Libertarians Are Selfish

[RESTxINxPIECEZ]

haha, i came here expecting to get pissed off at someones lack of knowledge, instead i got a laugh

[StateExempt]

@xexixk - Like the way we pay a fee or subscription for everything else?

[1991jmoney]

totalitarian FUCKERS lol

[ilikcagrls]

Isn't every act performed by anyone selfish? I mean.....if someone gave a gift to someone else and it made them feel like shit....would they give the gift? People give gifts because it makes them feel good. Isn't that selfish? I can't think of a single act made by anyone which doesn't have a root of selfishness.

[StateExempt]

@ilikcagrls - The maker of this video already agree with that. This was just a parody of the idea that people who think wealth should only be acquired through mutually agreed upon exchange (free market) are somehow more selfish than those who want to dictate how other people's money is spent (liberals).

[locomuchacho1]

Libertarians can't be totalitarian, that is a true fallacy. Libertarians believe in a small, limited government, and a totalitarian form of government would be intrusive on almost every aspect of life. ya idiot.

[StateExempt]

@locomuchacho1 - Okay comments like yours make me wonder if I am the only Libertarian that can see a sarcastic video for what it is.

[StateExempt]

@strke4ce - This video is a parody of people who think Libertarians are selfish because they do not think it is moral to spend other people's money. In fact, liberalism economically or socialism in general can be summed up by six words: Make someone else pay for it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt No, that would be capitalism, "make

somebody else pay for my good time", which is the

mantra of the wealthy. All democracy does is force

the thieving wealthy to give back what they stole.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - The wealthy did not steal anything.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Of course they did, they couldn't have

earned it all. You see, you're falling for their brainwashing.

They've convinced you that as long as it's currently legal,

that it's not WRONG! And then they paid congress to write

the laws so that only things the rich can do would entitle

them to even MORE money, despite the fact that they never

actually worked for it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt And where does the value that money

buy come from, it comes from the workers who make the

things the rich buy and effectively don't actually pay for in

return with their OWN work, thus it is stealing.

[greenrabbitification]

"glade" -asshat

[rstevewarmorycom]

Only interested in spending their own money that they stole from everyone else.

Libertarians are adolescents who didn't mature.

[Mirovozzrenie100]

@rstevewarmorycom You're a moron. Don't talk, ever again.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 Typical adolescent response.

No thought, no intelligence, just hormone.

[Mirovozzrenie100]

@rstevewarmorycom Ok "big guy." lmfao. Enlighten us as to where these libertarians "steal" their money from? THAT statement is more estrogenical nonsense than my comment kid.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 The kind of people who gravitate to

Libertarianism are the kind who have a desperate need

to justify themselves having more money than they deserve

because they know they obtained it unethically. Those who

are poor and Libertarian are just wannbe-rich-ers who think

that somebody has stolen from them.They're right, of course,

but they've been propagandized to believe the gummint did

it by the very people who stole from them, the rich Libertarians.

[scienceatheism]

Thats because of Pride and a bit of narcissism that goes into them refusing to go to that shit. I know my dad has way to much pride to ask for government help he would rather starve on the street then ask for help.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@scienceatheism That would be self-destructive. Would that

people felt that way about illicit profiteering from economic

victims by usury, return on investment, and rental property.

Then you might almost convince me they were moral and didn't

want a hand out.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 The redirection of wealth in this country

from the skilled workman to the rich asshole who doesn't

actually work for a living is carried out by the economic

device called the market. Whenever one man charges another

man more for his hour of honest labor than that man can charge

him, the first man is stealing, he is partially enslaving the other

man. Wealth is merely the modern feudalism, unjust wealth

and power passed in families like a nobility.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 The nobility, the wealthy, are all

either overt or clandestine Libertarian nihilists who don't

think that they owe anything to anyone else if they can

manage to steal and keep it by economic device. What

devices? Rental housing, "owner"-worker wage disparity,

profit, and other manipulations of the market. The rich

have made their kind of stealing legal, and relegated the

stealing the poor have to do to criminality and punish

them in dungeons.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

So if I want to be mature, I should make ad hominems and bare assertions?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Libertarians are selfish. That's a demonstrable

