not all Libertarians think this way. mabey the ones you know. I am a veteran and I will defend my country should it be attacked. I am no pacifist by no means.but the government is made up of elected people from areas of this country who have opposing views and a lust for money. Government is by the people for the people.. and right now..its messed up. its constipated and it needs an enema.
THE NDAA will not circumvent the PATRIOT ACT... IT WILL ASSIST IT IN ITS ENFORCEMENT.. PEOPLE.. DON'T BE MISLED. LOOK IT UP.THE INFO IS OUT THIER. read the patriot act first..then read the NDAA bil. can you say..slide of hand tyranny ?
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
Ron Paul money bomb tomorrow. Check out my video response, or go to Facebook and type in "Ron Paul's Ready, Ames, Fire Money Bomb". It is important to donate so that Ron Paul can win the Iowa Straw Poll. Donate for Ron Paul...do it for LIBERTY. Like this comment so that other supports may see that we are raising money for Ron Paul!!!! I'm just a broke college student entrepreneur, and I'm still donating 10 bucks. Share on FB, and Twitter hash tag #GOP2012 #ronpaul
Ron Paul money bomb tomorrow. Check out my video response, or go to Facebook and type in "Ron Paul's Ready, Ames, Fire Money Bomb". It is important to donate so that Ron Paul can win the Iowa Straw Poll. Donate for Ron Paul...do it for LIBERTY. Like this comment so that other supports may see that we are raising money for Ron Paul!!!! I'm just a broke college student entrepreneur, and I'm still donating 10 bucks. Share on FB, and Twitter hash tag #GOP2012 #ronpaul
Libertarians are wackos. They live in a world where every problem is caused by government, and if government would just screw itself all will magically be fixed.
@dmcarefuldriver for one thing libertarians blame government because it is involved in a lot of things and causes a lot of damage. An economy's function is to efficiently allocate resources. with increases in control the economy fails.
another thing is the current premise of the Governments existence goes against their principles of non-aggression
the government attains its funding through violence and basically does with those funds whatever it pleases because it has the monopoly on force.
If Ron Paul wins the republican ticket.. Obama nor any democrat can defeat him... THE PEOPLE NEED TO GATHER BEHIND RON PAUL AS REPUBLICANS DESPITE THE BIG GOVERNMENT SCUM.
I am on welfare and it absolutely sucks, the Government doesn't give a fuck about poor people. Ron Paul is absolutely right, I might even get a part time job if I didn't have to pay tax. Stop welfare and poor people will be much better off.
Mr. Ron Paul for 2012 Republican Nom and President. -Strengthen our USD -No Inflation -Balance the Budget -No Mandated Healthcare -Creates MANY JOBS -New Crop Industries -Free Market -Very Pro Life -No Bailout -No Patriot Act -Stays out of foreign DOMESTIC AFFAIRS, but contract/trade with all -No Unjustified War with no objectives -Brings our Troops Home after over 10 YEARS OF FIGHTING!!!! The US could have fought WWII in 10 Years! TROOPS HOME NOW! Thank You Mr. Ron Paul 2012
This is what you get when a majority of people vote for a politician based on skin-deep qualities. A black man, perhaps, but 2 inches under just another shell of a person who sold his soul to a tyrannical Government.
Me disliking this President is because he does not solve the problems effectively and cannot communicate effectively. He spent half his term celebrating him winning and trying to pass healthcare. He has not addressed the real issues. His State of the Union was him reacting to the GOP taking the house. Thats all it was. He is scared. Oh well after all he said he rather be a good one term president then a bad two term President. Hes going to get his wish. RON PAUL 2012!!!
@ImyManz99 6% spending to the "federal" reserve private bank, and 20% for "defense." We can cut that 6% to 0 by eliminating the federal reserve, and easily cut the 20% to 6% by pulling out of iraq and afghanistan and shutting down many of our military bases overseas. That would leave more than enough money for "defense" and boom we just cut our spending by 20%.
If that is the case, it would seem that both of you and botchalism are right, to a degree, and this is merely an argument of penis size, oops, I mean semantics. Just joking.
@timuwe I seriously doubt anyone here questions whether or not the repeal of Glass-Steagall is deregulation. I think some people may be thinking about, banking deregulation in this case, in a more broader sense, which, you would have to admit, has not happened. This seems like a classic example of you missing the forest for the trees. Its like Stossel said, since 96 the Fed. has created over 1 million pages of extra rules and regulations. Some of those certainly apply to the banking industry.
@jtwilson777 I was trying to point out was that repeal of a portion of the ACT was not the cause of the current financial crisis.The crisis at hand is more complicated than that. However the discussion became sidetracked when the poster became defensive and insulting. Bummer, really.
A lot of hot non-sheep women in the crowd! And that Nicole kurukawa is hot too. I thought she might have been a token statist but once she opened her mouth I was glad she turned out to be as intelligent as she is attractive.
@theblitzchannel Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.
Get rid of the insurance companies and ANY and ALL special interests in the healthcare industry, that way, a socialistic healthcare program shouldn't cost so much.
Get down to schools and any official place and demand they feed their people good food to prevent problems. And so on. If the government is going to be involved that is.
@theblitzchannel Just an FYI Bush inflated government spending more then any other president. And despite the myths you hear about Ronald Reagan, he ALSO increased the size of the government as well as raised taxes! The two party system is a load of shit, Bush caused the fucking recession in the first place and yet you are a fucking cheerleader for the GOP what a laugh.
The president won't do anything lies lies lies see he lied it is 2011 and he sending more troops over there good god a president can't change anything until the shadow government is removed they don't want to murder us Ron Paul is right I can't believe people by the bull shit propaganda our government feeds us these people really buy the shit
If you live near Chicago (Burnham) ,IL I would like to talk to you! I have too many friends that are idiots that would rather talk about the lastest viral video! My email is patriot0991@aol.com. I really look forward to talking with you guys/girls who care about our country!
I also believe we have to bring home our troops everywhere from around the world. No other country has troops around the world unless they are trying to invade it. If we have troops at home and let countries operate their business I believe perspectives of America around the world will change.
God i wish poor people weren't poor, i wish they would try harder. The saying goes "your only as good as your weakest link." and Dear lord America's poor is laughable. The majority of the poor are involved in crime, non educated and suck up tons and tons of money through social services via welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. 1) education is FREE and yet the poor are the least group to take advantage of that. Like Ron was saying, when you help the poor the most you just create more.
Suggestion for health care: we have plenty of foreign competition in the auto industry and NEED foreign competition in health care. Right now, many people who lack insurance go to Costa Rica, India, and a few other countries for elective surgery at about 10% of the US cost. People ought to have the option of insurance that pays for foreign health care. Even with air travel and hotel the savings can be huge. Many more countries would set up for "Medical Tourism" if insurance would pay for it.
no one says the obvious the us/un league, police the world because "they" (bankers international) don't want any movements towards national sovereignty. that wouldn't be good for their monopoly.
you could point out that democracy is dangerous for the obvious reasons, but it's preferable to authoritarianism. and corporations are quite smaller than nations.
keep in mind corporations are legal entities, not a bunch of people who feel like getting together, so freedom of association isn't exactly an argument here. considering how tightly intertwined government & business are anyway, taking corporate control out of the hands of the elite and to the people sounds like very libertarian...
@Madfoot713 "taking corporate control out of the hands of the elite and to the people sounds like very libertarian..." pssst....you're talking to drones....you have to communicate in 0's and 1's.
@Madfoot713 the problem is, you think companies should operate this or that way via some means of central planning. Rather, vote with your money; don't shop at companies that you do not like. Let others do the same. I am perfectly fine with how, say Target stores operate on the whole, so I shop there (I used to work there, so that helps.) You are making assumptions about business so by what authority can you dictate how they do business?
@kev3d "Those 4 nations all have vastly different systems and none of them libertarian, that said, why do you continue to harp on about the "inequality" of income?" All four nations adopted Friedmanimics which led to a large gap in wealth, crony-capitalism, and eventual collapse. I keep "harping" on equality because I feel that if somebody works 60-80 hours a week they should be able to afford healthcare, take a vacation...live, basically. You don't mind them being virtual slaves...sad.
@tstruss912 Well again, you are mistaken, it is true that the US and Chile have adopted some of Friedman's ideas (no surprise that Chile is growing and is much freer economically than the rest of South America) However Friedman specifically warned against the growth of government at least as early as 1962, and this is something almost no government has followed and if we look at what doesn't work in America, the answer is almost always the government.
@kev3d "However Friedman specifically warned against the growth of government at least as early as 1962, and this is something almost no government has followed and if we look at what doesn't work in America, the answer is almost always the government."
I don't know why you assume leftist philosophy is somehow incompatible with limited government. As I remember it, opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act had a leftist tone to it.
@tstruss912 You go on to say people should not be "virtual slaves" but what does that mean? Slavery is illegal, and under capitalism, self-ownership is perhaps the the most critical of all recognized rights. Do you know anyone with a half a brain and ambition who is stuck for life in such dire conditions as you would call them a "virtual slave"? And if there is, what is holding them back? Expensive red tape, or lack of opportunity?
@Madfoot713 "Wage slavery" again...what does that mean? It's a meaningless term. Basically anyone who brings up "wage slavery" is saying "I want the talentless, non hardworking, unthinking people to make as much money as those with the opposite qualities." Yes, starting out is hard, that is why we have friends, family, roommates, cheap Ramen Noodles and if need be, charity. But to suggest that someone willing to better themselves is stuck as a fry cook for life is an outright lie.
