As a libertarian I found this to be a great argument. I really thought Sam had a good point on the whole direct vs indirect subsidies. Lee certainly showed the logical inconsistencies of minarchy. I wonder what Sam would say to a Rothbardian who actually believed in private roads?
@TheJamesvanmiert Ok so what? What if they weren't subsidized? Then the homemakers would have to work/adapt to a price which would meet the customer demand. BTW, this subsidizing likely started when the Chinese transitioned into power. I bet subsidized housing was made to attract settlers to replace the missing population which fled before the transition. In other words, if Hong Kong were as it was before. without a communist government, they would be better off.
@ptevans01 The so what is that i places like Hong Kong and Singapore which are touted as free market utopias massivley subsidise the incredibly expensive housing ergo the free market myth fails again.
@TheJamesvanmiert And who says they have to? If they subsidize industries then those in industries would have less incentive to be competitive and the customer will be dumbed down because they didn't make consumer/customer unions. If they unionized, the housing industry would be far more likely to build with better building codes at cheaper prices. The government isn't building the houses. The house construction companies are.
they incoherently talked past one another for 23 mins and nothing was really said, the host had no idea what lee was saying and lee was trying his best to make arguments with someone just waiting to pounce on his every mis-speech
Sam, you have no idea what you are talking about. The gov can't "invest" in it's own treasuries. T-Bills and Treasury bonds are assets to the holder and a liability of the gov, If the gov hold's it's own t-bills and treasury bonds, the asset and liability cancel each other out. It's like a husband writing a check to his wife drawn on the same bank account, or if each week you wrote a post dated check then spent the money and said your post dated checks were an asset!
Sam is loosing this bad. He is trying to imply that since, by accident, some people or corporations will do better or worse simply because the gov exists is equal to the gov directly picking winners and losers. The gov didn't build the highway system to benefit Walmart, whereas the gov handed 500 million dollars to Solyndra. This is the difference he doesn't seem to understand, at least at the 15:45 mark
con't Singapore is successful bcs its a.carefully managed economy, b.ready supply of cheap foreign labour, and c.neighbours are 3rd world slums, making it an attractive base of operations for multinationals who want the resources of the 3rd world, but without the hassles of working there.
@vwgolf1991 Because is a libertarians mind if something is successful theres a John Gault out there standing up to labour and GOVT and forcing them to keep out of his way!
Its just one big buzzword extravaganza when you talk to them, where they have to make up some bs position so they can knock it down with "Free market" talking points "Liberty" and the evils of "Socalism!"
If you ever ask for any fact and data to support there case they come up empty.
Where does this free-market Singapore myth come from? I live in Singapore, and it is one of the most managed economies in the world. The housing market, telecom, auto sales and ownership, banking and finance are all highly controlled.
6:57 That's stupid because if a company did that then obviously they'd fall out of favor with their customers and they would end up losing profits to other companies who don't do that. Leftists always act like companies can do whatever they want and consumers will just go along with it and keep paying even if they don't want to. They act like big companies are invincible and unaccountable to consumers even though we just saw Kodak, at one time the biggest photo and video company go out of
business, largely because they held on to the film producing part of their business for too long as consumers decided that they preferred digital recording technology.
@gihaification you present a false dichotomy, reducing regulations overall doesn't necessitate letting major corporations "pollute and destroy ecosystems".
@AussieAustrianBlog Agreed, but I don't think he claims to be purely libertarian. I've seen him identified as libertarian/conservative, so he would be straddling the fence on certain issues.
@AussieAustrianBlog Ya, would be easy to counter if Sam actually let them finish. It's so hypocritical when people complain that O'Reily talks over guest but don't when "Liberals" like Sam do it.
@gihaification I never said there are "services that are critical and needed" (and notice that you appear to have abandoned a prior thread of debate). However there *are* functions of government that are proper to protecting individual life (as opposed to "health"), liberty, and property (e.g. law enforcement). State socialized health care (i.e. public heath care) violates basic property rights by the state taking money (though taxes) from one group of citizens for the benefit of another group.
@MerlinYoda I ran from a topic? (Miners, Min Wage)? If I drop a topic Its because I'm either board going round in circles or I cant debate a topic where people just make up facts and reality.
Violates property rights? are you srs? your not going to bother talking about how 1 system is clearly superior with data and facts to back it up, and go for some belief that libertarians have?
If you had data to show that Private is better we could talk, But you don't so its fringe issues.
@gihaification .Just who made you judge of what are "fringe issues" and thus not worthy of discussion? Does it only qualify as "fringe" if it rattles your state-loving world-view supported by cherry-picked examples and straw-man arguments (esp.against libertarian principles). I'm sure the British Parliament considered "no taxation without representation" a "fringe" issue as it was only being raised by those on the American Colonies.
Show me some "Cherry picked" data that supports your view! Show me facts that back up your view that a Private health care system could cover everyone and out perform a Socalist system!
I've given you world rankings showing every country that beats you is socalist.
Talking about "property rights" is just libertarian code speak, It means nothing like a buzz word. Has no real meaning as it changes all the time.
@gihaification There you go again... putting words in my mouth. When have I said that a private system would cover "everyone". What point would it serve to cover perfectly healthy people? People only need care when debilitated. Health insurance can be affordable if you reserve it for actual emergencies/catastrophic situations.
"Property rights" is code speak? Good to know, so next time I needs something you possess, then I can just take it from you (though the state even) since I need it more?
@MerlinYoda If it doesnt cover everyone then whats the point? not all people know when there gonner get hit by a car or get aids or catch a bizzare House esc virus.
"What point would it serve to cover perfectly healthy people?" Cause sick people dont start of sick, They were once healthy people too.
"can be affordable" You have had years for PI to evolve into this system it hasn't it has just found a way to get more and more of your money and provide very little else.
@gihaification You miss my point entirely. What you describe are situations for catastrophic insurance which *private* insurance plans could cover easily such that only the dirt poor would need outside assistance (through charity and/or Medicare). A big problem is the level of coverage mandated under the PPACA that kicks in 2014 (unless overturned by SCOTUS). If you expect insurance to pay for every little thing it's going to be expensive!
@MerlinYoda I dont like mandated health insurance, But its a bad system but its the only way to get converage as GOP refused a public option. (even though every country with it have better health care and cheaper)
Yet the problem is who pays for broke people who turn up at a hospital dying? The tax payers.
@gihaification "But its a bad system but its the only way to get converage as GOP refused a public option"
Suuure, it's not as if the Democrats didn't have a majority in both the House and Senate when PPACA was being debated in 2009-2010. They could have pushed through whatever they wanted if they tried. Even though they were short of 60 Democrats in the Senate, it's not as if they couldn't have easily peeled of a more Left-leaning republican or two to get through what they wanted originally
@MerlinYoda "Property rights" the area is soo broad and open ended you could literaly make anything a property rights case. There is No issue that could not fringe on a libertarians "property rights" thats why its code speak, its just something a libertarian talks about without any real concept that some times you dont have property rights when your doing something batshit insane on them.
@gihaification Keeping in mind "property" isn't limited to land/real estate, under what situation could I rightfully take your property by (in your words) "doing something batshit insane"? If set off M80's on your front lawn every morning and it wasn't explicitly against the law but was disturbing your neighbors a half a mile away, would that be "insane" enough? Please, enlighten me, at what point may I rightfully take your property by force?
Whats to stop me buy a house next to yours, digging a hole and dumping toxic waste into the ground coving it up and then selling the house.
Concidering the fact that you dont have giga counters running 24/7 and I was semi discreet about it, I earn a huge profit getting rid of waste and you get cancer?
Is this example extreme enough for you to want nuclear wage regulated?
@MerlinYoda Still waiting on any evidence you can produce to show me how private health care is better then public.
This is just 1 big theory trip for you. I can give you national statistics showing that Public is cheaper/better for the country, You can only try to spin the lie that its unfair that a rich man pay for a poor.
@MerlinYoda But still, You fail to prove any sort of data that supports your arguement, You call BS on me without proof,
Come on, I thought libertarians would at least have some sort of proof that there system could work, I can point to my system working better then yours in other places (sure its not perfect, but its a dam good start!)
@gihaification Seeing as you admit that no system is perfect, do you expect a libertarian system to be perfect? Are you holding libertairain-based systems to a higher standard than your own ideal system? If so, than there'll never be anything I can do to convince you as the field is skewed in your system's favor. A system based on personal liberty may seem too chaotic to some, but it's a fair sight better than one whose goal is "social justice" as opposed to simply equal treatment under the law.
@MerlinYoda I expect them to produce a system superior to the current system or systems with statistics showing how they function.
What I do not accept is a system with obvious flaws that libertarians shrug off and say "Well I wont be one of those "left behind" so who cares!"
This "Liberty" system seems just to give "Liberty" to the rich and everyone else gets left behind. Liberty is just a Buzz word for you, It means nothing, Its just something you can throw at people.
@gihaification Liberty is a buzzword?!?!? Since when? If that's the case then *our own Constitution* is based on a "buzzword". Being "left behind" is a risk in *any* system, even a system that has a public payer option as all it takes is some government bureaucracy to deny payment for a procedure for some mindless, authoritarian reason (like something along the lines of "you've lived long enough so we're not covering your procedure"). Your ideals entails shades of theft and/or slavery.
@MerlinYoda Its a buzz world in the sense that somehow having unlimited liberty is the goal, No Having set freedoms and set restrictions is an accepted reality, There are some things you are simply not free to do. Yet libertarians dont acknowledge this, They try to frame this as "Statists" want everything dictated to them. No. I want some clearly drawn lines. Which we all agree to give up this freedom for the safety of us all.
@gihaification Having "unlimited liberty" is only the goal of an Anarchistic society (i.e. no state). That is *not* the same as a libertarian society (would have a state but much smaller in scope to simply protect citizens rights through laws).
"Statists" are simply those that would put more power in the government over private citizenry (basically the end of the spectrum opposite the libertarian end). You have "clearly drawn lines" in a libertarian society. There's just fewer lines.
@gihaification It's not possible to give examples because (like I said) they don't even have the resources to *start up*. Unless I go around to every Tom, Dick, and Harriett and ask how many of them weren't able to start up a business because regulatory costs were too much and they could not make enough money fast to make a profit then there's no way to give a tangible example. It's not like people come out to the media and say, "my business went under because of regulatory compliance costs".