truism. If you want to assign a value judgment to it and

then claim someone intended disparagement, then it

only reveals what YOU think about that. In which case

I don't even need to.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

Oh maaaan. You are completely unable to make an actual argument. Why don't you demonstrate your "truism," if it is demonstrable? Libertarians don't want to spend other people's money. They are perfectly fine with being charitable.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Poor Libertarians don't want to steal,

they just want their wealth returned by those who

stole it. Unfortunately, instead of realizing that was

the rich Libertarians who stole it, they think it was

the government, which is as silly as thinking the

little store on the corner did it. In comparison to

what the wealthy steal and keep, what government

takes and has to immediately give away to the poor

is trivial and is reminiscent of Mother Teresa.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

The government stole from the working class to give to major corporations. Corporations are entities granted by the government. Libertarians hate both corporations and government. You lack basic reasoning skills if you cannot identify this; do some reading.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Government did what the people wanted done.

Were they misinformed? Probably. Libertarians assert that

liberty produces fairness. I don't see it. They support the

very same liberties that corporations have used in their right

of free association and market selling to steal vast fortunes

from virtually everyone. I'm not impressed by liberty, I think

what people want when they think of the good and the right

is not liberty, but is instead what we want is fairness.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey The problem with Libertarians as victims is

not that they aren't victimized but that they can't even

correctly identify their assailants in a line-up. Not only

that, but then they get in bed with them!

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom as much as libertarians hate government, they hate corporatism. It's a necessary logical step.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey @jaykgrey But what Libertarians promote is the very liberties

that let corporations and the rich to steal legally. Libertarianism

is self-contradictory if it claims to hate corporations, since

they're just voluntary syndicates of people acting together.

You can't whine and complain about being stolen from if you

support the liberties by which they steal it from you. Sounds

like you resenting that they won and you didn't. Support that

game, support its consequences.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom lastly, and perhaps most importantly, libertarianism does not necessarily mean a strong advocation of capitalism. That is one theory of libertarianism. Libertarianism simply values liberty. If the theory is wrong, libertarians will support a different theory to maximize liberty.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Every Libertarian I ever heard of supported the

liberties by which people freely associate and trade voluntarily.

Capitalism runs by those liberties. I'm not impressed with liberty,

I don't think people should be able to gang up on their victims

and take what they want. Call me old fashioned, but that's criminality.

I don't think an alcoholic should be allowed to sell his family's

house to a rich guy who offered him a lifetime supply of booze

for it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey In fact I don't think anyone should be allowed to sell his

residence, because homeless people turn into criminals, they

have to. Lacking a home they have no place to keep anything

and keep themselves clean, or rest or prepare to go out into

the world and do anything. They lose everything and then they

want to take yours. Better to prevent that. In fact make the

ownership of more than one residence illegal.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Homes would

become a commodity that reflects their value, rather than a

retirement fund for the rich. Look, a meritocracy is fine, let

people earn what they get, but merit must NOT amount to the

skill of stealing from others by connivance and economic

device, rather than working for a living. I've read a lot about

Libertarianism is my 62 years, and it sounds like a juvenile

desire for freedom without responsibility.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

Libertarians are against all force: government, corporations, individuals. Done. Anything contrary to this is misinformed. Simply because you cannot see how to solve the problem without violence does not mean we cannot. Our economy did not crash when we abolished slavery.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey That would mean you're pacifists and would

lay down and roll over if someone decided to take everything

you have. This is what I mean by Libertarians contradicting

themselves at every turn. You pretend that the liberties you

want are "natural" when no such things exist. We only have the

rights that we grant each other, and which ones are fashionable

varies with the situation and the desires of the culture promoting

them.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey In one society voluntary trade is permitted, and they have

some people destroying the lives of others with connivance and

economic devices like rental housing, usury, and derivatives.