@kev3d "Basically anyone who brings up "wage slavery" is saying "I want the talentless, non hardworking, unthinking people to make as much money as those with the opposite qualities.""
You're making the assumption that poor people are talentless, unintellgent, and don't work hard. Really a silly assumption.
Why do our hardest workers get paid the least? Do you really think being a fat cat is more difficult than a 12 hour landscaping job as a migrant worker?
@Madfoot713 Well considering my father was a landscape architect and i used to work for him alongside immigrants growing up, I think I can say yes; physical labor is easier, because it requires very little training. Because someone works in an office, it does not mean their job is easy and many in business work very long hours, not only to keep themselves employed but many people working for them.
@Madfoot713 But again, take your own challenge....hire a migrant worker and pay him what YOU THINK IS FAIR. But don't dictate to me what my workers and and I are willing to agree to.
@kev3d "But again, take your own challenge....hire a migrant worker and pay him what YOU THINK IS FAIR. But don't dictate to me what my workers and and I are willing to agree to."
I think you're ignoring the point that the authoritarian business model is an INSTITUTIONAL one. You file a charter, you're considered an artificial person and your board of directors has privileged control over the whole company, and the only legal responsibility you have is profit - fuck morality.
@Madfoot713 "Why do our hardest workers get paid the least? Do you really think being a fat cat is more difficult than a 12 hour landscaping job as a migrant worker?" Well, remember that those migrant workers are doing useless works that only feeds millions of people. A far cry from useful things like speculating on currencies, which helps people by driving down whole countries and crashing markets. That's why wallstreet investment bankers get paid more--they're more useful.
@kev3d "And you never answered the question; why do people flock to, and not away from, free market states? " Gee, I never heard this one before. Where is your data? Here's mine: (per capita immigration, top 5 countries) Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia. That's from nationmaster.c om
@tstruss912 Well I live in Australia and it is a very Capitalist place. There is socialized medicine (which doesn't work very well so there is private insurance) but education is decentralized and pensions are privatized. Sweden has very attractive trade policies (again, decentralized education, health care vouchers rather than outright govt control) but even then there is a big problem with immigration in that the social "safety net" cannot accommodate them so it will break.
@kev3d "Well I live in Australia and it is a very Capitalist place" I agree. Switzerland, Canada, and Australia are in what I call "the sweet spot". They have the maximum amount of de-regulation that makes good results. But, in your fantasy world (black vs. white) there can never be enough of a good thing. Hey, here's and idea: go drink 10 gallons of water without a break and see how you feel. Remember, there's never a such thing as imbalance of too much! LOL...don't really do it...
I think you're mistaking a general trend (less economic regulation being better) for a 'sweet spot.' You'll notice the list gets progressively economically freer. By your 'sweet spot' logic, there should be some very unregulated countries alongside very regulated ones at the bottom, and yet we don't see this. The Heritage list specifically, and most rankings of the world generally, follow a trend: more economic freedom produces a better country.
@tstruss912 Have you ever lived in France? As I have mentioned before, it is expensive as hell, the social programs are unsustainable (resulting in massive strikes and riots), taxes are high, the beggars in the north of Paris are outright aggressive and numerous, people tend to keep low level jobs for many years so there is not as much upward mobility, people abuse the various social programs meant to help the poor and people litter like crazy.
@probunk To clarify, by "sweet spot" I meant the maximum amount of economic freedom that produces good results (income equality, economic mobility, standard of living, etc).
@tstruss912 Well there are lots of things that Australia can do specifically that can benefit the nation and the world much more. One; lowering taxes. Two; Allowing nearly unrestricted immigration to colonize the vast, empty deserts, with private investments in desalinization and energy. Three; Ending the welfare state which has harmed the Aborigines and encourages young, able-bodied people to not work. Those are 3 just off the top of my head.
@kev3d Singapore on the other hand, is very free economically with very favorable tax structures, but it is not socially free. So there is much room for improvement there. Likewise with China, it has adopted a policy of markets which has enriched much of the nation, but politically, they are not free. In every case, Australia, Singapore, China, France and the US, the embracing of Markets has brought prosperity but government spending or restrictions have brought trouble.
@tstruss912 I don't know much about Belgium so I will not comment, but Switzerland, along with Canada, and Australia are *Ding Ding Ding Ding* Some of the most economically free nations on Earth. Australia, Canada and Switzerland are #3, 5 and 6 on the Heritage index of economic freedom. Hong Kong and Singapore are small, densely populated places so there is a limit to their appeal, but the the same logic holds true. Economically free nations are much better off.
@kev3d "Most important, no one is stuck in their economic strata if they work hard and smart enough. " OK, so now your argument is that people are more economically mobile under Friedmanomics. Fine, show your evidence. Stop bloviating about freedom and rights and all other deep philosophical things you don't seem to even understand and show some fucking evidence for your arguments for once. Go on, we're listening.
@tstruss912 Well you are clearly not listening, because you keep going on about the income gap when you don't realize that the poor in those countries are far better off than the average in countries with little free trade or property rights. But you want more proof, I am the proof. I started work on farms for less than minimum wage, then I worked in retail, it was hard but I saved enough for tech school and I learned 3d, which has taken me to about 16 countries, in which 4 I have lived.
@kev3d ROFL...that's it? Anecdotal evidence...pretty lame. I'm glad you improved your condition but you're not realizing what I'M saying; I know full well what you're saying--I've heard all the lame Chicago school arguments before. I'm saying that the best results come from a balance of social programs, restrictions on capitalism, and free-markets. You're a total extremist and there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU PREACH EVER WORKING. Get it?
When and where has your perfect balance been acheived, then? If you will ignore perfectly valid evidence on one side, I demand that you produce some for yours. What is this perfect balance? Who practices it, and how well has it worked out?
I do dislike slippery slope arguments, and I have some larger underlying disagreements anyhow, but do you really believe a state could restrain itself? Could stay at this perfect balance for any amount of time?
@tstruss912 Wrong again, first of all, there are barely any free trade agreements, but where there are, there is prosperity. Your european social programs are unsustainable. That is why there are riots and strikes in France and Greece, thats why the UK must cut 500,000 govt positions, thats why Spain has a jobless rate of 20% and Portugal needs a bailout. Its why Medicare, Medicaid &Social Security are going broke.
@kev3d ERRRRHH! Wrong! What is unsustainable is unregulated financial markets (notice that Brazil and other countries that took their central banks by the balls are not suffering), and low taxes on the super-rich (1 million plus). I noticed you ran from the "vote with your feet" argument. No data on your side? Just more anecdotes and bloviating? How sad.
@tstruss912 That is retarded, of course I have never backed away from the concept of voting with one's feet. I have done it myself. And seriously? You are pointing to Brazil as "not suffering"? Have you ever seen the slums of Sao Paulo? You STILL have not answered why people move to free market states and not away from them.
@kev3d "You STILL have not answered why people move to free market states and not away from them. " Are you quite alright? I just showed you a fucking list where the top 5 countries where people "vote with their feet" to go to have more social programs than we could ever dream of. Plus, some of them score higher than us on the Heritage foundation list of countries with free-trade. They're in the "sweet-spot". I know this is too much for your little black and white worldview to handle...
Well for one, people moving to countries with more free trade is what you are argung against. And it's important to note just who is migrating, to state it broadly, people who will use those social programs more. Those who produce more, those with higher levels of education and experience, by and large move to less restricted countries, the most triumphant example at the moment being Dubai, but also including the United States.
@kev3d "You are pointing to Brazil as "not suffering"?" Yes, that's correct. Current History just reported that in it's latest issue. They have slums that are way worse than ours, etc, but my point was that their financial policies (proper regulation) left them unscathed by the global financial crisis--not to mention they're one of the fastest up and comer nation, having just been accepted into the G20. Any evidence on your side?
@tstruss912 The Global financial crisis, first of all, was created by governments. Second, Brazil is growing, no doubt, all nations that have increased their trade are going to grow, but they grow because of increased trade, not because of restrictions. The European Union has a poor model over all, but the trade barriers that have been dissolved have been very beneficial. Basically, when it is easier to trade, it is easier to work, especially when taxes are kept low.
@kev3d "The Global financial crisis, first of all, was created by governments. " Really? Then how come Brazil was not touched by it like the rest of the countries. Current History seems to think it had to do with central banking policies (proper regulations). What say you.. and for fuck's sake provide some actual data to support your case this time--this isn't a girl-scout meeting.
@tstruss912 Because Brazil did not prime the pump of a housing crisis by backing risky loans like the US did. The US also has a poor monetary policy, far too low interest rates for too long and govt spending is too high. The "Global Financial Crisis" is a misnomer; it affected some places more than others, some industries more than others. It barely touched Africa for example. Strong agricultural exports have helped Brazil.
@tstruss912 In fact the budget for financial regulators under Bush 43 went UP, it was regulation, not deregulation that led to the financial crises. So in a sense, that is correct because the regulations were bad. The main problem was that the govt wanted to get more people to own homes, the poor, minorities and young people. But these were risky loans, so the govt backed them up through Fannie and Freddie (govt created enterprises) and when it all went to shit, they bailed the banks out.
