America needs libertarianism

[superelephant]

He's a slob for instilling greed and lack of empathy and compassion in you.

Instilling lack of empathy and compassion......? ...... Perhaps, depriving him of those things while instilling apathy....

Wrong. You need workers, period.

Complete bullshit.

The exploitation of workers is a system of profits. Without the people building empires there would be no jobs (an architect is useless without builders), period. etc, etc.

Neo-feudalism.

empires are lame.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Instilling lack of empathy and compassion......? ...... Perhaps, depriving him of those things while instilling apathy....
Complete bullshit.

Neo-feudalism.

empires are lame.

Moronic. I know this is a drug forum but there are standards. You don't need workers? Was that sarcastic?

 

[Sticky Green]

Since this is so far off topic, this will me my last post on the matter. Anything after, please PM me.

8(


Not so redundant according to the response above.

You couldn't sense the sarcasm? I've been here since 2002. The rest should be obvious.

And yeah, I'm sure you're a mind reader. I'm sure you knew everything about me as soon as I posted that emoticon. yep

Nope, I barely know anything about you. But I do know what you were trying to tell me with your redundant question. You spelled it out in 5 letters in your subsequent post.

at this point you deserve it imo.

Once again....

 

[Bardeaux]

How the hell is it in my self interest to look out for the poor's well being, they do aboslutely nothing for me. I'm sure when our founding fathers created this nation they weren't think of turning it into a welfare state. The poor can fend for themselves if they try, my father grew up poor and worked his ass off and died a very successful and wealthy man.

I shouldn't give what he earned away to the poor when all they need to do is some HARD WORK(god forbid).

Who decides where there is or isn't work to be utilized? More spending power from below will create more demand for products which will create more incentive to hire, which means less people will be supported by society.

You need the rich to have laborers, or the laborers wouldn't have anybody to be hired by.

And the rich need workers to generate profits. The workers could collectively operate a factory, and if wealth were more evenly distributed they could invest themselves without the need for a property owner at all. A property owner can't operate the factory by himself no matter how much money he has.

 

[Sticky Green]

Complete bullshit.

Newsflash: Apple posts a record $28.6 billion in sales in the second quarter.

Steve Jobs said it was a hectic 3 months as he single-handedly had to build, pack, and ship over 18 million iPhones and 4 million iPads. He attributes his success to believing in the powers of Santa Claus.

................

Scale the above down as much as you like, the same rules apply.

 

[superelephant]

Moronic.

I'm sure you think so. Your opinion doesn't mean much to me, and I'm sure you don't really care about mine. I did avoid Ad hominem's for a reason, though.

I know this is a drug forum but there are standards.

boo hoo. At least I'm precise. You worded the originally quoted comment poorly.

You don't need workers? Was that sarcastic?

No, that was me disagreeing with you. I do not need any workers. Word your shit better.

 

[L2R]

How the hell is it in my self interest to look out for the poor's well being, they do aboslutely nothing for me. I'm sure when our founding fathers created this nation they weren't think of turning it into a welfare state. The poor can fend for themselves if they try, my father grew up poor and worked his ass off and died a very successful and wealthy man.

I shouldn't give what he earned away to the poor when all they need to do is some HARD WORK(god forbid).

He was also lucky. Lucky he wasn't struck down by illness or injury. Lucky opportunity didn't dry up in his area. Welfare health and unemployment benefits are a SAFETY NET for those who would be essentially crippled for life had they needed to cover their own medical expenses (which in most instances was not their fault) in the event of some bad luck. Doctors are bloody expensive (they should be). Medecine is also, but it doesn't need to be, as it should be subsidised by the government to be make access as well as profit for pharmaceutical companies.

I have a friend who has a rare disease which means he need a self administered shot twice a week. the drug he's prescribed is only given to a handful of people in my entire country and it costs a few thousand dollars each. That's TWICE each week. The government subsidises it, and as a result my friend is not only still alive, but more often than not a functional and working member of society.

A libertarian society, without such safety nets, is unsustainable.

Not only that, but a significantly unequal distribution of wealth such as in a libertarian society takes money OUT of the economy. Money needs to be spent in order to remain in circulation, therefore in order to sustain the economy. It's like the circulatory system of a society, anywhere this social blood collects unused becomes like a clot in the system, harming it.
You know it is basic economics to understand that in order to stimulate the economy, you need to make a little investment at the bottom, where the people are in no state to save. It ensures the money gets pumped straight into the system.

 

[Shrooms00087]

I'm sure you think so. Your opinion doesn't mean much to me, and I'm sure you don't really care about mine. I did avoid Ad hominem's for a reason, though.
boo hoo. At least I'm precise. You worded the originally quoted comment poorly.

No, that was me disagreeing with you. I do not need any workers. Word your shit better.

Yes, you do. Unless you're A) a worker (and don't need help) or B) jobless. Perhaps you'd care to explain?

in·still also in·stil (n-stl)
tr.v. in·stilled, in·still·ing, in·stills also in·stils
1. To introduce by gradual, persistent efforts; implant
Word my shit better?

 

[Sticky Green]

Money needs to be spent in order to remain in circulation, therefore in order to sustain the economy. It's like the circulatory system of a society, anywhere this social blood collects unused becomes like a clot in the system, harming it.

That's one of the best uses of a simile I've seen in a while.

The only difference is that a clot needs to be removed (correct?), where stagnant wealth can be put back into use if desired.

The extremely wealthy are asking us all to fix the clot (think Buffett/Gates, not Trump). And for some reason, some of the people stuck in the extremities prefer continued poor blood flow. Go figure.