In another that liberty has been controlled so that doesn't happen.

Now you wouldn't call the latter society free, but I assure you

this one isn't free, unless by that you mean that victims of wealthy

people are free to sleep under bridges and freeze in the cold.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey

That kind of "free" we can do without. What people want is not

liberty, but fairness. Liberty can also be called license, and the

noun is a pejorative. We want a society where people get pretty

much what they secretly think they deserve for their efforts. We

don't actually want a society where we're free to cheat and steal

from each other by quasi-legal trickery, without having to earn a

living by honest work.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey The rich should be force to relinquish their

wealth and take work in farms and factories with the rest of us

growing food and assembling the goods that we all want to have.

The rafts of their accountants, secretaries and administrative

assistants whose jobs are to manipulate the debt of people who their

boss took unfair advantage of, should join them there.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey With all those

formerly wealthy and pencil-pushing keyboard operators and

functionaries occupied at productive work, we would all have two to

three times the personal wealth of technology and security that we

have now. Make everyone a homeowner by legal fiat and destroy

the rent system that warehouses people without hope of personalizing

or counting on their lives for much besides the next month's survival.

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

Again, just because you have misconceptions and use them despite being corrected does not mean libertarianism does not work, it just means you have no clue what you're talking about.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey I see a bunch of Libertarians who never

agree, can't "correct" anyone because they don't

agree about how, and you try to tell me it works?

WHAT works? You don't HAVE anything you agree on!

[jaykgrey]

@rstevewarmorycom

That's because libertarianism is a broad field that encompasses even the Democrats and Republicans. If you wish to argue with me, argue with the points I bring across, not what other libertarians say. Further do not equate libertarianism with pacifism. The NAP does not say you cannot protect yourself. I'd like to point out that you treat libertarianism like a creationist treats evolution.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey No, political science is that broad field. Libertarianism

is quite well-defined. I hear christians trying to disingenuously claim

that we shouldn't take them to task for the evils of their religion,

when they pretend they can cherry-pick only what they want from

it and still be christian. It's nauseating. What the fuck is the NAP?

I treat libertarianism like a evolutionist treats creationism, a set of

twisted notions that don't make any actual sense when examined.

[Mirovozzrenie100]

@rstevewarmorycom So tell me, what do people such as myself "owe" you huh? You think you deserve something just for being shat out of the womb? You're a crazy leftist who believes anyone with a penny more than you got it through extortion when you probably collect a welfare check every month at tax payer's expense. Owning a business or being a hard worker and having money doesn't entail that you stole it, don't blame your loser shortcomings on successful people, public schools.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 Your delusion has a pile of distortions.

I'm a commie who thinks that people who are able and don't

work for a living should be intentionally starved to death if

necessary, until they agree to work for a living or die. I work

for a living 40+ hours a week. When a person is born he is

owed a living until he has been made able to provide his own,

this includes informal and formal training.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 And he should start

partially earning his own living from the very first time he has

a skill that is useful to others, even if he is five years old, as

long as it doesn't interfere with his training. The society has

the responsibility to train him in all possible skills required by

the current level of the society's working technology, and he

should be cross-trained on as many of these as possible.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 Owning a business when others don't can mean that you

acquired more money than others by some device, we

need to question what device. And even if you acquired

it fairly that doesn't give you the right to collect more

purchasing power per hour of work than other workers,

if you want more money work more fucking hours, it's

that simple. Why? because NO ONE is fit to tell anyone

that their hour of work is worth less than that of another,

NO ONE!

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mirovozzrenie100 If they work, and someone else has need of

that work, then they should pay them fairly and equally

per hour for that work.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@jaykgrey Libertarianism contradicts itself

like a small child who wants to have his cake and to eat it too.