@kev3d You'll notice the term "proper" in front of "regulation". We need proper regulations, ones that keep the market as free as possible, but also keep it stable. You have yet to show me one time in history where total free-market capitalism has been installed, let alone it showing the best results for economic mobility, standard of living, etc. You got nothing but talk, dude.
@tstruss912 Again I point to Hong Kong, which had (and continues to have) the freest economy in the world. A place with almost no natural resources, but rule of law and property rights. The results are obvious, pre-reform Chinese were desperate to get in. Investment poured in from around the globe. Multiple Bank issued currency held stable and it has prospered. The comparative standard of living and wages are amongst the highest in the world.
@kev3d No, no, no. We're done with the "what's better" discussion. You like Hong Kong, and I like parts of Europe (Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany), Australia, and Canada. We differ in our tastes--discussion over. Tell me your plan to take on the banking-gov oligarchy. How will you fight the propaganda machine, which they control? How will you put pressure on the politicians, who are in their pocket? Tell me your plan and we can collaborate from there because I agree with you here.
@tstruss912 I never said I don't like Australia, I live there, after all. But there is much that can be done to make it even better, like I said, lowering taxes, improving immigration, populating the deserts, continue the trend of privatizing government agencies, ending the wasteful and harmful welfare state, reducing state spending and so on.
@kev3d "I never said I don't like Australia, I live there, after all. But there is much that can be done to make it even better, like I said, lowering taxes, improving immigration, populating the deserts, continue the trend of privatizing government agencies, ending the wasteful and harmful welfare state, reducing state spending and so on." So....make it like HK? OK, but you still didn't address my question sufficiently. How will you get people on your side? Most DON'T agree with you.
@tstruss912 But to answer, there are lots of things; one, by educating people on the dangers of large governments, by pointing out the spending of the US and much of Europe is unsustainable. By spreading the idea that everyone should live by their own means as much as possible and that welfare for people or for corporations is bad. Also, I try to contribute as little as possible to Govt, and depend on it as little as possible. Lastly, I spread my assets across different competing banks.
@tstruss912 Now when it comes to economic mobility, as I have mentioned in France, people tend to stick to simpler jobs for much longer because upward mobility is difficult and it is almost impossible to get fired. Because of licensing fees, taxes and regulations it is much more difficult for one to start their own business, we see this in the US more and more and it is doing tremendous damage.
@tstruss912 Just think for a moment about how powerful and wonderful free trade is; that a person of any race, creed or political background can purchase something from anyone else, anywhere else at any time. Trade only happens when both parties stand to benefit. But Govts place Tariffs, restrictions and quotas which upset the flow. Govts in turn protect their own interests with bailouts, subsidies or take overs (which France does a lot, by the way). But this is immoral use of tax money.
@tstruss912 The correct course of action is to A; have no federal reserve which dictates artificial interest rates. B. Let banks assume the risk for loans made. C. Get Govt out of housing entirely .
The same goes for the Auto industry and any other. If a business cannot properly negotiate it's union contracts or sell products at an agreeable price then that business should be allowed to fail.
@kev3d "A; have no federal reserve which dictates artificial interest rates. B. Let banks assume the risk for loans made" I agree with these two. OK, what's your plan for getting this done in the real-world. I'm ready for action; lay it on me.
@tstruss912 And for the record, why are there strikes and riots in France, if everything is economically sound and the social spending is sustainable?
@tstruss912 But you want more evidence, so fine. Take Vietnam, a poor country by any means from the end of the war to the early 90s. Its trading partner, the Soviet Union, collapsed and things looked dire. But trade relations with the US were normalized, the embargo was lifted. Coca Cola famously opened a bottling plant the next day. Change was not instant, but Vietnam's economy has been growing between 5 and 9 percent for almost a decade.
@kev3d "Well you are clearly not listening, because you keep going on about the income gap when you don't realize that the poor in those countries are far better off than the average in countries with little free trade or property rights."
I thought we should want things to be better than they already are. Not compare ourselves to thirdworld countries and give ourselves a pat on the back.
as I understand it, the only thing that really defines socialism is public ownership of the means of production. this could be state socialism, but what would make more sense to me is to make corporations mini-democracies. let the workers come together on what direction the company is going and how much they're getting out of it, so their only option isn't "If you don't like it you don't HAVE to work here"
@Madfoot713 Nothing is stopping you from making your own democratic workplace, many are, in the form of for-profit co-ops, companies with shareholder voting and of course, small partnerships. But you must ask yourself why more companies do not do this? There is nothing preventing them from doing so. But imagine your own chain of restaurants...how much would the members vote for their hourly pay? How would that affect prices? and the ability to hire?
@kev3d "But you must ask yourself why more companies do not do this?"
Why the fuck would they? You think greedy CEOs want to give their employees and say in the company? As the system is now, he's loyal to shareholders, not the actual workers.
"the problem is, you think companies should operate this or that way via some means of central planning."
No, that's the exact opposite of what I want. Capitalism *is* central planning.
@Madfoot713 The assumption you are making is that capitalism is central planning, but it is not. Capitalism is simply the means of production are in private hands. Ergo, you can form whatever business model you wish. Put your money where your mouth is. If you can come up with a more "fair" business model, you will quickly attract talent and your product or service will thrive. You are free to do this under capitalism, unless a govt committee or union tries to stop you.
@kev3d "The assumption you are making is that capitalism is central planning, but it is not."
How the fuck isn't it central planning. A small group of privileged elites have authoritarian control over our biggest corporations. Capitalism essentially turns into an oligarchy of the rich.
"If you can come up with a more "fair" business model, you will quickly attract talent and your product or service will thrive."
xfd you really think capitalism encourages fair business models
You are mistaken. Even the richest have no true authoritarian control. They control companies which make money through voluntary exchange. They can never force purchases (if they do, it is through governmental programs) and simply cannot be compared to a state. You are mixing free exchange, at a very large scale, with government force.
Capitalism does encourage fair businesses. Stagnation is a result of supporting bad business and bad business styles.
Over their own corporations and holdings. That is simply not authoritarian control. Everyone involved with such a corporation is there by means of voluntary consent. Force never comes into the picture. Force is a necessity of true authoritarianism.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. You cannot have a free country without private property. It's absolute foolishness. Communism doesn't sound good on paper, incidentally. It's based on bad economics, and worse philosohpy.
Oh, there's certainly implicit force. Maybe not at the end of a barrel, but in the sense of "If you don't like it, work somewhere else" except there's nowhere else to work and if you leave, they'll send your job overseas.
"You cannot have a free country without private property."
I think you can make the opposite case; how can you have a free country where only a few people own most of the land and capital.
I don't mean to be rude, but check your dictionary. That is not force. It simply isn't, it's not a debate issue. Your definition of force is wrong. And besides, the primary reason prices are high, jobs go overseas and people need two or three jobs is because regulations (which have never truly hampered large corporations, and have always harmed small ones) drive up the cost of business, distort normal price signals and give large corporations power. The government is at fault.
@probunk "regulations (which have never truly hampered large corporations, and have always harmed small ones)"
I think that's an insightful comment. US Government has always had a reverse robin hood philosophy of stealing from the poor, and giving to the rich. Quite paradoxical.
It is indeed, yet this failure of regulation has never really deterred the advocates for more of it. The core concept of a libertarian state is that nobody may initate force upon another for whatever reason, no matter their intentions. The thief may not steal from the rich, and neither could the taxman. But the rich man couldn't regulate and tax the poor into the oblivion. The invisible hand works both ways: your actions can, through it was not your intention, hurt everyone.
@probunk "The core concept of a libertarian state is that nobody may initate force upon another for whatever reason, no matter their intentions."
But for some reason, Paul's fanbase seems to assume only government can control a large group of citizens and ignore corporate abuses of power. Corporate tyranny may not be noticeable to you because it doesn't threaten your SUV and HDTVs, but it's a very real threat.
As much as I dislike government, to an extent it's a necessary evil. You seem to be saying that outside of a state, there would be no tyranny, neither corporate or governmental. Though it may be true that corporations may disappear (their formation heavily involves the government), similar groups would appear in short order, and have no fears regarding retaliation providing they had a significant numerical advantage. Without a protective state, what could oppose personal tyranny?
To an extent it has, but you've been targeting the economic sphere and (seemingly) arguing for more regulation. My last post was in regards to what I thougt was you arguing for an anarchic 'state', as you identified as a libertarian socialist/anarchist earlier. Generally, the government ought to exist to prevent and punish the initiation of force and coercion and (possibly) provide education and (maybe) provide limited public services. NOT to regulate, tax excessively or control
@probunk "you've been targeting the economic sphere and (seemingly) arguing for more regulation"
Well I'm saying let's not be kneejerk about this and be rational. Frankly I'm starting to get the feel capitalism is actually a threat to free markets, that is to say that government is not the only threat to free markets.
@probunk "as you identified as a libertarian socialist/anarchist earlier."
I haven't identified myself as anything besides a libertarian. I'm always the devil's advocate in any political debate, and people always seem to hate that.
Is Jones morally bound by his agreement to allow Smith to keep 8 in 9 parts of what what Jones produces? he capitalist, of course, answers, "Yes", and I once would have given the same answer, even though I knew intuitively that such an arrangement would be grossly unfair. My current answer is "No" -- this relationship between Smith and Jones is inherently exploitive, and Jones is entitled to much better.