@gihaification it's lack of time, not laziness. I'm checking these comments on breaks at work. I can't waste time on the 'net searching. I have a job to do. Furthermore that is a small article that merely states a claim by one source, and no financial data. If I sent you that in defense of my position, you'd just throw it back in my face as pitiful one-off example that proved nothing. At least I know I wouldn't put much credit in an article w/o hard data to back it up.
@MerlinYoda Give me an example of any Govt denying an op where they give that quote,
Its just another myth libertarians make up. As someone whos grandmother chose to die rather then take more chemo that might give her 3-6 more months. I understand that end of life care is srs topic, and not to be demonised by Sarah Palin as "Death panels"
"Slavery and theft"? erm... No again libertarians having to go to extremes in talk because facts dont match up to there reality.
@gihaification If an unsafe structure on somebody else's property falls on your property, and causes damage you can sue. I don't know any situations where houses are attached to each other which are owned by separate parties (including the land they stand on.
I never said building regs were slavery/thieft. The slavery/theft comment was w.r.t socialized health insurance (esp. single payer) .... a topic *you* brought up. I just wasn't able to make it apparent due to the comment character limit.
@MerlinYoda houses sharing a wall is common in the UK and europe.
Suing - I'm a firm believer in prevention rather then Cures. Preventing people from commiting stupid acts where possible should be an aim, I certanly dont think I would get enough money if my loved one died due to my neighbours stupidity.
But building regs infring on your liberty right? if you disagree to this then im assuming Liberty realy is just a buzz word.
@gihaification So in order to prevent dental expenses, would you mandate regular proof of tooth-brushing? I mean that would cut down drastically one dental related expenses wouldn't it?
... or maybe you could mandate that every citizen exercise at least one hour a week at an approved gym (to which you must buy membership) to cut down on health care costs and fine/tax people who do not buy membership and exercise sufficiently?
At what point is your "prevention" angle too restrictive?
@gihaification The wall may appear "common" but if you looked in public record, I'm guessing the property line would run either through the middle, or is given joint ownership such that all parties involved must agree to modifications thereof (assuming they actually own the property the "shared" wall inhabits). In this case, if you, say, take a brick out of the wall it's not logically possible to not be infringing on property that is not of your sole possession.
@gihaification more false dichotomies, Social heath care (really social health insurance) is not the end-all be-all when "caring about the deficit" and "saving lives". Also, I don't want to "keep the current system", it's flawed and not at all a free market by classic measure.
At least w/ a more federalist society your state could run hog-wild with socialized medicine let other states decide whether they wanted it or not. Your's imposes it nationally, offering few (if any) alternatives.
@MerlinYoda When you see that many countries adopting a system and showing it clearly works superior to the USA system, The "Free market" system is doing exactly what we expect it todo, Find a superior way to increase its riches and keep providing the min amount to service.
Also Every country has a free market solution running along its public option. This does not kill the "free market" it only provides a base line so no one is left uncovered and there are no unpaid bills.
@MerlinYoda More libertarian theory. I wouldnt mind if libertarians could prove there theories or accepted the superior system untill they could, but they refuse to accept facts that dont line up with there wishful thinking. You could adopt the system, save money.
"Least the libertarians are living up to there claims of "gov spending too much"
But no, Give me an answer to the non payer problem....
@gihaification what did I say that was a "theory" in my last reply? What I stated was logically consistant. *If* certain actor in society better respected the federalist model we have and didn't try to implement everything on a national level, then instead the populace of a state wanting single payer could implement that in their state and run hog-wild with it and the populace of a state that didn't want it then wouldn't be forced to have it. What part of that is "theory"?
@MerlinYoda kff org/uninsured/index.cfm seems they updated there reports, Subject still stands, What does a state do when an uninsurred person is treated, they cant get money from a broke person so the bill is passed to the state and the bill is carried by the tax payer.
the report had the number at about $135 billion a year, (if i remember correctly)
Problem with the "states rights" is easy, What happens when people come from 1 state to another where laws and different?
@gihaification If you live in a public option state and then drive into a mandated insurance state and get in a wreck, who pays?
Its a "heory as you cant provide any facts or data that support your ideas, There is no concesses that what you say would happen,
I can point to public health care countries and show you have it is cheaper and saves lives. I can show you the lobbing of the health care providers to increase there costs and stop Govt regs forcing them to negotiate drugs.
@gihaification Wrong I live in Canada its almost third world health care. Socialized medicine is terrible, many people die waiting for there treatments. Trust me you do not want nationalized health care, the line ups are extreme, and I've been sent away with broken bones and not treated waited 3 weeks just to get looked at lol.
@TreeSmoke1999 Can you in anyway prove that Socialized medicine is worse than Private system?
here’s the hidden truth in what you’re saying, There is Queues because EVERYONE is able to get treatments. In the private system is less of a queue because so many people live in poverty and can afford the cost of their treatment.
You can point at a few horrible cases, the exception that proves the rule.
I can point at the national statistics that show how superior it is.
@MerlinYoda "Social justice" is not what we are trying to achieve, we want a system where it regardless of where/why/how you were born you have a chance to live and achieve in life. If your system doesnt give people right at the bottom the chance to rise then it is no system, it is economic slavery.
@gihaification sounds like a libertarian society to me. Everyone equal under the law and no one gets special favors (you know, favors like getting "bailed out" by the taxpayers via the federal government). Also large corporations benefit from heavy regulation in that it raise the bar for entry into a given market. Over-burdensome regulation discourages small start-ups and solidifies large corporations' hold on the market due simply to the costs of regulatory compliance.
@gihaification No, you point to a system that you assume "works better", but don't account for the external costs of living under said system that can't be measured .... unless you can accurately count the loss of *potential* wealth in countries (India for example .. last I checked) which have so much bureaucracy that it's near impossible to lift oneself out of poverty through entrepreneurship and thus keeps the poor in poverty because of the limited number of businesses licenses handed out.
@MerlinYoda If the regs and laws were such a burden you would have people who said "I would create this engine But this law saying that it needs this XXX or YYY means I cant create these new jobs"
India? I dont think over reg is the problem there, Did you know how poluted the water is there?
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Pollution_of_the_Ganges
If you look into how polluted the river is with medical waste well.... This could be USA if not for EPA.
@MerlinYoda Is there anything in the libertarian belief system (I'm going to start refering to it as a faith soon) that can be backed up with data or facts? Or is it just all holistic nonsense that only works in a dream land?
@MerlinYoda Your not one of those Sovereign Citizens are you? someone with a radicaly differing view of the constitution. Who thinks that the Govt is taking all your money from taxation and you shouldnt have to pay any taxes. That some how the Govt doesnt have the right to tell you anything?
It's cool if you are, but I just wana know how far into the deep end you are.
@MerlinYoda What do you think your paying tax dollars for?
We pay tax dollars so we can provide a national service to keep bureaucracy lower. Use buying power to lower costs and because theres somethings we cant have multiple of trying to compete (police, Fire fighters, power grids)
There is no country that has a Govt like your asking for that works.
Check out
photius com/rankings/#GENERAL
You will see time and time again Top countries have Social programs and regulation
As a libertarian I should be able to opt out of social security and all the government insurances. You liberals and progressives act like you have some new idea on what America should be, it isnt new. Our founders saw every kind of government, they knew that at the end of the day you cant have big government and a free society at the same time.
@Jononutoob Heres the catch, What happens if you opt out of social security and health insurance, then later in life get sick or are poor and starving?
Do you suddenly ask for Govt help or are you willing to die on the streets? Cause USA libertarians talk alot about there liberty yet when push comes to shove suddenly survival instincts kick in and there running to ask Govt to save them.
@gihaification The concept of winners and losers shouldn't be misconstrued with the concept of winners and people who lose and get bailed out. No... when you lose, you lose. People that opt out of social security and health insurance should be taking their own measures to insure themselves. If they aren't and something bad happens to them, there is no government bailout. There are private charities that may help them, but government is not a charity and shouldn't be treated as such.
@ThoseWhoStayUofM yup, yet that NEVER HAPPENS. Even Ayn Rand herself went to the govt as she couldnt aford the costs of her health care.
Its completely idiotic to believe that people will simply say "Hey I guessed wrong I'll lay down and die now" Most people understand that "Men do not despise a thief when he steals a loaf of bread when he is hungry" IE when someone is desperate to survive they will do anything, yet for a libertarian to expect human nature to change is stupid.
@ThoseWhoStayUofM However heres the real kicker, Every single major world power who ranks higher then the USA in healthcare has a Govt socialist system. No single world power has adopted a Libertarian health care system, now why is that? surely if there was a grain of truth in it someone would of tried it out?
@gihaification I would go to family and friends for help. If they cant help me then I would ask God. If god cant help me then I would tell the government to go fuck itself and I would die. I probably wouldnt die in the streets, I would rather die in the woods or something. I would like the government to not even have the option to help me so I wouldnt even have a reason to ask them. As far as starving, I know how to hunt. And poor probably wouldnt happen as I would save my money.
@Jononutoob Wow, I realise your a real right winger and all but have you looked at the standard of living for any of the socalist countries you hate? not just listend to Libertarians or right wing radio but really looked at the working lives of them?
@gihaification Oh please explain to me how fantastical the living conditions are in socialist countries. I'd also love to know how you think you can maintain individual liberty and socialism in the same breath. And yes I have looked at socialist countries and no I dont listen to libertarian radio.
@Jononutoob ok I get it, you really dont understand what socialism is, You just heard its a bad word and is in some way anti freedom/liberty.
photius com/rankings/#GENERAL
Alot of comparisons and data here. You can see that some Countries keep hitting the top of the lists. And supprise supprise they are the countries that have some good Socalist Policies.
Then again, you expect me to believe that you would lay down and die. How many people do that 1-2%? rest go to the Govt
@gihaification Tell me how socialism will work without the democratic majority telling me how to live. And your last sentence just supports my comments. 1-2% will not go to govt. The vast majority will, so why should my life be affected by the sheepish majority?
@Jononutoob I think you misunderstand, Socialism is about putting a basic safety net in place that no matter how your life plays out, you do not have to worry that you will be left to die in the gutter. Now I realise you think most people who fail in life its due to their own poor choices, But what about someone who is crippled due to an accident and are unable to support themselves are they sheep?
What if it was you, Paralysed by a car crash and they never catch the guy?