They never seem to be fully able to explain what they want and

how it wouldn't lead to the same damned thing we have now.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - If Libertarians are selfish for wanted people to only spend their own money, than liberalism is AT LEAST as selfish for wanting to plunder at the expense of other people.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt When "their own money" is what they stole,

the notion of stealing it back from them being a crime

no longer applies. When the group demands you pay

your fair share for protection and benefits to you, what

you have that the group needs is no longer yours anyway.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - In a free market you do not acquire wealth unless you have provided something that other people want. No one stole anything except through government.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt That's meaningless if you have cornered the market on a needed commodity even only locally. The "free market" isn't actually "free".

Government taxation is not theft, and it doesn't participate in what *I'm*

talking about in this regard, at all.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Taxation is theft, period. If someone objects to it they are thrown in prison. The free market is as free as society can possible get.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt No free market can exist without a force

to guarantee property rights without criminal taking. No

agency that does that can function without taxation. Without

taxation we are back to kill or be killed, the law of the jungle.

We are back to gangs and the biggest nastiest gang wins

by cornering its smaller victims separately and either robbing

them or enslaving them. There are no inherent human rights

except what we defend by force that requires taxation.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - See my channel playlist. An institution that violates property rights cannot be relied upon to protect them in the first place.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt A notion of property rights that discounts

the need for paid force to protect property is nonsensical.

That payment comes by taxation.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Why is it nonsensical? Violating someone's property rights through taxation does not protect those rights. 

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Don't you read what is said? There are

a limited number of ways to run things. Either we can

return to the law of the jungle, eat or be eaten, or we can

as a group decide to interfere with that brutal process. And

if we do we need a force to enforce our will. Those people

will require our support, and if you do not wish to kill or be

killed, then you must fork over your taxes.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - The jungle analogy works well for describing the political process. Allowing people to chose what they can do with their time and resources does not.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Your comment seems vague to me,

can you explain? The rules of the biggest gang can

be as encompassing as the majority wants them to be.

If they demand you work for the state a certain number

of hours to earn its protection, then I would recommend

you do so. Without the state you're anyone's victim who

wants your stuff or wants you gone. That's the essence

of taxation.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt You see, what Libertarians hate is when we

point out that all government is is the biggest voluntary

syndicate.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt If we didn't pay

taxes, big goons would kill us and take them and everything

else we possess anyway. If we do pay our taxes, then the

big goons work for us and ALL they take are taxes, leaving

us relatively protected beyond that. There is NO way to protect

ALL one's property, some must be sacrificed to protect the

rest.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Or you could agree to pay someone else to protect you on the basis of NAP.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt And then who protects you from them?

You see, it all comes down to the biggest gang. That

biggest gang is called the state.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Even if you could stay awake day and night with a big

nasty gun that could somehow defeat any attack, THAT would

STILL take up your time, and time is money, you couldn't get

your work done so you couldn't HAVE anything. So you see, it

comes down to practicality and reality.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - But it is not a monopolized option or one that is forced upon you if you refused.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Law of the jungle is, and that's the only

alternative to the biggest gang making the rules. You can

say that because nobody specific enforces it that it isn't

"monopolized", but whoever shoots you and takes everything

you've got sure has got a "monopoly" at that time. And that's

Law of the Jungle, which is the "natural" order. The entirety

of human superiority lies in subordinating natural law to our will.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Law of the jungle accurately describes the political process. It does not describe voluntary interaction.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Human interaction *IS* the political

process, you should have someone in poli-sci explain

this to you.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt In reality, which is what

*IS* and not what we think SHOULD be, NOBODY grants us the

right to hold and keep property, except for each other, and they

don't want to have to get up and get their guns all the time to

protect you, they're tired, or old, or weak, or in their jammies, so

they hire these guys so they don't have to. And you better pay

them or your right to own property, WHICH EMANATES FROM

each other, called THE STATE, and from NOWHERE ELSE, is

NULL and VOID!

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Could your comment be any more vague?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Are you being facetious? Did you really

not grasp what I said?

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - I should ask you the same thing.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Is this a word game to you?