@Madfoot713 If Jones is going to share in the profits, should he also share in the risks as well? If Smith Co. produces widgets but the supply of widget oil is destroyed in a fire and the accumulated loss is equal to 25% of the invested capital, would both be willing to take the pay cut? Smith might afford his 25% smaller paycheck, but it may well devastate Jones. The main trouble with your argument is that it assumes a static market, but markets are always dynamic, always changing.
Also, Jones will only receive 10% of the revenues despite all of his hard work, while Smith gets to keep 90% for his hoggish self. Jones agrees to these conditions because he has no other option.
@Madfoot713 Another problem with the scenario which socialists never address is that when they see these kinds of "injustices" in real life (if they exist at all), all they do is complain, when what they ought to be doing is starting their own competing enterprise with a more favorable profit sharing plan. Smith will quickly go out of business with no Jones to lean on.
I feel like I'm not explaining this well. The idea is that in socialism, corporations are themselves governed as democracies rather than oligarchies or authoritarian dictatorships. Is that not libertarian?
@Madfoot713 No it isn't. Democracy in and of itself is not libertarian because it can (and sometimes does) lead to the tyranny of the majority. I can't imagine something more disastrous to an industry to leave it to democratic forces to dictate how it should operate as opposed to market forces. What do you think the vast majority of McDonalds employees vote for? Higher pay no doubt. What would that do to the price of the food? Its unsustainable in every sense.
@kev3d "I can't imagine something more disastrous to an industry to leave it to democratic forces to dictate how it should operate as opposed to market forces. "
Libertarian Socialism is the purest form of libertarianism, and here's why.
The principle of liberty is defined as the elimination of hierarchies. The principle of authority is based on the concentration of power in the hands of a few who then impose their values on the majority.
Therefore, Libertarian Socialism, which is the ideology which opposes all hierarchies, is the purest form of libertarianism.
@Madfoot713 Libertarianism is not "defined" as the elimination of hierarchies. It is advocating freedom in all forms, and more specifically, freedom for all except when it violates the rights of others or imposes force or undue costs on others. That's basically it. A "Hierarchy-less" human society cannot exist because people self-organize into groups with people in different roles. Families are natural hierarchies.
@Madfoot713 Hierarchy is just a word like drug, you have aspirin and you have cocaine. Not all hierarchies are bad, not all are good. But they are inevitable. In business there is an established hierarchy when it comes to decisions, after all, a janitor has neither the training nor the experience to know when to roll out the new product from the Iowa factory. And capitalism is just one component of freedom, you can have capitalism without freedom but not freedom without capitalism.
@Madfoot713 - There is no such thing as Libertarian socialism. Socialism is anathema to all libertarian concepts because the core of libertarianism is freedom and decentralization, socialism is centralization of planning and ultimately an end to personal freedoms in the name of planning and 'fairness'. It's ridiculous that you even made such a statement.
@veradinx "There is no such thing as Libertarian socialism" Yes, there is. You can google it and compare it to the classical meaning of libertarian...you will see that it's closer than right-libertarian. What do they teach you kids in school nowadays?
I would love for the government to cut $14 trillion from the budget this year followed by not allowing state governments and federal governments to not be allowed to spend more than what they have b/f I would be impressed.
@aragornsargonath I don't think 14 trillion is the actual figure. Also, you have to cut back incrementally, not all at once. Why don't we start with military cutbacks? 700 billion a year...come on....it's ridiculous. We could cutback to 200 billion a year easy if we stop trying to conquer the world.
I say let's go a step farther and give the bottom 50% a negative income tax. Ideally, there wouldn't be taxes at all, but if there is let's put the burden on CEOs and politicians. Leftists talk about helping the poor, let's cut out the middleman and actually do that. I think that's pretty libertarian in principle - "fuck the status quo"!
@Madfoot713 If it is going to be a "libertarian principle" then you must cut taxes for all, or have a negative income tax for all. Either way, it is not for the government to pick and choose whom they wish to tax at some arbitrary percentage while others at another percentage. The "burden" should be lessened, if not eliminated. The burden should not be shifted from one demographic to another simply because "they" are rich.
@kev3d "Either way, it is not for the government to pick and choose whom they wish to tax at some arbitrary percentage while others at another percentage. "
I don't see why rich people should be taxed at the same percentage as poor people. Common sense should tell you that's going to hurt people who don't make as much a lot more.
The problem with the current system is that honest workers, like doctors, get taxed unfairly while the people "in the know" get to exploit all the loopholes.
@Madfoot713 Doctors don't hire crafty accountants? The current system is full of loopholes precisely because it is a "progressive" system. A flat, or better yet, sales tax simplifies everything. The reason the rich should not be taxed more is the same reason he should not taxed less; taxation is a function of law and in a free society law is applied equally even if the circumstances are unequal. Besides, one does not help the poor by hurting the rich.
@Madfoot713 You don't say. A hugely complicated tax code. Imagine that. Do you really think a sales tax is difficult to calculate by comparison? Progressive taxes assumes that bureaucrats magically know how the tax code should be broken down and by what amount. Worst of all, such bureaucrats are subject to lawmakers who are purchased for the promise of easy votes. Since people will always seek a better angle through lobbyists, why not restrict how the government can tax in the first place?
@kev3d Like I said, income taxes suck. But a straight tax unfairly hurts the poor, makes the rich richer etc. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, sounds status quo more than anything.
@Madfoot713 I don't care if the "rich get richer". In fact, I want a free society where anyone can be rich if they work hard and smart enough. Libertarianism is about maximum freedom and personal responsibility and minimum government and coercion. It is not about favoring one group over another. With lower overall taxation, the poor get richer too because there is more money to invest in job creation, which is much better than dependence on the welfare state.
@Madfoot713 All the more reason that the size and scope of government should be limited to little more than contract enforcement and rights protection. That way the only companies and individuals that gain wealth do so only through mutually voluntary exchange. This is not "pie in the sky" thinking. The first 130years of the US, the immigrant population who arrived with nothing, would flourish with little more than freedom and rule of basic law.
@kev3d "All the more reason that the size and scope of government should be limited to little more than contract enforcement and rights protection." Sounds like garbage from Friedman. BTW, how did his policies work out in Russia and South America...not to mention here? Oh, right, we just didn't go far enough--what we need is more deregulation, that will solve everything. Jesus fucking Christ....
@kev3d The problem with your principled angle of libertarianism is that you assume governments are evil but corporations are good. Big business is as much a threat to freedom as unrestrained government and mainstream media. Wage slavery and public ownership aren't just cover words for authoritarianism. I'm not saying socialism is great, but educate yourself. In fact, socialism can easily exist without government reinforcement, very libertarian in nature.
@Madfoot713 I have never said anything of the kind; I have said that government is force and that force should be minimized. Contract enforcement as well as free trade is critical to keep "bad" corporations in check. Of course some companies make bad choices, so do individuals. But because there is occasionally bad speech, we don't restrict the freedom thereof, we instead correct "bad speech" with alternative ideas, argument, persuasion and so on. The same holds true for capitalism.
You better pray the gov't doesnt even have a notion that you are a "bad guy".
audiopro316 1 month ago
not all Libertarians think this way. mabey the ones you know. I am a veteran and I will defend my country should it be attacked. I am no pacifist by no means.but the government is made up of elected people from areas of this country who have opposing views and a lust for money. Government is by the people for the people.. and right now..its messed up. its constipated and it needs an enema.
L8SPECULATOR 1 month ago
THE NDAA will not circumvent the PATRIOT ACT... IT WILL ASSIST IT IN ITS ENFORCEMENT.. PEOPLE.. DON'T BE MISLED. LOOK IT UP.THE INFO IS OUT THIER. read the patriot act first..then read the NDAA bil. can you say..slide of hand tyranny ?
L8SPECULATOR 1 month ago
Israel Controls America .
jamil316 5 months ago
@jamil316 no.Isreal does not control america. go to infowars.com and you'll find out whos pulling the strings.
L8SPECULATOR 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*READ THIS FOR RON PAUL!*
Ron Paul money bomb tomorrow. Check out my video response, or go to Facebook and type in "Ron Paul's Ready, Ames, Fire Money Bomb". It is important to donate so that Ron Paul can win the Iowa Straw Poll. Donate for Ron Paul...do it for LIBERTY. Like this comment so that other supports may see that we are raising money for Ron Paul!!!! I'm just a broke college student entrepreneur, and I'm still donating 10 bucks. Share on FB, and Twitter hash tag #GOP2012 #ronpaul
MrForestor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*READ THIS FOR RON PAUL!*
Ron Paul money bomb tomorrow. Check out my video response, or go to Facebook and type in "Ron Paul's Ready, Ames, Fire Money Bomb". It is important to donate so that Ron Paul can win the Iowa Straw Poll. Donate for Ron Paul...do it for LIBERTY. Like this comment so that other supports may see that we are raising money for Ron Paul!!!! I'm just a broke college student entrepreneur, and I'm still donating 10 bucks. Share on FB, and Twitter hash tag #GOP2012 #ronpaul
MrForestor 7 months ago
Libertarians are wackos. They live in a world where every problem is caused by government, and if government would just screw itself all will magically be fixed.
dmcarefuldriver 7 months ago
@dmcarefuldriver for one thing libertarians blame government because it is involved in a lot of things and causes a lot of damage. An economy's function is to efficiently allocate resources. with increases in control the economy fails.
another thing is the current premise of the Governments existence goes against their principles of non-aggression
the government attains its funding through violence and basically does with those funds whatever it pleases because it has the monopoly on force.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
If Ron Paul wins the republican ticket.. Obama nor any democrat can defeat him... THE PEOPLE NEED TO GATHER BEHIND RON PAUL AS REPUBLICANS DESPITE THE BIG GOVERNMENT SCUM.
pureaggression 8 months ago
I am on welfare and it absolutely sucks, the Government doesn't give a fuck about poor people. Ron Paul is absolutely right, I might even get a part time job if I didn't have to pay tax. Stop welfare and poor people will be much better off.
nikolayzou 8 months ago
ggeorgewashington 9 months ago
Ron Paul is great.....He would have given the silly Obamaloon a run for his money last time around.....The GOP needs to listen to him....