@gihaification No I understand. I just dont agree with your basic ideas. I dont think I should be taxed to pay for the accidents of others. If I get in an accident and am paralysed then my family will unplug the life support, because I have already told them I dont want to live like that. I have no problem with people who need help, getting help. I just dont agree that everyone should pay for it. This is about how people are helped, not whether to help them or not.
@Jononutoob You seem to be certain that there will be no change to your life that might effect your decision. What if you had children aged 5-10, would you still want to die?
@gihaification I didnt have kids at 10. Because I am not a fucking idiot. If I was paralyzed i would want to die, it wouldnt matter if I had kids or not. I dont want to live paralyzed. If I cant take a piss by myself then I dont want to live. The government should be smaller so people have more money from their paychecks. Less taxes means more money in peoples pockets. Now if someone needs help, people put their money together and help the person out.
@Jononutoob Who said anything about having children at 10? I said If you had a child who was 10, now maybe your 20 you put your age in. You could be 30 in my example,
So you would choose death even if you had children who need a father figure? You are pretty selfish! (But thats the core of Libertarianism!)
Also the Myth that people helped out the poor before wellfare is a joke. If people were helping each other out then why were there poor people asking for money from the Govt?
@gihaification I must have misread your comment then. But it doesnt matter because if I cant independently live on my own then I would not want to live. You can call me selfish and make that stretch all you want. (Emotion is at the heart of liberalism, not logic.) Poor people ask for money from government because they are uneducated and lack skills. The govt loves the idea of a populous that is dependent on it. Thus you have generations on welfare.
@Jononutoob Not all people on Welfare are uneducated or lazy. Quite a few are like you, They were responsable people who were unlucky in life and had there savings wiped out, They are then stuck in a rut that they simply can not get out of,
I gave you that list of countries so you could compare you ideology to working countries, If you bothered to look you would see the best countries have social systems so that people who are unlucky can get a help and be productive again.
@gihaification But your list of nations is pointless as all countries are different. America could never afford welfare on the level we have and soon will have while also funding global war. Socialism wouldnt work in America because America is a war nation. This is why America is spreading "democracy". When the time comes the governments want the people to beg for someone to save them. Then they can step in and offer safety, welfare, in exchange for a lil self dependence.
@Jononutoob How are all nations that different? we all have basicaly the same problems and demands. That list of nations isnt pointless, Its just inconvient too you because it shows how wrong you are, Socialism works and Libertarianism doens't work, Just look at Somalia, The libertarian paradise!
@gihaification You doubt a church or community could help someone in need yet you want government to do it? Anytime you give any form of government authority, you lose freedom. YOU CANT HAVE SOCIALISM AND LIBERTY! Unless of course the govt lets us opt out of the plan, which they never do.
@Jononutoob Why cant you have socialism and liberty? france/german/uk/norway/sweden are all free and have some socialism,
Just cause Glen beck says something doesnt make it so.
Also Churches would only help people who accept that religion or accept biblical rule. I dont want to be forced to praise a God so I dont have to die on the streets in your world.
Also Yet again, if Ron was right and churches were helping, Why was the rate of povety so high before Welfare?
@gihaification France and Germany have freedom? Man your perception of what freedom is really makes me wonder. None of the nations you listed even has national independence. They are dependent of the UN and other centralized forms of power. And dont even dare to argue to me that they are doing okay. Europe is in economic collapse. If something is inconvenient to me, I would explain why. Im not here to avoid your points, Im here to bash sense into your brain
@Jononutoob They dont have freedom? Please explain what freedoms there lacking and how there oppressed? Explain how You have more Liberties please!
Dependant on the UN?
LOL USA IS IN THE UN! ON NOES! USA HAS NO FREEDOMS!
Sure Things could be better in the Europe, Same as things could be better in USA. Europe only needs stimulus, Same as USA would of collapsed if Obama didnt stimulate your Ecom. Your lucky he did.
This is just getting better and better! your insanity is showing!
@gihaification Socialism destroys property rights. It also affects domestic law. Most socialist nations have strict gun laws which reduce the ability of the people to defend against government expansion. Such expansion is certain in socialist nations as more people will end up in need of government help and therefore lose self dependence. USA is in UN but is not in the EU. What I meant to say was EU in my previous comment but both are the same thing. They are centralization.
@Jononutoob Care to give any cases that show what you’re talking about, it sounds like your making up problems that don’t exist. Also an example where socialists needed to fight back against their Govt in modern times?
EU, do you know anything about the EU and how "centralisation" helps? Do you understand the benefits to this or are you just throwing out terms trying to get away from the point that Socialism clearly works as shown by the data given you.
@gihaification You talk about me avoiding a point then you insert Somalia, typical liberal argument. Somalia is nothing like what libertarians talk about. Somalia doesnt have the communication and technological abilities of America. And in a libertarian society, technology is vital. It allows citizens to know what corporations are doing and provides safety to the free market. If you want to play that game then how is Socialism working in Greece? Also I hate Glen Beck and FOX.
@Jononutoob so you’re telling me that Libertarian societies only work if there’s Technology and infrastructure already? So Libertarian land can’t come about on a clean slate? Then how will it continue to build and expand if it can’t come about from a clean slate?
So it’s a complete crock of shit, Glad you agree!
Socialism isn't what ruined Greece, Austerity and Goldman sacs created this situation.
@gihaification No i didnt say that. I said modern technology is vital to keep citizens informed in a free market. Your making jumps in your other questions. Libertarian society can work anywhere, it just has to be pure. Just like you cant be kinda pregnant, you cant have kinda libertarian society, it is either all or nothing. Also gladman sachs has direct relationship with goldman sachs and also austerity is a consequence of failed social policy.
@Jononutoob So explain why Somailia Isnt working then! It has a Small Govt, It has an army, It has police and justice system, Yet the "Job creators" arn't running over there creating wealth, Why is that?
@gihaification Job creators arent creating wealth anywhere really so Somalia is not a good pinpoint spot. In a libertarian society wealth accumulation is slow but is steady. You mention Europe needs stimulus, that is the last thing they need. Stimulus will increase the costs and taxes. We got into this problem with too much spending so more stimulus will only compound the problems. American economy is collapsing, Obama only delayed it until he isnt in office anymore.
@Jononutoob "Stimulus will increase the costs and taxes. " This right here shows how little you know of Economics, You won't find any creditable Economist who holds this view who isn’t bought by the Koch brothers. There’s no proof or any facts backing this up.
@gihaification Stimulus spending in America increased our national debt. That debt is our income taxes. Now instead of raising taxes which would be political suicide the government chose to just increase debt and quicken inflation. This is why costs of goods in America are rising because the value of the dollar is decreasing. America's debt just reached our GDP. This occurred because we spent too much money on welfare and warfare. So we cant fix it with more spending.
@gihaification I find it sad that you fell for the lie. Government and private institutions worked together to make alot of money for the elites. You then blame free markets(which were not the cause) and you then want government (socialism/communism) to protect you from those privates. Now if not for government private institutions couldnt do what they did. Private corporations cant oppress you if you remove the tool they use to expand. And that tool is big government.
@Jononutoob Communism? where have I asked for that?
Again channeling Glen Beck!
You still havent shown how those Socalist countries are failing, Your just throwing out libertarian ideals that have never worked for anyone. No proof or data to back anything up!
@gihaification Damn you are good at making jumps. I was referring to big government, which is socialism and communism. I never said you said communism. And I am explaining how socialist countries are failing. Hell I am explaining to you how the whole global economy will collapse.
@gihaification What needs to happen is the debt needs to be eliminated. Doing that will be messy and hard on the common man. This is why when faced with economic collapse(which is inevitable with current policies) governments chose to spend more money to keep the machine running. So it is a simple choice. Either permanent economic oppression or living at your means, which wont be much. But you want to keep your iphone and other crap so you will choose economic servitude.
@Jononutoob You srs need an Economics lesson, Ron Paul's crazy dreams have no basis in reality. USA had a Stimulus and instantly the econ improves, Bushes tax cuts and less regs did nothing.
@gihaification US government spent trillions of dollars and maybe created a few though thousand jobs. But if you look at the ratio of spending to actual creation of jobs, the stimulus was a failure. Bush tax cuts and less regs? Well its not as if those two things will create a libertarian society. Bush cut taxes while increasing spending, that is not libertarian economics. And his regulation cuts are an example of govt and privates working together to screw the common man.
You keep throwing out these baseless statements time and time again, I could go on debating you but its getting dull watching you create an alternate reality as this one doesn't seem to line up to anything you have said.
Either come at me with something with creditable facts/data or im going to ignore your baseless claims.
@gihaification Actually I think it is people like YOU who are selfish. I am not going around asking people to pay more taxes so the govt can give me things. I am asking for the govt to leave me alone. If I die, let me die. If I live, let me live. THAT is liberty. And people could handle healthcare costs if they didnt spend their money on entertainment and plastic chinese crap from walmart. You know who is selfish, the Americans citizens who dont practice self responsibility.
And leftists are arbitrarily deciding how much the rich should pay in taxes. Double edged sword, dude. The reason why you can't be specific about things like how much should be spent on courts and military is because it DEPENDS on the circumstances.
Now that we know that is all about where you place that line, the next debate should be about specifics, like towards the end talking about Social Security, etc... Another thing to note is that a responsible libertarian government would have a transition phase, you can't just remove social security and medicare just like that. Again, awesome debate. I hope you host Lee Doren again, keep up the good work!
Great debate!me as a Libertarian agree with Sam Seder on the line.Where is that arbitrary line?Lee Doran got it right,we're not reaching for utopia and fantasy land,as Sam said there will be indirect subsidies.What "realistic" libertarians want is just less government and NOT anarchy, I have come across many liberals confusing anarchism with libertarianism. We among libertarians have different places of where we could put that line that Sam was talking about, but they are all close to each other
I'm from Brazil and I'm actually grateful for Americans taxpayers who subsidized the government development of computers, the Internet, R&D incentives on the MIT and Silicon Valley... The world would be at lest 50 years backward if it wasn't for these.
Liberals can only pay for their ideology with an increase of taxes and/or fines. Liberals want bigger government which has to paid for by more taxes or fines. If everybody worked for the government, where would the taxes come from? Hmmm. If the liberals had their way, everybody would have subsidized health care, pensions and collective bargaining. Even liberals aren't stupid enough to believe that would work. They know better. It's about favoritism, prejudice and entitlement.
@gihaification I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I'm asking/saying what I've observed over my 47 years of living. If I thought liberal /progressive ideas would work.......in the long run, I'd be all for them. They won't so we better take a different path. You guys have had your turn and it failed. Time to change course. By the way, I live in California so don't think I'm not very familiar with your ways of running a government. I live it every day.