Are you a paid asshole? I suggest that if you're

not a disinformationalist hired by the wealthy,

that you re-read it and figure it out.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt You see, there is no "creator" and it didn't

give us any rights at all, that's just a myth.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - I am not a divine-command theorist.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Then you'll grasp that we have no inherent

property rights except what others grant to us, which is a

democratic process of the biggest gang making the rules.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Rights are not tied to what a community believes. Murder is wrong even if 51% of the population suddenly decided otherwise.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt So now you don't even believe in the

death penalty, eh? That's what IT is!! Rights can't come

from anyplace except what people believe is right, thus

the word "rights". If you'd like to appeal to people not to

do something YOU think is wrong, you'd better have a

damned good argument.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Freedom is meaningless if it doesn't

result in security, safety, and fairness. Freedom without

that criterion judging it is nothing but license. The "free"

market is not "free" if it denies fairness. What we all

want is not "freedom" but fairness. People who are simplistic

or greedy would like the freedom to steal, because that

seems fair to them. That's because they only care about

them, and nobody else. Taxation done right is fairness in

action.

[TMWTSB]

:)

[AtomicHoosier]

Hahaha.... i needed a good laugh thnx

[AresCassell]

Yes, I am a lobster. I admit it. 

[BigkKinny]

HEY DUMBASSES!!! THIS IS A PARODY!!He's making fun of liberals and conservatives.

[Mack488]

I'm reading this and non of you even have a clue of what you're talking about. Being a Libertarian isn't selfish it's the morale idea of I live my life and you live your life and the government has no say in it and I have no say in your life and you have no say in my life.

[FiveofHearts1]

@Mack488 I'm fairly sure he's making fun of the retarded strawman arguments against libertarianism.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@FiveofHearts1 Libertarians are so stupid that they think

calls of "strawman" will get them out of anything. Actually

they're just too stupid to realize that the caricatures of

Libertarianism aren't "strawmen" at all, they're RIGHT!!

[FiveofHearts1]

@rstevewarmorycom Easily spotted troll is easily spotted.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@FiveofHearts1 "Strawman", "troll", you don't seem to

actually know the correct definition of any of these

words, you just know how to type them to try to make

yourself feel intelligent.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - No need to talk to yourself here.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mack488 That's childishly ignoring that we invariably

interfere with each other in a shared world. If there's no

government to protect you then we'll just wait till you fall

asleep and kill you and take everything you have. What is

it that keeps that sort of criminality from becoming all there

is, huh? Government, that's what, the organization of people

into the biggest possible gang so that some little criminal gang

can't do that.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mack488 Of course, then that gang can rob you, but then

that gang is all of us, so would we want it that way? And who

decides what you can own and how you can keep it. Answer:

We all do, there are NO god-given rights, just those we give

each other because we want them for ourselves. And those

can change when we find out how some rules work and some

have BIGGGG loopholes. Capitalism is one big loophole that

needs plugging. 

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mack488 Taxes are the way the biggest gang funds its

democratically agreed upon functions. If we all had to get what

we wanted by trade, then you wouldn't be able to drive your

car across my property without paying my toll. If you weren't

rich you might not even be able to get home! Libertarianism is

just chock-full of such little contradictions and silliness.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Mack488 Which is ridiculous adolescent nonsense.

Why? Because without government EVERYBODY WHO

WANTS TO *WILL* have a say in your life, and your death,

and your stuff, and your wife, and your daughter, etc.

The natural order is kill or be killed, without agreements

for mutual defense you're fucked, and that takes taxes.

[nosferotica1]

Pacifist through your fucking skull.

So hard to not LOL right in the middle of class.

...

Done with my work and class doesn't end for another 40 minutes or so :/

[StateExempt]

69 people did not realize that this was a parody. Libertarianism is no more selfish than any other ideology except for ones that depend on self-deprivation.