Robo1415 10 months ago
This is what you get when a majority of people vote for a politician based on skin-deep qualities. A black man, perhaps, but 2 inches under just another shell of a person who sold his soul to a tyrannical Government.
MaxMetal1993 11 months ago
Me disliking this President is because he does not solve the problems effectively and cannot communicate effectively. He spent half his term celebrating him winning and trying to pass healthcare. He has not addressed the real issues. His State of the Union was him reacting to the GOP taking the house. Thats all it was. He is scared. Oh well after all he said he rather be a good one term president then a bad two term President. Hes going to get his wish. RON PAUL 2012!!!
Crisgo3d 11 months ago 3
@ 8:40
bipartisanship of democrats and republicans is a lot like that of Noob and Saibot.
observe if, you will Noob-Saibot, doing to one unfortunate character, what the two parties are doing to America in this particular year:
watch?v=xg5CIqAb3Xw
and the equivalent of what the two parties have been doing for a long time:
watch?v=O2Azs7g63vU&NR=1
Albukhshi 11 months ago
@ 8:40
bipartisanship of democrats and republicans is a lot like that of Noob and Saibot.
observe if, you will Noob-Saibot, doing to one unfortunate character, what the two parties are doing to America:
watch?v=xg5CIqAb3Xw
Albukhshi 11 months ago
RON PAUL 2012
hpalom1no 1 year ago 8
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT !!
msinglady 1 year ago 3
I want EVERYBODY to pause at 3:43 , and now you tell me.... WHO is eating that green slice of pie? Don't be shy.
ImyManz99 1 year ago
@ImyManz99 6% spending to the "federal" reserve private bank, and 20% for "defense." We can cut that 6% to 0 by eliminating the federal reserve, and easily cut the 20% to 6% by pulling out of iraq and afghanistan and shutting down many of our military bases overseas. That would leave more than enough money for "defense" and boom we just cut our spending by 20%.
shaunmason220 1 year ago
If that is the case, it would seem that both of you and botchalism are right, to a degree, and this is merely an argument of penis size, oops, I mean semantics. Just joking.
jtwilson777 1 year ago
@timuwe I seriously doubt anyone here questions whether or not the repeal of Glass-Steagall is deregulation. I think some people may be thinking about, banking deregulation in this case, in a more broader sense, which, you would have to admit, has not happened. This seems like a classic example of you missing the forest for the trees. Its like Stossel said, since 96 the Fed. has created over 1 million pages of extra rules and regulations. Some of those certainly apply to the banking industry.
jtwilson777 1 year ago
@jtwilson777 I was trying to point out was that repeal of a portion of the ACT was not the cause of the current financial crisis.The crisis at hand is more complicated than that. However the discussion became sidetracked when the poster became defensive and insulting. Bummer, really.
timuwe 1 year ago
ron paul 2012 !!!
bellamina1000 1 year ago
A lot of hot non-sheep women in the crowd! And that Nicole kurukawa is hot too. I thought she might have been a token statist but once she opened her mouth I was glad she turned out to be as intelligent as she is attractive.
Ron Paul 2012
wunderbeast 1 year ago
sign the Ron Paul petiton at website Ron Paul for president !
StopTheWarOnDrugs1 1 year ago 15
OH BomB we care
411American 1 year ago
Is our govern mental that sick or are the American people that stupid?
411American 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What would the founding fathers do? Shot the traitors in the head, Obama would of been tied to the back of a horse and drug through town.
411American 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012! He is the only one who's going to make the real change for us.
LimeInfinity 1 year ago
@theblitzchannel Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.
botchalism 1 year ago
Get rid of the insurance companies and ANY and ALL special interests in the healthcare industry, that way, a socialistic healthcare program shouldn't cost so much.
Get down to schools and any official place and demand they feed their people good food to prevent problems. And so on. If the government is going to be involved that is.
HolliValsMusic 1 year ago
@theblitzchannel Just an FYI Bush inflated government spending more then any other president. And despite the myths you hear about Ronald Reagan, he ALSO increased the size of the government as well as raised taxes! The two party system is a load of shit, Bush caused the fucking recession in the first place and yet you are a fucking cheerleader for the GOP what a laugh.
botchalism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!!
stropssports 1 year ago 4
The president won't do anything lies lies lies see he lied it is 2011 and he sending more troops over there good god a president can't change anything until the shadow government is removed they don't want to murder us Ron Paul is right I can't believe people by the bull shit propaganda our government feeds us these people really buy the shit
pony19661 1 year ago
If you live near Chicago (Burnham) ,IL I would like to talk to you! I have too many friends that are idiots that would rather talk about the lastest viral video! My email is patriot0991@aol.com. I really look forward to talking with you guys/girls who care about our country!
ThePatriot0991 1 year ago
How many years has America been fighting "the war on poverty"? Yet there are more poor people here than ever.
citizenfitz 1 year ago
I also believe we have to bring home our troops everywhere from around the world. No other country has troops around the world unless they are trying to invade it. If we have troops at home and let countries operate their business I believe perspectives of America around the world will change.
Philliesboy16 1 year ago
God i wish poor people weren't poor, i wish they would try harder. The saying goes "your only as good as your weakest link." and Dear lord America's poor is laughable. The majority of the poor are involved in crime, non educated and suck up tons and tons of money through social services via welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. 1) education is FREE and yet the poor are the least group to take advantage of that. Like Ron was saying, when you help the poor the most you just create more.
Philliesboy16 1 year ago
Suggestion for health care: we have plenty of foreign competition in the auto industry and NEED foreign competition in health care. Right now, many people who lack insurance go to Costa Rica, India, and a few other countries for elective surgery at about 10% of the US cost. People ought to have the option of insurance that pays for foreign health care. Even with air travel and hotel the savings can be huge. Many more countries would set up for "Medical Tourism" if insurance would pay for it.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
the international bankers want to create a united states of the world ( one world communism) under their powers.
student507 1 year ago
no one says the obvious the us/un league, police the world because "they" (bankers international) don't want any movements towards national sovereignty. that wouldn't be good for their monopoly.
student507 1 year ago
I was kind of disappointed with almost all of the panelists. I think each of them were capble of better responses.
aretlev 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sign the petition at ronpaul 2 0 1 2 . n e t / for ron paul to run for president in 2012.
bossrube53 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sign the petition at ronpaul 2 0 1 2 . n e t / for ron paul to run for president in 2012.
bossrube53 1 year ago
sign the petition at ronpaul 2 0 1 2 . n e t / for ron paul to run for president in 2012.
bossrube53 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sign the petition at ronpaul 2 0 1 2 . n e t / for ron paul to run for president in 2012.
bossrube53 1 year ago
sign the petition at ronpaul 2 0 1 2 . n e t / for ron paul to run for president in 2012.
bossrube53 1 year ago
you could point out that democracy is dangerous for the obvious reasons, but it's preferable to authoritarianism. and corporations are quite smaller than nations.
keep in mind corporations are legal entities, not a bunch of people who feel like getting together, so freedom of association isn't exactly an argument here. considering how tightly intertwined government & business are anyway, taking corporate control out of the hands of the elite and to the people sounds like very libertarian...
Madfoot713 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madfoot713 "taking corporate control out of the hands of the elite and to the people sounds like very libertarian..." pssst....you're talking to drones....you have to communicate in 0's and 1's.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 the problem is, you think companies should operate this or that way via some means of central planning. Rather, vote with your money; don't shop at companies that you do not like. Let others do the same. I am perfectly fine with how, say Target stores operate on the whole, so I shop there (I used to work there, so that helps.) You are making assumptions about business so by what authority can you dictate how they do business?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "Those 4 nations all have vastly different systems and none of them libertarian, that said, why do you continue to harp on about the "inequality" of income?" All four nations adopted Friedmanimics which led to a large gap in wealth, crony-capitalism, and eventual collapse. I keep "harping" on equality because I feel that if somebody works 60-80 hours a week they should be able to afford healthcare, take a vacation...live, basically. You don't mind them being virtual slaves...sad.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Well again, you are mistaken, it is true that the US and Chile have adopted some of Friedman's ideas (no surprise that Chile is growing and is much freer economically than the rest of South America) However Friedman specifically warned against the growth of government at least as early as 1962, and this is something almost no government has followed and if we look at what doesn't work in America, the answer is almost always the government.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "However Friedman specifically warned against the growth of government at least as early as 1962, and this is something almost no government has followed and if we look at what doesn't work in America, the answer is almost always the government."