@rrhynes how have liberals had their chance? I think you are making some common misconceptions as to what Liberals want and what fox news loves to claim,
What did liberals do to California? Please explain to me what ideas liberals have implemented that have ruined that state?
@gihaification Collective bargaining for public employees, bi-lingual education, day care for losers that can't keep their panties on, diversion of water in the aquaduct for an insignificant fish whiile ignoring the benefits of valley farming(for whom their precious voting base works), gasoline taxes that aren't used to do a damn thing but create more government jobs, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. Our legislature is run by liberals and it shows. We're broke and getting broker.
@gihaification That's just more rhetoric about Prop 13, passed in 1976 or so.The libs have had 35 years to get used to the idea that taxing people out of their homes isn't going to be accepted by the citizens. That entire article is about that very issue. Jerry Brown , our current governor...again, signed collective bargaining rights in as a law about that same year. A colossal fuck up that gave the green light to special interests have been raping our assholes every since.
@gihaification One of the biggest problems with California are Mexicans. They bring in minimal income tax and cost our schools a lot of money. I'm not being racist about it, it's just plain old fact.
@rrhynes They might not pay Income taxes but they will be paying all sorts of taxes in goods and services and they will be doing the jobs Americans dont like and spending money at american shops.
That article shows that Cali taxes are really low on the rich and the Govt is unable to do anything to solve the situation. raising taxes on everyone isnt a liberal position, Raising taxes on the rich and Companies is a liberal position.
@gihaification Mexicans don't do jobs Americans don't like, they do work for money under the table(especially construction) and at lower rates. Democrats/liberals should HATE hispanics for underming their unions, but they know that public unions don't hire illegals, only private unions would, maybe, etc. The educations system will not be saved through higher taxes. Get rid of all the illegals first and their anchor babies and you'll see a change. Prop 13 will NEVER be repealed..
@gihaification Mexicans don't do jobs Americans don't like, they do work for money under the table(especially construction) and at lower rates. Democrats/liberals should HATE hispanics for underming their unions, but they know that public unions don't hire illegals, only private unions would, maybe, etc. The educations system will not be saved through higher taxes. Get rid of all the illegals first and their anchor babies and you'll see a change. Prop 13 will NEVER be repealed..
@gihaification As far as companies go, they're leaving. The ones that can relocate started doing so almost 20 years ago. Texas welcomes them with open arms, for now anyway.
The whole Prop 13 issue got momentum because of older follks that owned their own homes down in Los Angeles and San Francisco where prices skyrocketed in the early 70s. They reassessed the values of the homes yearly and kept raising taxes on fixed income households. They got stopped , finally.
@MerlinYoda So explain how the following examples would be prevented without EPA, Police men art going to go around with Geiger counters or have Chemical degrees to know water and soil conditions, They need to know how to solve crime, THIS ISNT CSI.....
People dumping nuclear waste into the ground,
Companies dumping chemicals into rivers,
And your whole "States should have rights" argument is BS
@gihaification Who says Law enforcement can't consult with private scientists? Why have the EPA just to try to "prevent" what *might* happen? By that logic you must be just fine with everything that comes out of the DHS. I mean, aren't they just protecting us from disasters that *might* happen?
Presently, states can only choose to pass their own minimum wage laws *on top* of federal law. They cannot choose not to be completely without minimum wage laws as most wage-earners fall under the FLSA.
@MerlinYoda They can set the minimum wage as low as they want, but they don’t? I wonder why?
The EPA is a department set up to collect and delivers evidence for a prosecution; do you think the Private could do that without raising prices? They always do, because there aim is to Earn more money, Public’s is to Provide a service.
Your idea would result in companies buying the private sector EPA and stopping investigations.
@gihaification The FSLA trumps any state law that falls *below* the minimum wage set at the federal level, so a state minimum wage law that uses the same minimum wage as the federal law is just political-lip service as most Americans would be covered by the FSLA *anyway*.
As far as EPA goes, you're assuming benevolence in the public sector, do you seriously think that the have never been any investigations put on the back burner or brought to the fore-front due to purely political motives? At least in utilizing private sector resources, competition would allow one to instantly dump a dishonest consulting party and provide incentive to keep honest. In the public sector it may take several election cycles to route out such corruption.
@MerlinYoda Croney Cap needs regulation Its currently a huge problem and it’s in no way being helped by Republican Supreme court nominees Allowing Citizens United. Can you point to any countries that have private sector doing public sector jobs well, Keep costs in mind!
If you srs think that min wage doesn’t work, Can you point to a country that doesn’t have min wage laws and works? Is there any proof to your claim? Cause Haiti doesn’t have Min wage laws and well...
@gihaification Crony Capitalism (by definition) doesn't exist w/o Big Government. Shrink the government's pervasive influence and shrink the Cronyism. You just displayed your ignorance by your comment about Citizens United ruling. The case was about not limiting political speech during the lead-up to an election, that's all. Any claim that the Citizen's United decision "opened the flood doors to foreign campaign contributions" (or similar claim) is ideological hogwash!
@gihaification (part 2a) Garbage collection used to be a "public sector" job yet collection became a private one that was handled more efficiently and (though competing carriers) with lower cost. Also, it used to be that the only way you could send a package was through the post office, now how many carriers do we have that do the same job more efficiently at a total lower cost per parcel?
As far as minimum wage laws, Kong Kong didn't have them until just this year and they did fine w/o one.
@MerlinYoda The postal service can not be completely done by Private sector, The private sector only covers areas that are profitable, Not all post codes are profitable and thus without the public sector many people would be charged alot for a letter or not covered at all.
Have you seen the living conditions in Hong kong? the people you are talking about are suffering so a few rich men can get richer. Dont lie they were fine without one, Go look up the living conditions in Haiti.
@gihaification The post could be made a lot more efficient if it was even partly privatized. The few "unprofitable" (i.e. very rural) areas could opt to remain in public system or pay marginally higher private rates.
HK living conditions are sure better than rest of China. Why do you keep bringing up the straw-man of Haiti? Their government's a mess. Even before the earthquake, they had a dictatorship until 1986 and have had at least 3 coups and a rebellion since. How is that comparable to HK?
@MerlinYoda These nations you say are doing ok actualy have very bad working conditions and living standards, The idea that removing the min wage cuts costs sounds nice, but it never works that way, it just allows the vunderable to be abused and the rich to get huge profits,
Haiti is a good example, The Usa is forcing them not to have a min wage so they can carry on making cheap jeans
@gihaification and when you consider the profit margins they have it’s not like they are struggling mom and pop stores, They are making billions and just want a few million more, and for that, a country has to suffer. Same with HK, They are not struggling they just want a few dollars more for the rich.
This is what Min wage is really about; the min wage was put in place so that the most vulnerable in society could afford to live.
@gihaification I'm apparently not going to convince you on this front seeing as you keep going back to the straw-man of Haiti into our discussions of Hong Kong. Haiti is an independent nation and can do what they please. The US can't (and certainly shouldn't) directly "force" them to do anything. I guess I'll leave this at "agree to disagree"
@MerlinYoda I went to Haiti so you could see some data, It was a good counter to your point, that getting rid of min wage would help keep costs down, when keeping costs down isnt the point, its keeping profits huge, If you can look at that case study and see something different then I guess theres going to be nothing that convinces you.
USPS works, It earns a profit, Can you find any data to support your claims? I gave You a vid showing it works.
@gihaification Wait, are you saying that you have *no* problem with a (supposedly) "private" agency (since it's *technically* not a "government agency") like the USPS having a monopoly on "non-urgent" mail (like 2-3 day first class delivery) *and* making a profit (and get other governmental perks/subsidies, like being exempt from federal taxes)? Seriously? Last I checked USPS was supposed to "break even", not earn a profit. Where do these profits go when they start to accumulate into big money?
As a libertarian I found this to be a great argument. I really thought Sam had a good point on the whole direct vs indirect subsidies. Lee certainly showed the logical inconsistencies of minarchy. I wonder what Sam would say to a Rothbardian who actually believed in private roads?
Prometheusforliberty 9 hours ago
21:41
E.G. Hong Kong - and all they had was liberty. They don't have any natural resources.
E.G. USA in the 1800s. Our ancestors had far better quality of life than in the centuries prior.
CapitalismPrevails 1 day ago
@CapitalismPrevails 50% of housing in Hong kong is government subsidised. libertarians love to ignore this fact among others.
TheJamesvanmiert 13 hours ago
@TheJamesvanmiert Ok so what? What if they weren't subsidized? Then the homemakers would have to work/adapt to a price which would meet the customer demand. BTW, this subsidizing likely started when the Chinese transitioned into power. I bet subsidized housing was made to attract settlers to replace the missing population which fled before the transition. In other words, if Hong Kong were as it was before. without a communist government, they would be better off.
ptevans01 9 hours ago
@ptevans01 The so what is that i places like Hong Kong and Singapore which are touted as free market utopias massivley subsidise the incredibly expensive housing ergo the free market myth fails again.
TheJamesvanmiert 9 hours ago
@TheJamesvanmiert And who says they have to? If they subsidize industries then those in industries would have less incentive to be competitive and the customer will be dumbed down because they didn't make consumer/customer unions. If they unionized, the housing industry would be far more likely to build with better building codes at cheaper prices. The government isn't building the houses. The house construction companies are.
CapitalismPrevails 6 hours ago
This is what I hate about anti-libertarian leftist...it's true, I don't think Lee Doren is not a Libertarian.
Lee, you're a scumbag.
lookit87 1 day ago
they incoherently talked past one another for 23 mins and nothing was really said, the host had no idea what lee was saying and lee was trying his best to make arguments with someone just waiting to pounce on his every mis-speech
benxr2006 4 days ago
Well I don't agree with this host's views at all, but at least he lets his guest talk. Kudos to that.
