one or two a reduction, most no impact.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi " It isn't me peer reviewing these papers, it's scholars of economics." You're right, you didn't.. the 'evidence' you are using did. "You also clearly haven't read the papers I've cited," Actually I have read them.. they don't account for jobs that could have been created if there was no minimum wage. Because there is a law, it is ignored. He said empirical evidence is mixed.. the reason why is because if the government raises the minimum wage below the level at which the real wage
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi it will cause no effect or have zero impact. The fact of the matter is real wage rates change with time.. inflation plays a major factor into this role. You cannot take into account a few scholarly papers and have ignorance in the field of economics itself. I thought for you this would be self-evident.. I was wrong.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@D34thSetX In terms of you "not contradicting yourself" what's this?
"you can't see what jobs could have been created if there was no minimum wage".
"Right now the laws on hand prevent millions of ethnic minorities from participating in the market [by] minimum wage laws..."
hess6wi 2 months ago
@D34thSetX I also thought it worth noting how self-contradictory your argument has now become. You are simultaneously arguing that the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available and that you can't know how many job would have been created without it
"you can't see what jobs could have been created if there was no minimum wage".
"Right now the laws on hand prevent millions of ethnic minorities from participating in the market [by] minimum wage laws..."
Nice work!
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "I also thought it worth noting how self-contradictory your argument has now become."
Only to a supporter of a minimum wage law would find it self-contradictory. The fact of the matter is, you cannot see the costs of a minimum wage because the effect has already taken place. If you want to continue arguing in ignorance then.. Peace be with you.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX If it is possible for you to know that a minimum wage reduces jobs then how can you possibly say the effect is not measurable. It seems to me either you think economic modelling can be done or you don't. Either you can compare two situations (with and without a minimum wage) or you can't. But you can't say it would reduce it and then say you can't know what the effect would be.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi " If it is possible for you to know that a minimum wage reduces jobs then how can you possibly say the effect is not measurable." Because you cannot know how many jobs would have been created by existing businesses, businesses that were created that would have hired more workers at a level below the minimum wage, or even potential businessmen that didn't go into the market at all because of the minimum wage. If you can't expand on a basic premise then I don't know what else I can say.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX I posited that it is possible that there is an increase in the number of jobs created because thee is a minimum wage. You have similtaneously argued that you can't measrue the effect but that it will be negative. Either you are making an assumption without evidence which can only come from your own belief system and therefore can be disregarded as unimformed or you are talking out of your backside which is it? You are more skewered than a prawn on a kebab.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "I posited that it is possible that there is an increase in the number of jobs created because thee is a minimum wage." It's not possible, there are various other factors for why jobs were created that is not caused in the slightest by a minimum wage increase. For example, new technology comes out. Skilled laborers are required to maintain it. The employers are willing to pay 10 dollars an hour for the work. The minimum wage is at 5. It's not because of the minimum wage those jobs
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi were created. They were created for an entirely different reason which is why the empirical evidence is such a mess because they simply don't know exactly what jobs were created 'because' of the minimum wage increase. Correlation is not causation. Especially with Economics where not any one thing is the sole cause, it could be a primary contributor though.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "You have similtaneously argued that you can't measrue the effect but that it will be negative." The reports you have presented yourself have argued that they cannot know for sure. To not take them at their word and misconstrue the words of the author then you are being dishonest and proving that you lack a basic understanding of economics. It's not an assumption.. it's reality.. For example.. if you raise the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour what do you think will happen?