I don't know why you assume leftist philosophy is somehow incompatible with limited government. As I remember it, opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act had a leftist tone to it.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@tstruss912 You go on to say people should not be "virtual slaves" but what does that mean? Slavery is illegal, and under capitalism, self-ownership is perhaps the the most critical of all recognized rights. Do you know anyone with a half a brain and ambition who is stuck for life in such dire conditions as you would call them a "virtual slave"? And if there is, what is holding them back? Expensive red tape, or lack of opportunity?
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "You go on to say people should not be "virtual slaves" but what does that mean?"
wage slavery
"Do you know anyone with a half a brain and ambition who is stuck for life in such dire conditions as you would call them a "virtual slave"?"
most americans. people have virtually no rights, but they don't care because to quote george carlin we all have "cell phones that make pancakes"
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 "Wage slavery" again...what does that mean? It's a meaningless term. Basically anyone who brings up "wage slavery" is saying "I want the talentless, non hardworking, unthinking people to make as much money as those with the opposite qualities." Yes, starting out is hard, that is why we have friends, family, roommates, cheap Ramen Noodles and if need be, charity. But to suggest that someone willing to better themselves is stuck as a fry cook for life is an outright lie.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "Basically anyone who brings up "wage slavery" is saying "I want the talentless, non hardworking, unthinking people to make as much money as those with the opposite qualities.""
You're making the assumption that poor people are talentless, unintellgent, and don't work hard. Really a silly assumption.
Why do our hardest workers get paid the least? Do you really think being a fat cat is more difficult than a 12 hour landscaping job as a migrant worker?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Well considering my father was a landscape architect and i used to work for him alongside immigrants growing up, I think I can say yes; physical labor is easier, because it requires very little training. Because someone works in an office, it does not mean their job is easy and many in business work very long hours, not only to keep themselves employed but many people working for them.
kev3d 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 But again, take your own challenge....hire a migrant worker and pay him what YOU THINK IS FAIR. But don't dictate to me what my workers and and I are willing to agree to.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "But again, take your own challenge....hire a migrant worker and pay him what YOU THINK IS FAIR. But don't dictate to me what my workers and and I are willing to agree to."
I think you're ignoring the point that the authoritarian business model is an INSTITUTIONAL one. You file a charter, you're considered an artificial person and your board of directors has privileged control over the whole company, and the only legal responsibility you have is profit - fuck morality.
That's liberty?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madfoot713 "Why do our hardest workers get paid the least? Do you really think being a fat cat is more difficult than a 12 hour landscaping job as a migrant worker?" Well, remember that those migrant workers are doing useless works that only feeds millions of people. A far cry from useful things like speculating on currencies, which helps people by driving down whole countries and crashing markets. That's why wallstreet investment bankers get paid more--they're more useful.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@kev3d Where's the data that supports your claim? None again....do I have to find it for you?
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 I have already cited Hong Kong. And you never answered the question; why do people flock to, and not away from, free market states?
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "And you never answered the question; why do people flock to, and not away from, free market states? " Gee, I never heard this one before. Where is your data? Here's mine: (per capita immigration, top 5 countries) Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia. That's from nationmaster.c om
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Well I live in Australia and it is a very Capitalist place. There is socialized medicine (which doesn't work very well so there is private insurance) but education is decentralized and pensions are privatized. Sweden has very attractive trade policies (again, decentralized education, health care vouchers rather than outright govt control) but even then there is a big problem with immigration in that the social "safety net" cannot accommodate them so it will break.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "Well I live in Australia and it is a very Capitalist place."
That's a fucking joke. It's definitely not very libertarian there.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@kev3d "Well I live in Australia and it is a very Capitalist place" I agree. Switzerland, Canada, and Australia are in what I call "the sweet spot". They have the maximum amount of de-regulation that makes good results. But, in your fantasy world (black vs. white) there can never be enough of a good thing. Hey, here's and idea: go drink 10 gallons of water without a break and see how you feel. Remember, there's never a such thing as imbalance of too much! LOL...don't really do it...
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912
I think you're mistaking a general trend (less economic regulation being better) for a 'sweet spot.' You'll notice the list gets progressively economically freer. By your 'sweet spot' logic, there should be some very unregulated countries alongside very regulated ones at the bottom, and yet we don't see this. The Heritage list specifically, and most rankings of the world generally, follow a trend: more economic freedom produces a better country.
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk France has the highest standard of living in the world...where is France on the list?
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Have you ever lived in France? As I have mentioned before, it is expensive as hell, the social programs are unsustainable (resulting in massive strikes and riots), taxes are high, the beggars in the north of Paris are outright aggressive and numerous, people tend to keep low level jobs for many years so there is not as much upward mobility, people abuse the various social programs meant to help the poor and people litter like crazy.
kev3d 1 year ago
@probunk To clarify, by "sweet spot" I meant the maximum amount of economic freedom that produces good results (income equality, economic mobility, standard of living, etc).
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Well there are lots of things that Australia can do specifically that can benefit the nation and the world much more. One; lowering taxes. Two; Allowing nearly unrestricted immigration to colonize the vast, empty deserts, with private investments in desalinization and energy. Three; Ending the welfare state which has harmed the Aborigines and encourages young, able-bodied people to not work. Those are 3 just off the top of my head.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Singapore on the other hand, is very free economically with very favorable tax structures, but it is not socially free. So there is much room for improvement there. Likewise with China, it has adopted a policy of markets which has enriched much of the nation, but politically, they are not free. In every case, Australia, Singapore, China, France and the US, the embracing of Markets has brought prosperity but government spending or restrictions have brought trouble.
kev3d 1 year ago
@tstruss912 I don't know much about Belgium so I will not comment, but Switzerland, along with Canada, and Australia are *Ding Ding Ding Ding* Some of the most economically free nations on Earth. Australia, Canada and Switzerland are #3, 5 and 6 on the Heritage index of economic freedom. Hong Kong and Singapore are small, densely populated places so there is a limit to their appeal, but the the same logic holds true. Economically free nations are much better off.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "Most important, no one is stuck in their economic strata if they work hard and smart enough. " OK, so now your argument is that people are more economically mobile under Friedmanomics. Fine, show your evidence. Stop bloviating about freedom and rights and all other deep philosophical things you don't seem to even understand and show some fucking evidence for your arguments for once. Go on, we're listening.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Well you are clearly not listening, because you keep going on about the income gap when you don't realize that the poor in those countries are far better off than the average in countries with little free trade or property rights. But you want more proof, I am the proof. I started work on farms for less than minimum wage, then I worked in retail, it was hard but I saved enough for tech school and I learned 3d, which has taken me to about 16 countries, in which 4 I have lived.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d ROFL...that's it? Anecdotal evidence...pretty lame. I'm glad you improved your condition but you're not realizing what I'M saying; I know full well what you're saying--I've heard all the lame Chicago school arguments before. I'm saying that the best results come from a balance of social programs, restrictions on capitalism, and free-markets. You're a total extremist and there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU PREACH EVER WORKING. Get it?
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912
When and where has your perfect balance been acheived, then? If you will ignore perfectly valid evidence on one side, I demand that you produce some for yours. What is this perfect balance? Who practices it, and how well has it worked out?
I do dislike slippery slope arguments, and I have some larger underlying disagreements anyhow, but do you really believe a state could restrain itself? Could stay at this perfect balance for any amount of time?
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk Socialism *doesn't require* a large state, or a state at all.
Incidentally, libertarian socialism is a fancy term for anarchism.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Wrong again, first of all, there are barely any free trade agreements, but where there are, there is prosperity. Your european social programs are unsustainable. That is why there are riots and strikes in France and Greece, thats why the UK must cut 500,000 govt positions, thats why Spain has a jobless rate of 20% and Portugal needs a bailout. Its why Medicare, Medicaid &Social Security are going broke.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d ERRRRHH! Wrong! What is unsustainable is unregulated financial markets (notice that Brazil and other countries that took their central banks by the balls are not suffering), and low taxes on the super-rich (1 million plus). I noticed you ran from the "vote with your feet" argument. No data on your side? Just more anecdotes and bloviating? How sad.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 That is retarded, of course I have never backed away from the concept of voting with one's feet. I have done it myself. And seriously? You are pointing to Brazil as "not suffering"? Have you ever seen the slums of Sao Paulo? You STILL have not answered why people move to free market states and not away from them.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "You STILL have not answered why people move to free market states and not away from them. " Are you quite alright? I just showed you a fucking list where the top 5 countries where people "vote with their feet" to go to have more social programs than we could ever dream of. Plus, some of them score higher than us on the Heritage foundation list of countries with free-trade. They're in the "sweet-spot". I know this is too much for your little black and white worldview to handle...
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912
Well for one, people moving to countries with more free trade is what you are argung against. And it's important to note just who is migrating, to state it broadly, people who will use those social programs more. Those who produce more, those with higher levels of education and experience, by and large move to less restricted countries, the most triumphant example at the moment being Dubai, but also including the United States.
probunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@kev3d "You are pointing to Brazil as "not suffering"?" Yes, that's correct. Current History just reported that in it's latest issue. They have slums that are way worse than ours, etc, but my point was that their financial policies (proper regulation) left them unscathed by the global financial crisis--not to mention they're one of the fastest up and comer nation, having just been accepted into the G20. Any evidence on your side?