SkormFlinxingGlock 5 days ago
Sam, you have no idea what you are talking about. The gov can't "invest" in it's own treasuries. T-Bills and Treasury bonds are assets to the holder and a liability of the gov, If the gov hold's it's own t-bills and treasury bonds, the asset and liability cancel each other out. It's like a husband writing a check to his wife drawn on the same bank account, or if each week you wrote a post dated check then spent the money and said your post dated checks were an asset!
christo930 6 days ago
Sam is loosing this bad. He is trying to imply that since, by accident, some people or corporations will do better or worse simply because the gov exists is equal to the gov directly picking winners and losers. The gov didn't build the highway system to benefit Walmart, whereas the gov handed 500 million dollars to Solyndra. This is the difference he doesn't seem to understand, at least at the 15:45 mark
christo930 6 days ago
Comment removed
bradlom80 6 days ago
Comment removed
bradlom80 6 days ago
con't Singapore is successful bcs its a.carefully managed economy, b.ready supply of cheap foreign labour, and c.neighbours are 3rd world slums, making it an attractive base of operations for multinationals who want the resources of the 3rd world, but without the hassles of working there.
vwgolf1991 1 week ago
@vwgolf1991 Because is a libertarians mind if something is successful theres a John Gault out there standing up to labour and GOVT and forcing them to keep out of his way!
Its just one big buzzword extravaganza when you talk to them, where they have to make up some bs position so they can knock it down with "Free market" talking points "Liberty" and the evils of "Socalism!"
If you ever ask for any fact and data to support there case they come up empty.
gihaification 1 week ago
Where does this free-market Singapore myth come from? I live in Singapore, and it is one of the most managed economies in the world. The housing market, telecom, auto sales and ownership, banking and finance are all highly controlled.
vwgolf1991 1 week ago
Debate Dr. Tom E. Woods Jr., he would actually destroy Sedder!
Blkglssjw 1 week ago
6:57 That's stupid because if a company did that then obviously they'd fall out of favor with their customers and they would end up losing profits to other companies who don't do that. Leftists always act like companies can do whatever they want and consumers will just go along with it and keep paying even if they don't want to. They act like big companies are invincible and unaccountable to consumers even though we just saw Kodak, at one time the biggest photo and video company go out of
dubified89 2 weeks ago
business, largely because they held on to the film producing part of their business for too long as consumers decided that they preferred digital recording technology.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
@dubified89 Phone in and debate him!, he accepts libertarian calls, Infact he would put you to the front of the line!
gihaification 2 weeks ago
Why does this radio host have to yell every word he says? Is he trying to convince himself that he's right?
dubified89 2 weeks ago
@gihaification you present a false dichotomy, reducing regulations overall doesn't necessitate letting major corporations "pollute and destroy ecosystems".
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
...and he (Lee Doren) is not a libertarian in my opinion - many contradictions.
AussieAustrianBlog 2 weeks ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Agreed, but I don't think he claims to be purely libertarian. I've seen him identified as libertarian/conservative, so he would be straddling the fence on certain issues.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
Unfortunately, this libertarian doesn't do a good job. Sam's points are easy to counter..
AussieAustrianBlog 2 weeks ago
@AussieAustrianBlog Ya, would be easy to counter if Sam actually let them finish. It's so hypocritical when people complain that O'Reily talks over guest but don't when "Liberals" like Sam do it.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jnutzz 2 weeks ago
I want to see Sam try to debate Stefan Molyneux. That would be amazing if they did debate.
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda I'm glad you agree that there are services that are critical and needed.
Still have you compared the USA's health care to any other major country?
photius com/rankings/#HEALTH
You might notice something, Countries that have public health care seem to do better then private systems. I wonder why???
Well actualy I dont wonder, I wonder how you will ignore the facts and still push for private....
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification I never said there are "services that are critical and needed" (and notice that you appear to have abandoned a prior thread of debate). However there *are* functions of government that are proper to protecting individual life (as opposed to "health"), liberty, and property (e.g. law enforcement). State socialized health care (i.e. public heath care) violates basic property rights by the state taking money (though taxes) from one group of citizens for the benefit of another group.
MerlinYoda 3 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda I ran from a topic? (Miners, Min Wage)? If I drop a topic Its because I'm either board going round in circles or I cant debate a topic where people just make up facts and reality.
Violates property rights? are you srs? your not going to bother talking about how 1 system is clearly superior with data and facts to back it up, and go for some belief that libertarians have?
If you had data to show that Private is better we could talk, But you don't so its fringe issues.
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification .Just who made you judge of what are "fringe issues" and thus not worthy of discussion? Does it only qualify as "fringe" if it rattles your state-loving world-view supported by cherry-picked examples and straw-man arguments (esp.against libertarian principles). I'm sure the British Parliament considered "no taxation without representation" a "fringe" issue as it was only being raised by those on the American Colonies.
Apparently cherry-picked "data" trumps elementary logic, huh?
MerlinYoda 3 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Tell you what, Prove me wrong!
Show me some "Cherry picked" data that supports your view! Show me facts that back up your view that a Private health care system could cover everyone and out perform a Socalist system!
I've given you world rankings showing every country that beats you is socalist.
Talking about "property rights" is just libertarian code speak, It means nothing like a buzz word. Has no real meaning as it changes all the time.
FYI (Usa was right to split)
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification There you go again... putting words in my mouth. When have I said that a private system would cover "everyone". What point would it serve to cover perfectly healthy people? People only need care when debilitated. Health insurance can be affordable if you reserve it for actual emergencies/catastrophic situations.
"Property rights" is code speak? Good to know, so next time I needs something you possess, then I can just take it from you (though the state even) since I need it more?
MerlinYoda 3 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda If it doesnt cover everyone then whats the point? not all people know when there gonner get hit by a car or get aids or catch a bizzare House esc virus.
"What point would it serve to cover perfectly healthy people?" Cause sick people dont start of sick, They were once healthy people too.
"can be affordable" You have had years for PI to evolve into this system it hasn't it has just found a way to get more and more of your money and provide very little else.
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification You miss my point entirely. What you describe are situations for catastrophic insurance which *private* insurance plans could cover easily such that only the dirt poor would need outside assistance (through charity and/or Medicare). A big problem is the level of coverage mandated under the PPACA that kicks in 2014 (unless overturned by SCOTUS). If you expect insurance to pay for every little thing it's going to be expensive!
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda I dont like mandated health insurance, But its a bad system but its the only way to get converage as GOP refused a public option. (even though every country with it have better health care and cheaper)
Yet the problem is who pays for broke people who turn up at a hospital dying? The tax payers.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gihaification "But its a bad system but its the only way to get converage as GOP refused a public option"
Suuure, it's not as if the Democrats didn't have a majority in both the House and Senate when PPACA was being debated in 2009-2010. They could have pushed through whatever they wanted if they tried. Even though they were short of 60 Democrats in the Senate, it's not as if they couldn't have easily peeled of a more Left-leaning republican or two to get through what they wanted originally
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda "Property rights" the area is soo broad and open ended you could literaly make anything a property rights case. There is No issue that could not fringe on a libertarians "property rights" thats why its code speak, its just something a libertarian talks about without any real concept that some times you dont have property rights when your doing something batshit insane on them.
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification Keeping in mind "property" isn't limited to land/real estate, under what situation could I rightfully take your property by (in your words) "doing something batshit insane"? If set off M80's on your front lawn every morning and it wasn't explicitly against the law but was disturbing your neighbors a half a mile away, would that be "insane" enough? Please, enlighten me, at what point may I rightfully take your property by force?
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Ok Heres my proposition to you,
Whats to stop me buy a house next to yours, digging a hole and dumping toxic waste into the ground coving it up and then selling the house.
Concidering the fact that you dont have giga counters running 24/7 and I was semi discreet about it, I earn a huge profit getting rid of waste and you get cancer?
Is this example extreme enough for you to want nuclear wage regulated?
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Still waiting on any evidence you can produce to show me how private health care is better then public.
This is just 1 big theory trip for you. I can give you national statistics showing that Public is cheaper/better for the country, You can only try to spin the lie that its unfair that a rich man pay for a poor.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda But still, You fail to prove any sort of data that supports your arguement, You call BS on me without proof,
Come on, I thought libertarians would at least have some sort of proof that there system could work, I can point to my system working better then yours in other places (sure its not perfect, but its a dam good start!)
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification Seeing as you admit that no system is perfect, do you expect a libertarian system to be perfect? Are you holding libertairain-based systems to a higher standard than your own ideal system? If so, than there'll never be anything I can do to convince you as the field is skewed in your system's favor. A system based on personal liberty may seem too chaotic to some, but it's a fair sight better than one whose goal is "social justice" as opposed to simply equal treatment under the law.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda I expect them to produce a system superior to the current system or systems with statistics showing how they function.
What I do not accept is a system with obvious flaws that libertarians shrug off and say "Well I wont be one of those "left behind" so who cares!"
This "Liberty" system seems just to give "Liberty" to the rich and everyone else gets left behind. Liberty is just a Buzz word for you, It means nothing, Its just something you can throw at people.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification Liberty is a buzzword?!?!? Since when? If that's the case then *our own Constitution* is based on a "buzzword". Being "left behind" is a risk in *any* system, even a system that has a public payer option as all it takes is some government bureaucracy to deny payment for a procedure for some mindless, authoritarian reason (like something along the lines of "you've lived long enough so we're not covering your procedure"). Your ideals entails shades of theft and/or slavery.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Its a buzz world in the sense that somehow having unlimited liberty is the goal, No Having set freedoms and set restrictions is an accepted reality, There are some things you are simply not free to do. Yet libertarians dont acknowledge this, They try to frame this as "Statists" want everything dictated to them. No. I want some clearly drawn lines. Which we all agree to give up this freedom for the safety of us all.
no guns in kindergardens
limits on access materials
etc
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification Having "unlimited liberty" is only the goal of an Anarchistic society (i.e. no state). That is *not* the same as a libertarian society (would have a state but much smaller in scope to simply protect citizens rights through laws).
"Statists" are simply those that would put more power in the government over private citizenry (basically the end of the spectrum opposite the libertarian end). You have "clearly drawn lines" in a libertarian society. There's just fewer lines.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Can you give any evidence of examples of corps over burdened by regs, or any corps that said "We would create this new tech but regs!"
Its just more libertarian myths!
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification It's not possible to give examples because (like I said) they don't even have the resources to *start up*. Unless I go around to every Tom, Dick, and Harriett and ask how many of them weren't able to start up a business because regulatory costs were too much and they could not make enough money fast to make a profit then there's no way to give a tangible example. It's not like people come out to the media and say, "my business went under because of regulatory compliance costs".