Liberalism is basically the idea that people should be allowed to forcefully take wealth from others for their own purposes - while denouncing anyone who objects as selfish.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Liberalism is the idea that people should

be able to use the democratic power of government, all

of the people together in the biggest possible gang, to

steal back wealth that was stolen from them by unfair

quasi-legal economic device by the craven venal wealthy

who want everyone else to do their share of the work while

they party and take long vacations.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - What was stolen from them and how? Did Walmart put a gun to your head and make you buy anything?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt When a rich person buys all of a needed

commodity and raises the price on it to an amount that

drives the economy of a family into the dirt affording it,

there is no "freedom" to purchase or not purchase, that

is a merely a lie.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - This has never happened.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Ever heard of "buy low, sell high". Make any sense to you now?

Your assertion is total and utter nonsense.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Yes I have. No theft is involved.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Of course it is. Speculation is theft,

it is an effort to profit without adding value, merely

by positioning oneself in people's way of obtaining

something. Everyone knows such gouging is criminal,

the laws of most states indicate it is.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Who provided that profit?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Profit is what you take from the purchase

price of an item that others participating in its creation

are denied for no really good specific reason. It came

from when people lived in tiny villages and took their

produce to market on weekends. After a while they

got tired of walking that long way each week or month.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Profit reflects the value someone places on something minus the cost of producing it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt That lie is merely an ugly euphemism for

charging whatever the market will bear, which amounts

to gouging in the case of scarce commodities. Profit,

then, is the part of the price of something that is in no

way explained or supported by the quantity of labor that

created it. (Pssst! It's a prettied up term for STEALING!)

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - If it was truly stealing, no one would pay for it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Making people pay for it, and then pay

some more for the privilege of paying, is theft, and that

makes it stealing. If your daughter was stolen would you

pay to get her back? You see, your notion is idiotic.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Nobody forced them to pay for anything. Government on the other hand does force people to pay for things at the risk of imprisonment or death. You see, your notion is completely contradictory and the descriptions you make all apply only to the state.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt

If you managed to make money flow from someone else's

pocket inexplicably, to your own however good your magic,

if you were caught at it they would put you in jail. But when

your slight of hand involves attaching that illicit flow to the

exchange of an object for labor, as some vague part of the

deal, then somehow they accept your lie that it should be

yours. Merely human stupidity.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - So you agree that government should be reduced in size for those reasons, right?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Nooooo, you're very confused, I think

the government should be expanded to control everything,

so that there is nothing, no realm or field of human

endeavor that remains uncontrolled which can be used

for the promulgation of illicit unfairness and the crimes

of the wealthy. I think government should forbid even

selling anything except through the government and with

its approval in order to ensure that prices fairly reflect

the labor it took to provide that item.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt I think people who

refuse to work for a living should be starved to death if

they don't change their mind. I think every crime should

be punishable by death or nude public beatings near to

death. I think attempting theft by profit should carry death

by torture as its punishment. If we really don't want people

doing something it should be made unthinkable to do so.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt But sometimes he would notice that he

could get much more for it than they had asked, so he

charged a higher price and pocketed the difference without

telling his providers or sharing it with them. After a time he

became rich and began to loan money to others for a fee,

these were the first banker/merchants. He got t by stealing it.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - See my previous point. I hope you have not taken your lack of reasoning seriously and remained unemployed your whole life.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt I lacked no reasoning. Nor have I been

unemployed for long. But I work for a labor wage, never

a profit. I'm an honest man, unlike some about.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt To this day merchants do that, they pay their workers less

than they could, which the workers don't know, and after

they buy more stock they pocket the difference, thinking that

any of this free money left over must surely be theirs since

they have their hand on it. Just theft and greed.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - I am not against individual autonomy in the market, but as for employees of a firm, what is preventing them from working on their own?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt They do, they themselves do the work, every

day. Whether they work for a company or not. That means

they are owed the very same wage for their work in all

circumstances.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt So they sought out the guy who