 

[L2R]

thanks, although i don't think stagnant wealth can so easily be recovered.

i think it's a catch-22. the clots are generally in the form of what we've (almost) all got our retirements banked on. that is to say the value of stock and other money markets. that is the black hole our economies drain into. no one will do anything about it, simply because all of us have much to lose in the short term. we'd rather not think of the long term consequences of such inefficiency and risk.

when things go boom, there'll always be someone else to point our fingers at.

 

[superelephant]

Yes, you do. Unless you're A) a worker (and don't need help) or B) jobless. Perhaps you'd care to explain?

How else would you expect someone to survive alone in nature?

in·still also in·stil (n-stl)
tr.v. in·stilled, in·still·ing, in·stills also in·stils
1. To introduce by gradual, persistent efforts; implant
Word my shit better?

You cannot instill a lack of anything.....

 

[Shrooms00087]

How else would you expect someone to survive alone in nature?

Yeah but you don't, you're on a computer. You have a source of income. That's reaching, as well as nonsense.

You cannot instill a lack of anything.....

You most certainly can. Apathy was another way to phrase it, it's still subtracts something, and just because it subtracts something doesn't mean it can't be instilled (because you're born with empathy etc). repressed/lack

 

[superelephant]

Yeah but you don't, you're on a computer. You have a source of income. That's reaching, as well as nonsense.

I can, and I have for extended periods of time. I also plan to permanently some day. I do not need workers.

You most certainly can. Apathy was another way to phrase it, it's still subtracts something, and just because it subtracts something doesn't mean it can't be instilled (because you're born with empathy etc). repressed/lack

Lol. it's really stupid to phrase it the way you did. if you were in a classroom, and your desk was right next to a water fountain, you wouldn't get up and walk the other way, around the whole room when you wanted a drink.

 

[MrGrunge]

superelephant, shut up. We get it. You don't have anything to actually contribute to the thread outside of trying to criticize another poster's grammar (which you're still failing at). You're basically just spamming now.

 

[superelephant]

superelephant, shut up.

unfortunately, I'm going to scrutinize this post. If you want me to shut up then don't direct anything at me.

We get it.

really?

You don't have anything to actually contribute to the thread

This discussion is worthless.

outside of trying to criticize another poster's grammar

wrong. oh, looks like you don't get it. what a surprise.

(which you're still failing at).

You're basically just spamming now.

Then ignore it.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

How the hell is it in my self interest to look out for the poor's well being, they do aboslutely nothing for me.

If the poor can be made more productive, then they do something for everyone.

I'm sure when our founding fathers created this nation they weren't think of turning it into a welfare state.

The founding fathers didn't think that giving women the right to vote was a good idea.

While the founding fathers had some very good ideas, they weren't perfect.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

America needs more libertarianism like it needs more people talking past each other, needs more ignorance, needs more polarization, needs more shouting matches, needs more impotent politicians, needs more meaningless sound-bytes to bludgeon their unwashed masses over the head with, needs more corruption and corporate control of society, needs more people straining their blood-pressure levels doing absolutely nothing but getting mad about things that they will never lift a finger to try and change, needs more things like Fox News and talk radio, needs more anti-intellectualism, needs more revisionist history, needs more misinformation and distorted statistics infecting people's idea of logical argumentation, needs more animosity and disrespect towards one of the most important professions in society (school teachers), needs more isolation, and needs more contempt for those less fortunate. Good thing all these things will never be in short supply as the only viable political movements these days is ignorance (the tea party) or apathy (every other view point).

 

[paranoid android]

The fact that people like the OP call Obama a socialist not only shows their complete ignorance towards what socialism actually is but it pisses me off as i actually am a socialist and Obama does not have a socialist bone in his body. How is government regulation of private industry bad? Is it because they can't fuck over the workers nearly as bad as they could with pure capitalism or is it because it makes sense unlike libertarianism?

America (or any other nation for that matter) needs libertarianism like America needs more ignorant, racist, tea party supporting homophobic conservatives who want to curtail the rights of anyone not like them.

The only good thing that could come out of turning America into a nation that goes by libertarianism would be that it would bankrupt the place so bad that it would maybe turn everyone against the idea of capitalism altogether.

 

[L2R]

The only good thing that could come out of turning America into a nation that goes by libertarianism would be that it would bankrupt the place so bad that it would maybe turn everyone against the idea of capitalism altogether.

therefore, as a socialist, you're doing it wrong

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Bank bailouts/stimulus bill, his push for socialized medicine/single payer healthcare system, his desire to redistribute wealth...

The Democratic Party(esp the Progressive Caucus) is full of socialists, whether they know it(or admit it) or not.

What's wrong with socialism sir? Do you not support a society where people get taken care of, aren't treated like sub-human for needing help, and where money accumulation isn't considered the be-all-end-all of existence?
Also healthcare needs to be handled by the government mainly (with various private organizations providing extra services to those who can afford them, of course) as it's one of those basic rights that all humans should have, just like food, and clean water.
If your goal is freedom, then providing healthcare will bolster that goal 100%, whereas people are less free if they have to worry about not having healthcare.

What does freedom mean to you? Is freedom purely a technicality ( i.e. more gov't=less freedom, by definition)? If so, what's the sense in fighting for it if you can win the battle, but lose the war of having a less pleasant, happy, healthy, life, overall?
Also, have you considered trying to be more constructive and proactive in your beliefs? You know, try something on for size that could possibly separate you from the herd of jaded, malinformed, cynics out there?