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda This here is just to show how lazy you are.
news.google com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19800612&id=0IZUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MY8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3936,5521395
First search up from "buisness crushed by regulation"
You are just throwing stuff out there and when challenged on it dont even bother to do a basic google search, instead you sprout rubbish
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification it's lack of time, not laziness. I'm checking these comments on breaks at work. I can't waste time on the 'net searching. I have a job to do. Furthermore that is a small article that merely states a claim by one source, and no financial data. If I sent you that in defense of my position, you'd just throw it back in my face as pitiful one-off example that proved nothing. At least I know I wouldn't put much credit in an article w/o hard data to back it up.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda the point being there clearly is articles out there saying exactly what you want! find them for me please!
I'm sorry if I was a little strong with that comment though.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
gihaification 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MerlinYoda Give me an example of any Govt denying an op where they give that quote,
Its just another myth libertarians make up. As someone whos grandmother chose to die rather then take more chemo that might give her 3-6 more months. I understand that end of life care is srs topic, and not to be demonised by Sarah Palin as "Death panels"
"Slavery and theft"? erm... No again libertarians having to go to extremes in talk because facts dont match up to there reality.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification Heres another basic example of crazy stuff people do on there land.
Can someone build an unsafe stucture on there land? Now you might say sure let them build what ever if they have some land,
What happens if there stucture falls on your house?
What if there house is attached to yours?
This isnt a "liberty" issue, the building regs arnt slavery/thieft. They are there for safety.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification If an unsafe structure on somebody else's property falls on your property, and causes damage you can sue. I don't know any situations where houses are attached to each other which are owned by separate parties (including the land they stand on.
I never said building regs were slavery/thieft. The slavery/theft comment was w.r.t socialized health insurance (esp. single payer) .... a topic *you* brought up. I just wasn't able to make it apparent due to the comment character limit.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda houses sharing a wall is common in the UK and europe.
Suing - I'm a firm believer in prevention rather then Cures. Preventing people from commiting stupid acts where possible should be an aim, I certanly dont think I would get enough money if my loved one died due to my neighbours stupidity.
But building regs infring on your liberty right? if you disagree to this then im assuming Liberty realy is just a buzz word.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification So in order to prevent dental expenses, would you mandate regular proof of tooth-brushing? I mean that would cut down drastically one dental related expenses wouldn't it?
... or maybe you could mandate that every citizen exercise at least one hour a week at an approved gym (to which you must buy membership) to cut down on health care costs and fine/tax people who do not buy membership and exercise sufficiently?
At what point is your "prevention" angle too restrictive?
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@gihaification The wall may appear "common" but if you looked in public record, I'm guessing the property line would run either through the middle, or is given joint ownership such that all parties involved must agree to modifications thereof (assuming they actually own the property the "shared" wall inhabits). In this case, if you, say, take a brick out of the wall it's not logically possible to not be infringing on property that is not of your sole possession.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda so the situation isnt a simple as "more liberties!"? wow who would of guessed!
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Heres something for you to listen too then
prweb com/releases/georgejarkesy/regulationbuster/prweb9124808.htm
'Regulation Busters' which focuses on excessive regulation.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda This is the simple truth.
You can cling to your beliefs (which clearly you can not show would improve or beat the social system)
Or you can accept that compared to the current system Socal health care is superior to now,
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons
Or you can keep the current system and loose out,
If you truely cared about the deficit and saving lives you would agree with me
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification more false dichotomies, Social heath care (really social health insurance) is not the end-all be-all when "caring about the deficit" and "saving lives". Also, I don't want to "keep the current system", it's flawed and not at all a free market by classic measure.
At least w/ a more federalist society your state could run hog-wild with socialized medicine let other states decide whether they wanted it or not. Your's imposes it nationally, offering few (if any) alternatives.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda When you see that many countries adopting a system and showing it clearly works superior to the USA system, The "Free market" system is doing exactly what we expect it todo, Find a superior way to increase its riches and keep providing the min amount to service.
Also Every country has a free market solution running along its public option. This does not kill the "free market" it only provides a base line so no one is left uncovered and there are no unpaid bills.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda More libertarian theory. I wouldnt mind if libertarians could prove there theories or accepted the superior system untill they could, but they refuse to accept facts that dont line up with there wishful thinking. You could adopt the system, save money.
"Least the libertarians are living up to there claims of "gov spending too much"
But no, Give me an answer to the non payer problem....
kff org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=35965
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification what did I say that was a "theory" in my last reply? What I stated was logically consistant. *If* certain actor in society better respected the federalist model we have and didn't try to implement everything on a national level, then instead the populace of a state wanting single payer could implement that in their state and run hog-wild with it and the populace of a state that didn't want it then wouldn't be forced to have it. What part of that is "theory"?
Also, invalid URL.
MerlinYoda 1 week ago
@MerlinYoda kff org/uninsured/index.cfm seems they updated there reports, Subject still stands, What does a state do when an uninsurred person is treated, they cant get money from a broke person so the bill is passed to the state and the bill is carried by the tax payer.
the report had the number at about $135 billion a year, (if i remember correctly)
Problem with the "states rights" is easy, What happens when people come from 1 state to another where laws and different?
gihaification 1 week ago
@gihaification If you live in a public option state and then drive into a mandated insurance state and get in a wreck, who pays?
Its a "heory as you cant provide any facts or data that support your ideas, There is no concesses that what you say would happen,
I can point to public health care countries and show you have it is cheaper and saves lives. I can show you the lobbing of the health care providers to increase there costs and stop Govt regs forcing them to negotiate drugs.
gihaification 1 week ago
@gihaification Wrong I live in Canada its almost third world health care. Socialized medicine is terrible, many people die waiting for there treatments. Trust me you do not want nationalized health care, the line ups are extreme, and I've been sent away with broken bones and not treated waited 3 weeks just to get looked at lol.
TreeSmoke1999 1 week ago
@TreeSmoke1999 Can you in anyway prove that Socialized medicine is worse than Private system?
here’s the hidden truth in what you’re saying, There is Queues because EVERYONE is able to get treatments. In the private system is less of a queue because so many people live in poverty and can afford the cost of their treatment.
You can point at a few horrible cases, the exception that proves the rule.
I can point at the national statistics that show how superior it is.
gihaification 1 week ago
@MerlinYoda "Social justice" is not what we are trying to achieve, we want a system where it regardless of where/why/how you were born you have a chance to live and achieve in life. If your system doesnt give people right at the bottom the chance to rise then it is no system, it is economic slavery.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@gihaification sounds like a libertarian society to me. Everyone equal under the law and no one gets special favors (you know, favors like getting "bailed out" by the taxpayers via the federal government). Also large corporations benefit from heavy regulation in that it raise the bar for entry into a given market. Over-burdensome regulation discourages small start-ups and solidifies large corporations' hold on the market due simply to the costs of regulatory compliance.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@gihaification No, you point to a system that you assume "works better", but don't account for the external costs of living under said system that can't be measured .... unless you can accurately count the loss of *potential* wealth in countries (India for example .. last I checked) which have so much bureaucracy that it's near impossible to lift oneself out of poverty through entrepreneurship and thus keeps the poor in poverty because of the limited number of businesses licenses handed out.
MerlinYoda 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda If the regs and laws were such a burden you would have people who said "I would create this engine But this law saying that it needs this XXX or YYY means I cant create these new jobs"
India? I dont think over reg is the problem there, Did you know how poluted the water is there?
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Pollution_of_the_Ganges
If you look into how polluted the river is with medical waste well.... This could be USA if not for EPA.
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Is there anything in the libertarian belief system (I'm going to start refering to it as a faith soon) that can be backed up with data or facts? Or is it just all holistic nonsense that only works in a dream land?
gihaification 2 weeks ago
@MerlinYoda Your not one of those Sovereign Citizens are you? someone with a radicaly differing view of the constitution. Who thinks that the Govt is taking all your money from taxation and you shouldnt have to pay any taxes. That some how the Govt doesnt have the right to tell you anything?
It's cool if you are, but I just wana know how far into the deep end you are.
gihaification 3 weeks ago
@gihaification Sorry, never heard of "Sovereign Citizens" before. So, no, you cannot slap that label on me.
MerlinYoda 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MerlinYoda What do you think your paying tax dollars for?
We pay tax dollars so we can provide a national service to keep bureaucracy lower. Use buying power to lower costs and because theres somethings we cant have multiple of trying to compete (police, Fire fighters, power grids)
There is no country that has a Govt like your asking for that works.
Check out
photius com/rankings/#GENERAL
You will see time and time again Top countries have Social programs and regulation
gihaification 1 month ago
As a libertarian I should be able to opt out of social security and all the government insurances. You liberals and progressives act like you have some new idea on what America should be, it isnt new. Our founders saw every kind of government, they knew that at the end of the day you cant have big government and a free society at the same time.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Heres the catch, What happens if you opt out of social security and health insurance, then later in life get sick or are poor and starving?
Do you suddenly ask for Govt help or are you willing to die on the streets? Cause USA libertarians talk alot about there liberty yet when push comes to shove suddenly survival instincts kick in and there running to ask Govt to save them.
v=y6grCka0FOg
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification The concept of winners and losers shouldn't be misconstrued with the concept of winners and people who lose and get bailed out. No... when you lose, you lose. People that opt out of social security and health insurance should be taking their own measures to insure themselves. If they aren't and something bad happens to them, there is no government bailout. There are private charities that may help them, but government is not a charity and shouldn't be treated as such.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 1 month ago
@ThoseWhoStayUofM yup, yet that NEVER HAPPENS. Even Ayn Rand herself went to the govt as she couldnt aford the costs of her health care.
Its completely idiotic to believe that people will simply say "Hey I guessed wrong I'll lay down and die now" Most people understand that "Men do not despise a thief when he steals a loaf of bread when he is hungry" IE when someone is desperate to survive they will do anything, yet for a libertarian to expect human nature to change is stupid.
gihaification 1 month ago
@ThoseWhoStayUofM However heres the real kicker, Every single major world power who ranks higher then the USA in healthcare has a Govt socialist system. No single world power has adopted a Libertarian health care system, now why is that? surely if there was a grain of truth in it someone would of tried it out?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification I would go to family and friends for help. If they cant help me then I would ask God. If god cant help me then I would tell the government to go fuck itself and I would die. I probably wouldnt die in the streets, I would rather die in the woods or something. I would like the government to not even have the option to help me so I wouldnt even have a reason to ask them. As far as starving, I know how to hunt. And poor probably wouldnt happen as I would save my money.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Wow, I realise your a real right winger and all but have you looked at the standard of living for any of the socalist countries you hate? not just listend to Libertarians or right wing radio but really looked at the working lives of them?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Oh please explain to me how fantastical the living conditions are in socialist countries. I'd also love to know how you think you can maintain individual liberty and socialism in the same breath. And yes I have looked at socialist countries and no I dont listen to libertarian radio.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob ok I get it, you really dont understand what socialism is, You just heard its a bad word and is in some way anti freedom/liberty.
photius com/rankings/#GENERAL
Alot of comparisons and data here. You can see that some Countries keep hitting the top of the lists. And supprise supprise they are the countries that have some good Socalist Policies.