most wanted to keep going to market and agreed

to let him have a share of their price if he would

sell it for them. So he went to town and sold for them.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt When a group of rich people do that

with most things and make a fortune they didn't work a

single hour for, that is stealing. When someone doesn't

work and yet demands they be supported by the society,

especially in a fine style they covet, that is criminality.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Can you give examples? I agree that everyone elected into office fits that description though.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Examples of how a rich person gets money without

working (theft) are through usury, investment and return, and through rental property. Now didn't you know that already? And I see no specific connection between any of that and being elected, since the elected do not tax your money into their personal coffers, but only into the state treasury.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - Return on investments reflect the changing value of goods across time. No one is coerced into giving people money for their investments any more than government coerces people to pay taxes.

[SpellboundSolution]

@StateExempt "any more than government coerces people to pay taxes" well I'd challenge you to not pay any taxes the government demands. You'll soon see what coercion looks like. That's the great trick of government: just because the gun isn't visible while it's pointing at your head doesn't mean it's not there.

[StateExempt]

@SpellboundSolution - I agree with you on that. In fact, I think the world could use more people who think the way you and I do.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Goods are either wanted or not wanted.

If wanted they must be paid for, this requires the payment

of the wage hour credit that was consumed in making them,

from raw material to assembly and distribution. Any assertion

that things change in price merely reflects someone's theft or

malfeasance. When a corner on a market is possible, no such

thing as a voluntary market can exist, the situation is inherently

coercive.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - A change in price reflects a change in how much other people value that good in relation to what it took to produce it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt No, it reflects how desperate others are

for it and how much you can rip them off for it. Gouging,

it's called. 

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - If the price is unreasonable the good would not sell.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt No, if the price couldn't be paid, then

it wouldn't sell, unless the seller lowered it. An unreasonable

price is one that takes an unfairly large proportion of one's

spending power for too little equivalent hour-wage and makes

it more likely it is stolen or the asshole is killed in the night.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - If it was unfair the buyer would refuse. It is that simple.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Not if it's food and your family is starving.

Not if its a house and your family is freezing. Not if it is

any among lots of various necessities if some vicious

greedy opportunistic capitalist decides to gouge you.

The essence of capitalism is a gam of keep away played

by a whole class at once. Each rich bastard corners the

market on something and gouges everybody else to get

it so he can live without working. That's called "buy low,

sell high".

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - So the person who provided those things made the recipients better off. Thus they deserve the money they get in return especially if the buyer is permitted to buy elsewhere.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt The reason a working person could

starve is because someone stole from him, or else he

couldn't starve. When government takes it back it is

taking it back from the thief, not from the "provider".

Whatever you get when a working man doesn't get is

evidence that you, for whatever reason, came by it

unfairly, thus it wasn't yours in the first place. Just

like possession of lost or stolen property.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt That's capitalism. It's also the illicit enslavement

of others for which each and every one of these wealthy

bastards should be tortured to death publicly.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - That is socialism. It is the overt enslavement of those who produce at an advantage to those who do not.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Yes, that's socialism, but socialism is in

NO way enslavement. The wealthy didn't come by it

honestly or fairly, so nothing is being stolen, and the

rich didn't "slave" for it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Consider: Three men lost at sea awake on the sands of an

island. The first man awake staggers up to the top of the hill

and finds the only spring on the island, and he lays claim to

it. He requires the other two men to fetch him fish and coconuts

for water, while he lounges around. How many days do you

figure they'll go before the asshole is killed in his sleep and

is possibly eaten? This is exactly what happened on this planet.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - The first man is government.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt No, the first man is just another

greedy opportunistic capitalist asshole. The government

is the two other guys when they kill him. Government

by other than monarchs was created to over-power

monarchs and warlords and take democratic control.

That's what the two guys did.

[StateExempt]

@rstevewarmorycom - The government is the one that tries to take it all from everyone else that goes out of their way to produce.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt You act like government is all one "them"

and that "they" try to take it and keep it to get rich or something.