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi Do you think more jobs will be created in that area? That it will have little to no impact? The fact of the matter is you will put everyone out of work that employers don't feel that the labor is worth anything at 20 dollars an hour.. jobs that are already over 20 dollars an hour won't feel much of an impact. So, what you are doing is cutting out all labor that employers would have paid less than 20 dollars an hour to, businesses would probably close down as well.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX The answer to why it is possible to increase jobs through introducing a minimum wage is to be found in the demand side of economics. The money which is most active is the pmoney of the poorest in a society, by increasing their income level the related demand increase is very high. There's only so much gibberish I can read in a day. You don't understand even understand the glazier fallacy. I feel like I'm wasting my time here. Maybe we can chat when you've got your Economics MSc.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi "The money which is most active is the money of the poorest in a society, by increasing their income level the related demand increase is very high." You only increase the income of people who employers feel that their work is worth the increased cost of labor. You completely ignored a myriad of factors that could have led to an increase and you state that it's because of the minimum wage. The fact of the matter is you are wrong. If you aren't going to use logic then why bother.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "You don't understand even understand the glazier fallacy." Funny, you were the one that was supporting the fallacy in the first place.. which is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place.. and as I've explained to you before.. hidden costs of not being able to do an action that you otherwise could have done if x didn't happen is Opportunity cost. I've been talking about it this entire time and I've mentioned it over and over again.. yet you don't seem to get it.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "The answer to why it is possible to increase jobs through introducing a minimum wage is to be found in the demand side of economics" Again, it's not possible to answer why using demand side economics. What you are arguing is exactly what I said would happen if real income increase.. the minimum wage would have no effect. Demand of a highly specialized new goods would also not be effected by this minimum wage either.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi Again, like I said you are ignoring a myriad of other reasons why a minimum wage has no effect on an economy in which the real wage is already about the minimum wage. You also ignore the fact that employers can't hire anyone under the minimum wage and therefore any jobs that would have been created under the minimum wage cannot be created because employers are forced to pay above it (like glazier fallacy aka The Broken Window Fallacy)
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX Yeah you pretty much hang yourself here anyone reading this who does there research will see that no problem. I am happy to let you be damned by your own words.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi Funny Hess6wi.. you've proven nothing.. you mentioned the broken window fallacy after I mentioned it and yet you have no clue what it means.. I'm happy to let you be damned by your own words as well, as your words have you comparing apples to oranges.. then you bring up a fallacy that you know nothing about. Please, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX The glazier's fallacy is in essence a demonstration of opportunity costs. You have reached the conclusion that this means the minimum wage adds nothing to the economy because if it didn't exist then the money would be spent elsewhere. This is incorrect, as where money is spent can alter future demand: for example putting money in a bank that thinks nothing of massive leverage is not as economically active as spending it on goods/services or using it to grow business. Take Econ 101.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi The minimum wage does add nothing to the economy. If the minimum wage was so great why is it only at 7.25 in the US (federally).. Why not 10? Why not 20? Because economists that advocate the minimum wage are not stupid enough to support something that high because they know it would kill businesses. " if it didn't exist then the money would be spent elsewhere." Actually, what I said is that if it didn't exist people that were previously unemployed would be able to get a job because
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi their labor that was previously undervalued and the jobs that they had before the minimum wage went over their average rate can now get a job. I think you don't understand how hard it is for teenagers to get a job and keep it and people who currently have little to no experience working. "This is incorrect, as where money is spent can alter future demand" I never said anything to the contrary, you've tried to take my argument out of context and then apply it to a different argument.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "for example putting money in a bank that thinks nothing of massive leverage" Mmoney that is saved is lent out for interest by bankers themselves to say that it is not economically as active spending it on goods/services or using it to grow a business (disregarding the fact that starting up a business and keeping it alive when most start-ups fail in 5 years.. cannot be ignored.) If everyone is spending and no one is saving there is no investment or borrowing opportunities unless you
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi have a fiat currency with a central bank that can print up money (inflate) in order to facilitate those transactions. However, I digressed.. I reached the conclusion that the minimum wage adds nothing to the economy because it cuts out.. immediately, everyone that is under that rate. I'm also against the minimum wage because I'm against the government involvement in the market. How I tried to explain it to you, yet you obviously didn't realize about potential wealth lost because of