Then again, you expect me to believe that you would lay down and die. How many people do that 1-2%? rest go to the Govt
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Tell me how socialism will work without the democratic majority telling me how to live. And your last sentence just supports my comments. 1-2% will not go to govt. The vast majority will, so why should my life be affected by the sheepish majority?
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob I think you misunderstand, Socialism is about putting a basic safety net in place that no matter how your life plays out, you do not have to worry that you will be left to die in the gutter. Now I realise you think most people who fail in life its due to their own poor choices, But what about someone who is crippled due to an accident and are unable to support themselves are they sheep?
What if it was you, Paralysed by a car crash and they never catch the guy?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification No I understand. I just dont agree with your basic ideas. I dont think I should be taxed to pay for the accidents of others. If I get in an accident and am paralysed then my family will unplug the life support, because I have already told them I dont want to live like that. I have no problem with people who need help, getting help. I just dont agree that everyone should pay for it. This is about how people are helped, not whether to help them or not.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob You seem to be certain that there will be no change to your life that might effect your decision. What if you had children aged 5-10, would you still want to die?
How should people be getting help?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification I didnt have kids at 10. Because I am not a fucking idiot. If I was paralyzed i would want to die, it wouldnt matter if I had kids or not. I dont want to live paralyzed. If I cant take a piss by myself then I dont want to live. The government should be smaller so people have more money from their paychecks. Less taxes means more money in peoples pockets. Now if someone needs help, people put their money together and help the person out.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Who said anything about having children at 10? I said If you had a child who was 10, now maybe your 20 you put your age in. You could be 30 in my example,
So you would choose death even if you had children who need a father figure? You are pretty selfish! (But thats the core of Libertarianism!)
Also the Myth that people helped out the poor before wellfare is a joke. If people were helping each other out then why were there poor people asking for money from the Govt?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification I must have misread your comment then. But it doesnt matter because if I cant independently live on my own then I would not want to live. You can call me selfish and make that stretch all you want. (Emotion is at the heart of liberalism, not logic.) Poor people ask for money from government because they are uneducated and lack skills. The govt loves the idea of a populous that is dependent on it. Thus you have generations on welfare.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Not all people on Welfare are uneducated or lazy. Quite a few are like you, They were responsable people who were unlucky in life and had there savings wiped out, They are then stuck in a rut that they simply can not get out of,
I gave you that list of countries so you could compare you ideology to working countries, If you bothered to look you would see the best countries have social systems so that people who are unlucky can get a help and be productive again.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification But your list of nations is pointless as all countries are different. America could never afford welfare on the level we have and soon will have while also funding global war. Socialism wouldnt work in America because America is a war nation. This is why America is spreading "democracy". When the time comes the governments want the people to beg for someone to save them. Then they can step in and offer safety, welfare, in exchange for a lil self dependence.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob How are all nations that different? we all have basicaly the same problems and demands. That list of nations isnt pointless, Its just inconvient too you because it shows how wrong you are, Socialism works and Libertarianism doens't work, Just look at Somalia, The libertarian paradise!
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification You doubt a church or community could help someone in need yet you want government to do it? Anytime you give any form of government authority, you lose freedom. YOU CANT HAVE SOCIALISM AND LIBERTY! Unless of course the govt lets us opt out of the plan, which they never do.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Why cant you have socialism and liberty? france/german/uk/norway/sweden are all free and have some socialism,
Just cause Glen beck says something doesnt make it so.
Also Churches would only help people who accept that religion or accept biblical rule. I dont want to be forced to praise a God so I dont have to die on the streets in your world.
Also Yet again, if Ron was right and churches were helping, Why was the rate of povety so high before Welfare?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification France and Germany have freedom? Man your perception of what freedom is really makes me wonder. None of the nations you listed even has national independence. They are dependent of the UN and other centralized forms of power. And dont even dare to argue to me that they are doing okay. Europe is in economic collapse. If something is inconvenient to me, I would explain why. Im not here to avoid your points, Im here to bash sense into your brain
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob They dont have freedom? Please explain what freedoms there lacking and how there oppressed? Explain how You have more Liberties please!
Dependant on the UN?
LOL USA IS IN THE UN! ON NOES! USA HAS NO FREEDOMS!
Sure Things could be better in the Europe, Same as things could be better in USA. Europe only needs stimulus, Same as USA would of collapsed if Obama didnt stimulate your Ecom. Your lucky he did.
This is just getting better and better! your insanity is showing!
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Socialism destroys property rights. It also affects domestic law. Most socialist nations have strict gun laws which reduce the ability of the people to defend against government expansion. Such expansion is certain in socialist nations as more people will end up in need of government help and therefore lose self dependence. USA is in UN but is not in the EU. What I meant to say was EU in my previous comment but both are the same thing. They are centralization.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Care to give any cases that show what you’re talking about, it sounds like your making up problems that don’t exist. Also an example where socialists needed to fight back against their Govt in modern times?
EU, do you know anything about the EU and how "centralisation" helps? Do you understand the benefits to this or are you just throwing out terms trying to get away from the point that Socialism clearly works as shown by the data given you.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification You talk about me avoiding a point then you insert Somalia, typical liberal argument. Somalia is nothing like what libertarians talk about. Somalia doesnt have the communication and technological abilities of America. And in a libertarian society, technology is vital. It allows citizens to know what corporations are doing and provides safety to the free market. If you want to play that game then how is Socialism working in Greece? Also I hate Glen Beck and FOX.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob so you’re telling me that Libertarian societies only work if there’s Technology and infrastructure already? So Libertarian land can’t come about on a clean slate? Then how will it continue to build and expand if it can’t come about from a clean slate?
So it’s a complete crock of shit, Glad you agree!
Socialism isn't what ruined Greece, Austerity and Goldman sacs created this situation.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification No i didnt say that. I said modern technology is vital to keep citizens informed in a free market. Your making jumps in your other questions. Libertarian society can work anywhere, it just has to be pure. Just like you cant be kinda pregnant, you cant have kinda libertarian society, it is either all or nothing. Also gladman sachs has direct relationship with goldman sachs and also austerity is a consequence of failed social policy.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob So explain why Somailia Isnt working then! It has a Small Govt, It has an army, It has police and justice system, Yet the "Job creators" arn't running over there creating wealth, Why is that?
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Job creators arent creating wealth anywhere really so Somalia is not a good pinpoint spot. In a libertarian society wealth accumulation is slow but is steady. You mention Europe needs stimulus, that is the last thing they need. Stimulus will increase the costs and taxes. We got into this problem with too much spending so more stimulus will only compound the problems. American economy is collapsing, Obama only delayed it until he isnt in office anymore.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob "Stimulus will increase the costs and taxes. " This right here shows how little you know of Economics, You won't find any creditable Economist who holds this view who isn’t bought by the Koch brothers. There’s no proof or any facts backing this up.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Stimulus spending in America increased our national debt. That debt is our income taxes. Now instead of raising taxes which would be political suicide the government chose to just increase debt and quicken inflation. This is why costs of goods in America are rising because the value of the dollar is decreasing. America's debt just reached our GDP. This occurred because we spent too much money on welfare and warfare. So we cant fix it with more spending.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@gihaification I find it sad that you fell for the lie. Government and private institutions worked together to make alot of money for the elites. You then blame free markets(which were not the cause) and you then want government (socialism/communism) to protect you from those privates. Now if not for government private institutions couldnt do what they did. Private corporations cant oppress you if you remove the tool they use to expand. And that tool is big government.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Communism? where have I asked for that?
Again channeling Glen Beck!
You still havent shown how those Socalist countries are failing, Your just throwing out libertarian ideals that have never worked for anyone. No proof or data to back anything up!
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Damn you are good at making jumps. I was referring to big government, which is socialism and communism. I never said you said communism. And I am explaining how socialist countries are failing. Hell I am explaining to you how the whole global economy will collapse.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@gihaification What needs to happen is the debt needs to be eliminated. Doing that will be messy and hard on the common man. This is why when faced with economic collapse(which is inevitable with current policies) governments chose to spend more money to keep the machine running. So it is a simple choice. Either permanent economic oppression or living at your means, which wont be much. But you want to keep your iphone and other crap so you will choose economic servitude.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob You srs need an Economics lesson, Ron Paul's crazy dreams have no basis in reality. USA had a Stimulus and instantly the econ improves, Bushes tax cuts and less regs did nothing.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification US government spent trillions of dollars and maybe created a few though thousand jobs. But if you look at the ratio of spending to actual creation of jobs, the stimulus was a failure. Bush tax cuts and less regs? Well its not as if those two things will create a libertarian society. Bush cut taxes while increasing spending, that is not libertarian economics. And his regulation cuts are an example of govt and privates working together to screw the common man.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Where do you get your numbers from? few thousand? Try millions,
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
You keep throwing out these baseless statements time and time again, I could go on debating you but its getting dull watching you create an alternate reality as this one doesn't seem to line up to anything you have said.