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 The Global financial crisis, first of all, was created by governments. Second, Brazil is growing, no doubt, all nations that have increased their trade are going to grow, but they grow because of increased trade, not because of restrictions. The European Union has a poor model over all, but the trade barriers that have been dissolved have been very beneficial. Basically, when it is easier to trade, it is easier to work, especially when taxes are kept low.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "The Global financial crisis, first of all, was created by governments. " Really? Then how come Brazil was not touched by it like the rest of the countries. Current History seems to think it had to do with central banking policies (proper regulations). What say you.. and for fuck's sake provide some actual data to support your case this time--this isn't a girl-scout meeting.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Because Brazil did not prime the pump of a housing crisis by backing risky loans like the US did. The US also has a poor monetary policy, far too low interest rates for too long and govt spending is too high. The "Global Financial Crisis" is a misnomer; it affected some places more than others, some industries more than others. It barely touched Africa for example. Strong agricultural exports have helped Brazil.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d In other words the US lacked the proper....re...re....reg.....I'll let you say it.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 In fact the budget for financial regulators under Bush 43 went UP, it was regulation, not deregulation that led to the financial crises. So in a sense, that is correct because the regulations were bad. The main problem was that the govt wanted to get more people to own homes, the poor, minorities and young people. But these were risky loans, so the govt backed them up through Fannie and Freddie (govt created enterprises) and when it all went to shit, they bailed the banks out.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You'll notice the term "proper" in front of "regulation". We need proper regulations, ones that keep the market as free as possible, but also keep it stable. You have yet to show me one time in history where total free-market capitalism has been installed, let alone it showing the best results for economic mobility, standard of living, etc. You got nothing but talk, dude.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Again I point to Hong Kong, which had (and continues to have) the freest economy in the world. A place with almost no natural resources, but rule of law and property rights. The results are obvious, pre-reform Chinese were desperate to get in. Investment poured in from around the globe. Multiple Bank issued currency held stable and it has prospered. The comparative standard of living and wages are amongst the highest in the world.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d No, no, no. We're done with the "what's better" discussion. You like Hong Kong, and I like parts of Europe (Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany), Australia, and Canada. We differ in our tastes--discussion over. Tell me your plan to take on the banking-gov oligarchy. How will you fight the propaganda machine, which they control? How will you put pressure on the politicians, who are in their pocket? Tell me your plan and we can collaborate from there because I agree with you here.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 I never said I don't like Australia, I live there, after all. But there is much that can be done to make it even better, like I said, lowering taxes, improving immigration, populating the deserts, continue the trend of privatizing government agencies, ending the wasteful and harmful welfare state, reducing state spending and so on.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "I never said I don't like Australia, I live there, after all. But there is much that can be done to make it even better, like I said, lowering taxes, improving immigration, populating the deserts, continue the trend of privatizing government agencies, ending the wasteful and harmful welfare state, reducing state spending and so on." So....make it like HK? OK, but you still didn't address my question sufficiently. How will you get people on your side? Most DON'T agree with you.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 But to answer, there are lots of things; one, by educating people on the dangers of large governments, by pointing out the spending of the US and much of Europe is unsustainable. By spreading the idea that everyone should live by their own means as much as possible and that welfare for people or for corporations is bad. Also, I try to contribute as little as possible to Govt, and depend on it as little as possible. Lastly, I spread my assets across different competing banks.
kev3d 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Now when it comes to economic mobility, as I have mentioned in France, people tend to stick to simpler jobs for much longer because upward mobility is difficult and it is almost impossible to get fired. Because of licensing fees, taxes and regulations it is much more difficult for one to start their own business, we see this in the US more and more and it is doing tremendous damage.
kev3d 1 year ago
@tstruss912 Just think for a moment about how powerful and wonderful free trade is; that a person of any race, creed or political background can purchase something from anyone else, anywhere else at any time. Trade only happens when both parties stand to benefit. But Govts place Tariffs, restrictions and quotas which upset the flow. Govts in turn protect their own interests with bailouts, subsidies or take overs (which France does a lot, by the way). But this is immoral use of tax money.
kev3d 1 year ago
@tstruss912 The correct course of action is to A; have no federal reserve which dictates artificial interest rates. B. Let banks assume the risk for loans made. C. Get Govt out of housing entirely .
The same goes for the Auto industry and any other. If a business cannot properly negotiate it's union contracts or sell products at an agreeable price then that business should be allowed to fail.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "A; have no federal reserve which dictates artificial interest rates. B. Let banks assume the risk for loans made" I agree with these two. OK, what's your plan for getting this done in the real-world. I'm ready for action; lay it on me.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 And for the record, why are there strikes and riots in France, if everything is economically sound and the social spending is sustainable?
kev3d 1 year ago
@tstruss912 But you want more evidence, so fine. Take Vietnam, a poor country by any means from the end of the war to the early 90s. Its trading partner, the Soviet Union, collapsed and things looked dire. But trade relations with the US were normalized, the embargo was lifted. Coca Cola famously opened a bottling plant the next day. Change was not instant, but Vietnam's economy has been growing between 5 and 9 percent for almost a decade.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "Well you are clearly not listening, because you keep going on about the income gap when you don't realize that the poor in those countries are far better off than the average in countries with little free trade or property rights."
I thought we should want things to be better than they already are. Not compare ourselves to thirdworld countries and give ourselves a pat on the back.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
as I understand it, the only thing that really defines socialism is public ownership of the means of production. this could be state socialism, but what would make more sense to me is to make corporations mini-democracies. let the workers come together on what direction the company is going and how much they're getting out of it, so their only option isn't "If you don't like it you don't HAVE to work here"
Democracy in your workplace. Is that bad?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Nothing is stopping you from making your own democratic workplace, many are, in the form of for-profit co-ops, companies with shareholder voting and of course, small partnerships. But you must ask yourself why more companies do not do this? There is nothing preventing them from doing so. But imagine your own chain of restaurants...how much would the members vote for their hourly pay? How would that affect prices? and the ability to hire?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "But you must ask yourself why more companies do not do this?"
Why the fuck would they? You think greedy CEOs want to give their employees and say in the company? As the system is now, he's loyal to shareholders, not the actual workers.
"the problem is, you think companies should operate this or that way via some means of central planning."
No, that's the exact opposite of what I want. Capitalism *is* central planning.
"You are making assumptions about business"
What assumptions?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 The assumption you are making is that capitalism is central planning, but it is not. Capitalism is simply the means of production are in private hands. Ergo, you can form whatever business model you wish. Put your money where your mouth is. If you can come up with a more "fair" business model, you will quickly attract talent and your product or service will thrive. You are free to do this under capitalism, unless a govt committee or union tries to stop you.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "The assumption you are making is that capitalism is central planning, but it is not."
How the fuck isn't it central planning. A small group of privileged elites have authoritarian control over our biggest corporations. Capitalism essentially turns into an oligarchy of the rich.
"If you can come up with a more "fair" business model, you will quickly attract talent and your product or service will thrive."
xfd you really think capitalism encourages fair business models
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
You are mistaken. Even the richest have no true authoritarian control. They control companies which make money through voluntary exchange. They can never force purchases (if they do, it is through governmental programs) and simply cannot be compared to a state. You are mixing free exchange, at a very large scale, with government force.
Capitalism does encourage fair businesses. Stagnation is a result of supporting bad business and bad business styles.
probunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@probunk "Even the richest have no true authoritarian control."
Over their own companies? Fuck yes they do.
The claim I'm making is that libertarian socialism encourages democratic governance of corporations. How the fuck is that evil or bad.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
Over their own corporations and holdings. That is simply not authoritarian control. Everyone involved with such a corporation is there by means of voluntary consent. Force never comes into the picture. Force is a necessity of true authoritarianism.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. You cannot have a free country without private property. It's absolute foolishness. Communism doesn't sound good on paper, incidentally. It's based on bad economics, and worse philosohpy.
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk "Force never comes into the picture."
Oh, there's certainly implicit force. Maybe not at the end of a barrel, but in the sense of "If you don't like it, work somewhere else" except there's nowhere else to work and if you leave, they'll send your job overseas.
"You cannot have a free country without private property."
I think you can make the opposite case; how can you have a free country where only a few people own most of the land and capital.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
I don't mean to be rude, but check your dictionary. That is not force. It simply isn't, it's not a debate issue. Your definition of force is wrong. And besides, the primary reason prices are high, jobs go overseas and people need two or three jobs is because regulations (which have never truly hampered large corporations, and have always harmed small ones) drive up the cost of business, distort normal price signals and give large corporations power. The government is at fault.
probunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@probunk "I don't mean to be rude, but check your dictionary."
'power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.'
I mean, come on, are you going to tell me your natural market forces aren't actually forces?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@probunk "regulations (which have never truly hampered large corporations, and have always harmed small ones)"
I think that's an insightful comment. US Government has always had a reverse robin hood philosophy of stealing from the poor, and giving to the rich. Quite paradoxical.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
It is indeed, yet this failure of regulation has never really deterred the advocates for more of it. The core concept of a libertarian state is that nobody may initate force upon another for whatever reason, no matter their intentions. The thief may not steal from the rich, and neither could the taxman. But the rich man couldn't regulate and tax the poor into the oblivion. The invisible hand works both ways: your actions can, through it was not your intention, hurt everyone.
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk "The core concept of a libertarian state is that nobody may initate force upon another for whatever reason, no matter their intentions."
But for some reason, Paul's fanbase seems to assume only government can control a large group of citizens and ignore corporate abuses of power. Corporate tyranny may not be noticeable to you because it doesn't threaten your SUV and HDTVs, but it's a very real threat.