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi actions that are forced upon people. It isn't an opportunity cost when someone is forcing you to take something you don't like for something you like. There is no cost at all because there is no choice in the matter. So again, like I've said for the upteenth time.. The potential wealth, jobs, and businesses that could have been created and are not because of the costs will never come to be because of it. Also, a myriad of other regulations too but, that's a different topic.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX Once again you damn yourself for me. I couldn't make someone sound more stupid from not understanding what an opportunity cost is (in this case the choice exists between having an broken window and doing *insert the set of other options here* ) to having no concept of the variety of problems with the glazier fallacy (measurment problem of net wealth versus productivity, the differing utility or replacement versus non-replacement etc. etc.) You damn yourself for me. Get educated.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi Hess, you try to make yourself sound educated the reality is, we were never talking about opportunity cost in the first place. There is no choice in the broken window fallacy. The baker HAS to get a new window for his place. The other side of the story is if he didn't have to pay for that window what could he have spent it on. Again, you don't seem to get this. It's ironic that you're telling me that I'm damning myself and I need to get educated when you miss this basic concept.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX You will have to pay for further tutorage. Originally we were talking about whether or not libertarianism was racist which you took us off by bringing us onto economics. You could easily have schooled me on American history (mine's very shaky), you could have talked about a lack of understanding of political systems (I'm better at this but not excellent). But you thought you knew more about economics, this was your error and may even remain so.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi Also, like you've said before, you did not want to get into the other concepts of the problems so I left them alone.. which is why I go with the assumption of the fallacy itself that the window will be replaced. It was YOU that did not want to talk about the variety of other problems in the fallacy itself so I focused you onto two of the problems which are relevant to the conversation. Again, the concept I'm trying to show you is missed on you.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX In addition there are some fairly iffy notions in the glazier's fallacy but frankly that would take a very very long time to explain to someone who from their writings doesn't understand basic propositional logic. I will try to refrain from responding further as this is an utter waste of time at the moment. I genuinely advise you to do some logic and economics courses, if you come to Manchester, I might teach you. At the moment I'm embarassed for you.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi It's not 'iffy' notions.. you mentioned opportunity costs yet, you forget that if the glazier didn't have his window broken he could have spent money on other things like getting more yeast for the baker's break. This seems lost on you ie negative chain of 'creation' vis-a-vis a positive chain of creation. You don't see any of the potential wealth created because it will never be created because the baker has to get a window from the glazier. Logic.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi I'm embarrassed that you call yourself someone that teaches yet you don't know the entirety of the broken window fallacy. It's not just about 'Opportunity Cost'. Other questions are does destruction create wealth, if so the little boy should break multiple windows or realistically we should be at war in at all times. Conversely, it tells you that destruction only benefits a few at the expense of many others that could have gotten money from the baker. Potential, like I've stated.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX I smell the wiki copying scribbling of someone talking out of their backside. Listen to your teacher and go and educate yourself.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@D34thSetX One of the major problems with the broken window fallacy (as I already mentioned) is that it deals in asset related wealth and not in either productivity or utility. This is what Adam Smith was railing against. This severely undermines the argument to the degree that it is useless in determining whether destruction creates wealth (which it doesn't but the glazier's fallacy does not tell you this). You may pay for further info but I'm not wasting my time on you any more.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi The fallacy itself deals with economic terms so simplistically that other people can understand it. "(which it doesn't but the glazier's fallacy does not tell you this)." It says that a negative chain of wealth is not preferable to a positive chain of wealth. Destruction can create wealth.. is that wealth preferable to Peace time wealth creation? Yes it is. If you cannot see this for yourself then we are both wasting our times as you will never get it.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi btw, the fallacy itself tells you from the argument of one of the actors involved that it will create wealth for the glazier as he wouldn't have had the baker's business without the glass breaking. Again, as I've said many times on here.. it completely disregards the fact that the money that has to be spent on the glass cannot be spent anywhere else. Thus denying others what would have come about if the window wasn't broken. You see this action every day.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi Btw, I know it's difficult because pride gets in the way of telling you if you are right or wrong but, bringing up subjects that we dropped long ago generally isn't a good way of debating. Nor were we talking about productivity or utility. However, if you want to debate that as well, then by all means lead the way.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@hess6wi "It seems to me either you think economic modelling can be done or you don't." Modelling can show you how things 'should' be with everything else being equal.. the fact of the matter is modelling cannot (and will never) account for everything all at once.. there are simply too many choices and alternatives to those choices to calculate.
"But you can't say it would reduce it and then say you can't know what the effect would be." The Broken Window Fallacy.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
Comment removed
hess6wi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@D34thSetX Oh and what on Earth are you talking about "Racism only lasts when it is institutionalized by the government"? Why is there still racism today? Why do we see racism in for example Russia against the peoples of central asia living in their borders? Where's the state racism there? How does racism start if the government is only made of people in the first place?! People are racist because it is a way of creating "in" and "out" groups: an inate human tendency and one to be discouraged.
hess6wi 3 months ago
@hess6wi "How does racism start if the government is only made of people in the first place?!"
Exactly.. it's made up of people.. you are arguing my point for me.. thank you.. "People are racist because it is a way of creating "in" and "out" groups: an inate human tendency and one to be discouraged."
Racism is also discouraged by inate human tendency to discourage people from being racist again.. creating a group that are racist and others that are not... again.. people.
D34thSetX 2 months ago
@D34thSetX People naturally create collective in and out groups. How does this argue your point? Explain.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@hess6wi
“The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.” ~Ron Paul
diggingforgold