Either come at me with something with creditable facts/data or im going to ignore your baseless claims.
gihaification 1 month ago
@gihaification Actually I think it is people like YOU who are selfish. I am not going around asking people to pay more taxes so the govt can give me things. I am asking for the govt to leave me alone. If I die, let me die. If I live, let me live. THAT is liberty. And people could handle healthcare costs if they didnt spend their money on entertainment and plastic chinese crap from walmart. You know who is selfish, the Americans citizens who dont practice self responsibility.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
@Jononutoob Also The situation had you Paralysed not in a coma on life support. Your family would be euthanizing you.
gihaification 1 month ago
And leftists are arbitrarily deciding how much the rich should pay in taxes. Double edged sword, dude. The reason why you can't be specific about things like how much should be spent on courts and military is because it DEPENDS on the circumstances.
cbl2988 2 months ago
lee doren is a closet conservative corporate apologist pile of shit, and you're a stereotypical retarded liberal. i hope you both die of gangrene.
tonygmilan7 2 months ago
Now that we know that is all about where you place that line, the next debate should be about specifics, like towards the end talking about Social Security, etc... Another thing to note is that a responsible libertarian government would have a transition phase, you can't just remove social security and medicare just like that. Again, awesome debate. I hope you host Lee Doren again, keep up the good work!
erikelrojo99 2 months ago
Great debate!me as a Libertarian agree with Sam Seder on the line.Where is that arbitrary line?Lee Doran got it right,we're not reaching for utopia and fantasy land,as Sam said there will be indirect subsidies.What "realistic" libertarians want is just less government and NOT anarchy, I have come across many liberals confusing anarchism with libertarianism. We among libertarians have different places of where we could put that line that Sam was talking about, but they are all close to each other
erikelrojo99 2 months ago
I'm from Brazil and I'm actually grateful for Americans taxpayers who subsidized the government development of computers, the Internet, R&D incentives on the MIT and Silicon Valley... The world would be at lest 50 years backward if it wasn't for these.
luizcadu 2 months ago
Liberals can only pay for their ideology with an increase of taxes and/or fines. Liberals want bigger government which has to paid for by more taxes or fines. If everybody worked for the government, where would the taxes come from? Hmmm. If the liberals had their way, everybody would have subsidized health care, pensions and collective bargaining. Even liberals aren't stupid enough to believe that would work. They know better. It's about favoritism, prejudice and entitlement.
rrhynes 2 months ago
@rrhynes you seem to have no idea what liberals want other then mouthing Rush's bear farts and Conservative talking points,
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I'm asking/saying what I've observed over my 47 years of living. If I thought liberal /progressive ideas would work.......in the long run, I'd be all for them. They won't so we better take a different path. You guys have had your turn and it failed. Time to change course. By the way, I live in California so don't think I'm not very familiar with your ways of running a government. I live it every day.
rrhynes 2 months ago
Comment removed
gihaification 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rrhynes how have liberals had their chance? I think you are making some common misconceptions as to what Liberals want and what fox news loves to claim,
What did liberals do to California? Please explain to me what ideas liberals have implemented that have ruined that state?
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification Collective bargaining for public employees, bi-lingual education, day care for losers that can't keep their panties on, diversion of water in the aquaduct for an insignificant fish whiile ignoring the benefits of valley farming(for whom their precious voting base works), gasoline taxes that aren't used to do a damn thing but create more government jobs, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. Our legislature is run by liberals and it shows. We're broke and getting broker.
rrhynes 2 months ago
@rrhynes All of those are small potatoes, and do not srsly impact the problems with the state, I'd argue this artical sums up the problems;
theatlantic com/business/archive/2009/05/should-we-blame-californias-government-or-its-citizens-for-the-deficit/18288/
Let me know what you think.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification That's just more rhetoric about Prop 13, passed in 1976 or so.The libs have had 35 years to get used to the idea that taxing people out of their homes isn't going to be accepted by the citizens. That entire article is about that very issue. Jerry Brown , our current governor...again, signed collective bargaining rights in as a law about that same year. A colossal fuck up that gave the green light to special interests have been raping our assholes every since.
rrhynes 2 months ago
@gihaification One of the biggest problems with California are Mexicans. They bring in minimal income tax and cost our schools a lot of money. I'm not being racist about it, it's just plain old fact.
rrhynes 2 months ago
@rrhynes They might not pay Income taxes but they will be paying all sorts of taxes in goods and services and they will be doing the jobs Americans dont like and spending money at american shops.
That article shows that Cali taxes are really low on the rich and the Govt is unable to do anything to solve the situation. raising taxes on everyone isnt a liberal position, Raising taxes on the rich and Companies is a liberal position.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification Mexicans don't do jobs Americans don't like, they do work for money under the table(especially construction) and at lower rates. Democrats/liberals should HATE hispanics for underming their unions, but they know that public unions don't hire illegals, only private unions would, maybe, etc. The educations system will not be saved through higher taxes. Get rid of all the illegals first and their anchor babies and you'll see a change. Prop 13 will NEVER be repealed..
rrhynes 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gihaification Mexicans don't do jobs Americans don't like, they do work for money under the table(especially construction) and at lower rates. Democrats/liberals should HATE hispanics for underming their unions, but they know that public unions don't hire illegals, only private unions would, maybe, etc. The educations system will not be saved through higher taxes. Get rid of all the illegals first and their anchor babies and you'll see a change. Prop 13 will NEVER be repealed..
rrhynes 2 months ago
@gihaification As far as companies go, they're leaving. The ones that can relocate started doing so almost 20 years ago. Texas welcomes them with open arms, for now anyway.
The whole Prop 13 issue got momentum because of older follks that owned their own homes down in Los Angeles and San Francisco where prices skyrocketed in the early 70s. They reassessed the values of the homes yearly and kept raising taxes on fixed income households. They got stopped , finally.
rrhynes 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MerlinYoda So explain how the following examples would be prevented without EPA, Police men art going to go around with Geiger counters or have Chemical degrees to know water and soil conditions, They need to know how to solve crime, THIS ISNT CSI.....
People dumping nuclear waste into the ground,
Companies dumping chemicals into rivers,
And your whole "States should have rights" argument is BS
en.wikipedia org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
They have the ability to choose.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification Who says Law enforcement can't consult with private scientists? Why have the EPA just to try to "prevent" what *might* happen? By that logic you must be just fine with everything that comes out of the DHS. I mean, aren't they just protecting us from disasters that *might* happen?
Presently, states can only choose to pass their own minimum wage laws *on top* of federal law. They cannot choose not to be completely without minimum wage laws as most wage-earners fall under the FLSA.
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@MerlinYoda They can set the minimum wage as low as they want, but they don’t? I wonder why?
The EPA is a department set up to collect and delivers evidence for a prosecution; do you think the Private could do that without raising prices? They always do, because there aim is to Earn more money, Public’s is to Provide a service.
Your idea would result in companies buying the private sector EPA and stopping investigations.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification The FSLA trumps any state law that falls *below* the minimum wage set at the federal level, so a state minimum wage law that uses the same minimum wage as the federal law is just political-lip service as most Americans would be covered by the FSLA *anyway*.
(continued in part 2)
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@gihaification (part 2)
As far as EPA goes, you're assuming benevolence in the public sector, do you seriously think that the have never been any investigations put on the back burner or brought to the fore-front due to purely political motives? At least in utilizing private sector resources, competition would allow one to instantly dump a dishonest consulting party and provide incentive to keep honest. In the public sector it may take several election cycles to route out such corruption.
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@MerlinYoda Croney Cap needs regulation Its currently a huge problem and it’s in no way being helped by Republican Supreme court nominees Allowing Citizens United. Can you point to any countries that have private sector doing public sector jobs well, Keep costs in mind!
If you srs think that min wage doesn’t work, Can you point to a country that doesn’t have min wage laws and works? Is there any proof to your claim? Cause Haiti doesn’t have Min wage laws and well...
gihaification 2 months ago
Comment removed
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
Comment removed
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gihaification Crony Capitalism (by definition) doesn't exist w/o Big Government. Shrink the government's pervasive influence and shrink the Cronyism. You just displayed your ignorance by your comment about Citizens United ruling. The case was about not limiting political speech during the lead-up to an election, that's all. Any claim that the Citizen's United decision "opened the flood doors to foreign campaign contributions" (or similar claim) is ideological hogwash!
(continued in part 2a)
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@gihaification (part 2a) Garbage collection used to be a "public sector" job yet collection became a private one that was handled more efficiently and (though competing carriers) with lower cost. Also, it used to be that the only way you could send a package was through the post office, now how many carriers do we have that do the same job more efficiently at a total lower cost per parcel?
As far as minimum wage laws, Kong Kong didn't have them until just this year and they did fine w/o one.
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@MerlinYoda The postal service can not be completely done by Private sector, The private sector only covers areas that are profitable, Not all post codes are profitable and thus without the public sector many people would be charged alot for a letter or not covered at all.
Have you seen the living conditions in Hong kong? the people you are talking about are suffering so a few rich men can get richer. Dont lie they were fine without one, Go look up the living conditions in Haiti.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification The post could be made a lot more efficient if it was even partly privatized. The few "unprofitable" (i.e. very rural) areas could opt to remain in public system or pay marginally higher private rates.
HK living conditions are sure better than rest of China. Why do you keep bringing up the straw-man of Haiti? Their government's a mess. Even before the earthquake, they had a dictatorship until 1986 and have had at least 3 coups and a rebellion since. How is that comparable to HK?
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@MerlinYoda These nations you say are doing ok actualy have very bad working conditions and living standards, The idea that removing the min wage cuts costs sounds nice, but it never works that way, it just allows the vunderable to be abused and the rich to get huge profits,
Haiti is a good example, The Usa is forcing them not to have a min wage so they can carry on making cheap jeans
articles.businessinsider com/2011-06-03/news/30003110_1_minimum-wage-haitians-garment-workers
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification and when you consider the profit margins they have it’s not like they are struggling mom and pop stores, They are making billions and just want a few million more, and for that, a country has to suffer. Same with HK, They are not struggling they just want a few dollars more for the rich.
This is what Min wage is really about; the min wage was put in place so that the most vulnerable in society could afford to live.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification I'm apparently not going to convince you on this front seeing as you keep going back to the straw-man of Haiti into our discussions of Hong Kong. Haiti is an independent nation and can do what they please. The US can't (and certainly shouldn't) directly "force" them to do anything. I guess I'll leave this at "agree to disagree"
MerlinYoda 2 months ago
@MerlinYoda I went to Haiti so you could see some data, It was a good counter to your point, that getting rid of min wage would help keep costs down, when keeping costs down isnt the point, its keeping profits huge, If you can look at that case study and see something different then I guess theres going to be nothing that convinces you.
USPS works, It earns a profit, Can you find any data to support your claims? I gave You a vid showing it works.
gihaification 2 months ago
@gihaification Wait, are you saying that you have *no* problem with a (supposedly) "private" agency (since it's *technically* not a "government agency") like the USPS having a monopoly on "non-urgent" mail (like 2-3 day first class delivery) *and* making a profit (and get other governmental perks/subsidies, like being exempt from federal taxes)? Seriously? Last I checked USPS was supposed to "break even", not earn a profit. Where do these profits go when they start to accumulate into big money?
MerlinYoda 2 months ago