(not a criticism of Dr. Paul)
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
As much as I dislike government, to an extent it's a necessary evil. You seem to be saying that outside of a state, there would be no tyranny, neither corporate or governmental. Though it may be true that corporations may disappear (their formation heavily involves the government), similar groups would appear in short order, and have no fears regarding retaliation providing they had a significant numerical advantage. Without a protective state, what could oppose personal tyranny?
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk I feel like that's exactly what I've been saying. >_>
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713
To an extent it has, but you've been targeting the economic sphere and (seemingly) arguing for more regulation. My last post was in regards to what I thougt was you arguing for an anarchic 'state', as you identified as a libertarian socialist/anarchist earlier. Generally, the government ought to exist to prevent and punish the initiation of force and coercion and (possibly) provide education and (maybe) provide limited public services. NOT to regulate, tax excessively or control
probunk 1 year ago
@probunk "you've been targeting the economic sphere and (seemingly) arguing for more regulation"
Well I'm saying let's not be kneejerk about this and be rational. Frankly I'm starting to get the feel capitalism is actually a threat to free markets, that is to say that government is not the only threat to free markets.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@probunk "as you identified as a libertarian socialist/anarchist earlier."
I haven't identified myself as anything besides a libertarian. I'm always the devil's advocate in any political debate, and people always seem to hate that.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
Comment removed
Madfoot713 1 year ago
I could vote for Ron Paul. the other republicans. eh, not so much....
TheBurgeoning 1 year ago
Is Jones morally bound by his agreement to allow Smith to keep 8 in 9 parts of what what Jones produces? he capitalist, of course, answers, "Yes", and I once would have given the same answer, even though I knew intuitively that such an arrangement would be grossly unfair. My current answer is "No" -- this relationship between Smith and Jones is inherently exploitive, and Jones is entitled to much better.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 If Jones is going to share in the profits, should he also share in the risks as well? If Smith Co. produces widgets but the supply of widget oil is destroyed in a fire and the accumulated loss is equal to 25% of the invested capital, would both be willing to take the pay cut? Smith might afford his 25% smaller paycheck, but it may well devastate Jones. The main trouble with your argument is that it assumes a static market, but markets are always dynamic, always changing.
kev3d 1 year ago
Also, Jones will only receive 10% of the revenues despite all of his hard work, while Smith gets to keep 90% for his hoggish self. Jones agrees to these conditions because he has no other option.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Another problem with the scenario which socialists never address is that when they see these kinds of "injustices" in real life (if they exist at all), all they do is complain, when what they ought to be doing is starting their own competing enterprise with a more favorable profit sharing plan. Smith will quickly go out of business with no Jones to lean on.
kev3d 1 year ago
I feel like I'm not explaining this well. The idea is that in socialism, corporations are themselves governed as democracies rather than oligarchies or authoritarian dictatorships. Is that not libertarian?
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 No it isn't. Democracy in and of itself is not libertarian because it can (and sometimes does) lead to the tyranny of the majority. I can't imagine something more disastrous to an industry to leave it to democratic forces to dictate how it should operate as opposed to market forces. What do you think the vast majority of McDonalds employees vote for? Higher pay no doubt. What would that do to the price of the food? Its unsustainable in every sense.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "I can't imagine something more disastrous to an industry to leave it to democratic forces to dictate how it should operate as opposed to market forces. "
You sound a lot like a statist.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
Copied from another video.
Libertarian Socialism is the purest form of libertarianism, and here's why.
The principle of liberty is defined as the elimination of hierarchies. The principle of authority is based on the concentration of power in the hands of a few who then impose their values on the majority.
Therefore, Libertarian Socialism, which is the ideology which opposes all hierarchies, is the purest form of libertarianism.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Libertarianism is not "defined" as the elimination of hierarchies. It is advocating freedom in all forms, and more specifically, freedom for all except when it violates the rights of others or imposes force or undue costs on others. That's basically it. A "Hierarchy-less" human society cannot exist because people self-organize into groups with people in different roles. Families are natural hierarchies.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You can't have freedom and social hierarchy at the same time. Under capitalism, you're only as free as your pocketbook is deep.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Hierarchy is just a word like drug, you have aspirin and you have cocaine. Not all hierarchies are bad, not all are good. But they are inevitable. In business there is an established hierarchy when it comes to decisions, after all, a janitor has neither the training nor the experience to know when to roll out the new product from the Iowa factory. And capitalism is just one component of freedom, you can have capitalism without freedom but not freedom without capitalism.
kev3d 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 - There is no such thing as Libertarian socialism. Socialism is anathema to all libertarian concepts because the core of libertarianism is freedom and decentralization, socialism is centralization of planning and ultimately an end to personal freedoms in the name of planning and 'fairness'. It's ridiculous that you even made such a statement.
veradinx 1 year ago
@veradinx "socialism is centralization of planning"
that's not true.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@veradinx "There is no such thing as Libertarian socialism" Yes, there is. You can google it and compare it to the classical meaning of libertarian...you will see that it's closer than right-libertarian. What do they teach you kids in school nowadays?
tstruss912 1 year ago
I would love for the government to cut $14 trillion from the budget this year followed by not allowing state governments and federal governments to not be allowed to spend more than what they have b/f I would be impressed.
aragornsargonath 1 year ago
@aragornsargonath I don't think 14 trillion is the actual figure. Also, you have to cut back incrementally, not all at once. Why don't we start with military cutbacks? 700 billion a year...come on....it's ridiculous. We could cutback to 200 billion a year easy if we stop trying to conquer the world.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 It's a wish to have it all gone in a year......but the thing in Iraq/Afghanistan should have been the first to go years ago.
aragornsargonath 1 year ago
Around 4:30 RP mentions cutting the income tax.
I say let's go a step farther and give the bottom 50% a negative income tax. Ideally, there wouldn't be taxes at all, but if there is let's put the burden on CEOs and politicians. Leftists talk about helping the poor, let's cut out the middleman and actually do that. I think that's pretty libertarian in principle - "fuck the status quo"!
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 If it is going to be a "libertarian principle" then you must cut taxes for all, or have a negative income tax for all. Either way, it is not for the government to pick and choose whom they wish to tax at some arbitrary percentage while others at another percentage. The "burden" should be lessened, if not eliminated. The burden should not be shifted from one demographic to another simply because "they" are rich.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d "Either way, it is not for the government to pick and choose whom they wish to tax at some arbitrary percentage while others at another percentage. "
I don't see why rich people should be taxed at the same percentage as poor people. Common sense should tell you that's going to hurt people who don't make as much a lot more.
The problem with the current system is that honest workers, like doctors, get taxed unfairly while the people "in the know" get to exploit all the loopholes.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 Doctors don't hire crafty accountants? The current system is full of loopholes precisely because it is a "progressive" system. A flat, or better yet, sales tax simplifies everything. The reason the rich should not be taxed more is the same reason he should not taxed less; taxation is a function of law and in a free society law is applied equally even if the circumstances are unequal. Besides, one does not help the poor by hurting the rich.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d No, the system is full of loopholes because the tax code is millions of fucking pages long. That's not a progressive problem.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 You don't say. A hugely complicated tax code. Imagine that. Do you really think a sales tax is difficult to calculate by comparison? Progressive taxes assumes that bureaucrats magically know how the tax code should be broken down and by what amount. Worst of all, such bureaucrats are subject to lawmakers who are purchased for the promise of easy votes. Since people will always seek a better angle through lobbyists, why not restrict how the government can tax in the first place?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Like I said, income taxes suck. But a straight tax unfairly hurts the poor, makes the rich richer etc. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, sounds status quo more than anything.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 I don't care if the "rich get richer". In fact, I want a free society where anyone can be rich if they work hard and smart enough. Libertarianism is about maximum freedom and personal responsibility and minimum government and coercion. It is not about favoring one group over another. With lower overall taxation, the poor get richer too because there is more money to invest in job creation, which is much better than dependence on the welfare state.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d money = power = freedom
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 All the more reason that the size and scope of government should be limited to little more than contract enforcement and rights protection. That way the only companies and individuals that gain wealth do so only through mutually voluntary exchange. This is not "pie in the sky" thinking. The first 130years of the US, the immigrant population who arrived with nothing, would flourish with little more than freedom and rule of basic law.
kev3d 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "All the more reason that the size and scope of government should be limited to little more than contract enforcement and rights protection." Sounds like garbage from Friedman. BTW, how did his policies work out in Russia and South America...not to mention here? Oh, right, we just didn't go far enough--what we need is more deregulation, that will solve everything. Jesus fucking Christ....
tstruss912 1 year ago
@kev3d The problem with your principled angle of libertarianism is that you assume governments are evil but corporations are good. Big business is as much a threat to freedom as unrestrained government and mainstream media. Wage slavery and public ownership aren't just cover words for authoritarianism. I'm not saying socialism is great, but educate yourself. In fact, socialism can easily exist without government reinforcement, very libertarian in nature.
Capitalism is not libertarian.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
@Madfoot713 I have never said anything of the kind; I have said that government is force and that force should be minimized. Contract enforcement as well as free trade is critical to keep "bad" corporations in check. Of course some companies make bad choices, so do individuals. But because there is occasionally bad speech, we don't restrict the freedom thereof, we instead correct "bad speech" with alternative ideas, argument, persuasion and so on. The same holds true for capitalism.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d So now it sounds like you think regulation is necessary.
Madfoot713 1 year ago