That's delusional. Everything government gets they have to

give away. There's no "greedy" motive to "take it". The reason

it does is because we all voted on it and decided to take it.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@StateExempt Now: How long before the rest of us

monkeys awake to this new possibility locally?

[BritishLibertarian]

speeding freedom while giving ours away

[BritishLibertarian]

this is rubbish but we would like freedom and liberty for all

[Crackshot1983]

Enlighten us, what's wrong with being selfish?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 Nothing, as long as you don't steal.

We don't care what you think, just what you do. Properly

limited by law, acquisitiveness is a reasonable reflex.

We just don't have the right laws yet to keep some people

from stealing.

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom Libertarianism has nothing to do with stealing, far from it libertarianism supports property rights and also opposes government sanctioned stealing otherwise known as taxation

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 Nonsense, the way capitalists steal

is with the very rights that Libertarianism wants them

to have, rights that permit the rich to steal, but not the

poor. Taxation isn't stealing, it's the recovery of lost

or stolen property for the body politic from those who

steal by wealth.

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom The way capitalists steal is caused by the very thing Libertarians oppose Government Intervention. Government Intervention is exactly what the TARP Bailouts and governments serving special interest groups is.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 So you're saying that capitalists

steal because the government is nasty? That's silly,

the corruption in government is all caused by the

capitalist special interests looking for favors, from

laws that let only the rich steal to bailouts, it's all

the same continuum. Welfare for the poor and

disadvantaged is extremely tiny compared to the

corporate welfare and favors to the rich, that's

how the congress gets re-elected, you know!

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom The corruption in government is caused by the government being too big and not strictly adhering to the constitution. Bailouts are NOT capitalism, free market capitalism means that there is a seperation of the state and the economy and bailouts ARE not seperation of state and the economy. Libertarianism also supports a seperation of the state and the economy. It is the Neo Cons who are to blame

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 What you say in that regard may well be

true, but I see it as as mere side-effect. That being true is

in no way central to my thesis critique of capitalism. Think

of it this way: I haven't ever heard of any mechanism in

capitalism that would prevent one man from sooner or later

coming to own absolutely everything, the sum total of all

wealth in the society.

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom There is a mechanism in capitalism that prevents one man from owning everything, it is called comptetition, competition between companies for business is what forces them to keep their prices low and keep their workers happy so they perform better in order to remain competitive. Most of the 18th and 19th centuries basically had pure capitalism and there were no monopolies, it is only in the 21st century that corporations have been able to gain monopolies

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom And that was a result of government overregulation to discourage competition and it was only by special favours by the government by interveening in the economy that monopolies have been able to be established

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 Are you saying that we would then

have a fair society, even if he didn't use his wealth to directly

corrupt government? Are you saying that having infinite

freedom of speech his wealth would afford him, while he

would be free to evict anyone from their rental homes if

they spoke out against him would not be corruption on its

own?

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom Well thats just pure fiction, no landlord would evict anyone from their rental homes just for speaking out against him, renters are a consumer and therefore a source of income for a landlord

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 The courts have not found landlords in violation for

doing precisely that, can you tell me that wealth is not in

and of itself corrupting of freedom? Or can you convince

me that such a thing is not allowed to occur under capitalism?

I don't think so. And any corruption by NeoCons in the manner

you described would be a million times smaller than the corruption

of freedom I cited just from the normal utilization of wealth in a

capitalism.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 Think about this a while, and you will

see why If capitalism is allowed to exist, then I want a

government that might be big enough to have a chance

to oppose it to an infinite extent!!

[Crackshot1983]

@rstevewarmorycom So you want to live under Communism, where everyone is equally poor and has no real kind of freedom whatsoever? The soviet union worked out pretty well didnt it?

[rstevewarmorycom]

@Crackshot1983 But that's caused by the rich hijacking the electoral

and legislative process. If they weren't permitted

to do that, government would be democratic, and

that means it would be all about taxing back what the

rich stole away from them and returning it to their

victims.