The Libertarian Con: Favorite 'Rebel' Ideology of the Ruling Class

CATO and Reason are very much loved by the ruling class (and certainly boobs like Beck and Hannity, who claim libertarianism for themselves), about the only libertarians worth fearing are the anarchists/voluntaryists/radicals.
 
I was really saddened to find out that Penn and Teller were both Cato fellows. For two guys who once hosted a show called "Bullshit" they seem to be blind to it when it comes from a conservative "think tank".
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...vorite-rebel-ideology-ruling-class?paging=off

An article that's really heavy on the snark (even by my standards), but I still find the arguments (they always side with and vote for Republicans, the social issues are a mirage, because economic issues are the only thing of import to them) compelling overall.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I'd call it snark, but outright hostility seems to fit the bill for me. I don't have as big a problem with it because I use the same rhetorical tools.:lol:

[quote name='Clak']I was really saddened to find out that Penn and Teller were both Cato fellows. For two guys who once hosted a show called "Bullshit" they seem to be blind to it when it comes from a conservative "think tank".[/QUOTE]
Rumor has it that they planned some type of meta episode about Bullshit as a finale before it was cancelled.

But back on topic: LOLbertarians...hurrrr
 
Big corporations love regulations and minimum wages and things libertarians oppose. Mom and pop shops are less likely to be able to comply with minimum wage and other labor regulations, shutting them out and allowing corporations like McDonalds and Walmart to flourish with fewer competitors.

Minimum wage laws and licensing requirements are used by racist labor unions (with government support) to shut out disadvantaged and/or immigrant entrepreneurs. The same laws the Democratic black caucus have historically supported were the same laws supported by racist white labor unions in South Africa. Part of the reason Korean immigrants have been so successful over the years is because there are exceptions for using family members as labor at your business. The sad part is that we've known this for decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGWDis2dJw

Say what you will about Neocons, but the idea that libertarians are loved by the elite ruling class or whatever you want to call it is a liberal progressive con.

But child labor laws, the Civil Rights act, federal income tax, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, food safety—libertarians have accused all of them as infringements upon the free market that would lead to economic ruin.
Click to expand...
The minimum wage has contributed to economic ruin for certain groups. Spread out across all workers, the effect of the minimum wage is not as high. But the consequences are concentrated among those with no or low skills, and these groups tend to skew poor and non-white.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The minimum wage has contributed to economic ruin for certain groups. Spread out across all workers, the effect of the minimum wage is not as high. But the consequences are concentrated among those with no or low skills, and these groups tend to skew poor and non-white.[/QUOTE]

So, low skilled, un(der)educated minorities would be earning more if we did not have minimum wage laws?

What a charming idea. Tell me more.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, low skilled, un(der)educated minorities would be earning more if we did not have minimum wage laws?[/quote]Yes. Right now they earn zero.

The conventional wisdom has been to pump more money into the public schools and training programs in order to increase skills. This has not yielded the desired results.

pbNIw.jpg


Some of the highest spending you will see across the country is in black and Hispanic school districts. While abolishing or reducing the minimum wage would have wonderful effects on the ability of young, unskilled workers to get skills and develop their stock of human capital, it would be even more worthwhile to not increase school spending, but to reform the educational system. What should really make people angry is how a talented teacher like Jaime Escalante was run out of teaching by union and administrative thugs as well as racial-grievance mongers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/31/local/la-me-jaime-escalante31-2010mar31

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that there aren't many libertarians around and they lack significant support from the public and articles like this further erode the ability of progressives and libertarians from coming to terms on the issues they do actually agree on.

The Ron Paul/Kucinich alliance, which unfortunately never actually went anywhere, is something that could have symbolized progressive/libertarian unity on key issues, some of the most important issues. Then after those issues were resolved, we could have gone back to fighting each other in a much safer world.
 
What in the christmas crunch does *any* of that have to do with the minimum wage?

It only took 8 posts to fall off the deep end?

*sigh*
 
[quote name='Spokker']Yes. Right now they earn zero.

The conventional wisdom has been to pump more money into the public schools and training programs in order to increase skills. This has not yielded the desired results.

pbNIw.jpg


Some of the highest spending you will see across the country is in black and Hispanic school districts. While abolishing or reducing the minimum wage would have wonderful effects on the ability of young, unskilled workers to get skills and develop their stock of human capital, it would be even more worthwhile to not increase school spending, but to reform the educational system. What should really make people angry is how a talented teacher like Jaime Escalante was run out of teaching by union and administrative thugs as well as racial-grievance mongers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/31/local/la-me-jaime-escalante31-2010mar31

http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that there aren't many libertarians around and they lack significant support from the public and articles like this further erode the ability of progressives and libertarians from coming to terms on the issues they do actually agree on.

The Ron Paul/Kucinich alliance, which unfortunately never actually went anywhere, is something that could have symbolized progressive/libertarian unity on key issues, some of the most important issues. Then after those issues were resolved, we could have gone back to fighting each other in a much safer world.[/QUOTE]

So the answer is to hand out vouchers to give free government money to private for-profit schools?
 
[quote name='IRHari']So the answer is to hand out vouchers to give free government money to private for-profit schools?[/QUOTE]That is one avenue of approach but is a last resort in my opinion.

Another solution is to hold teachers accountable. Another is to reform school administrations. Another is to repeal No Child Left Behind, a Bush-era reform.

A lot of what you can do is to get out of the way of teachers like Jaime Escalante. I would read stories about his teaching career for more information.

[quote name='mykevermin']What in the christmas crunch does *any* of that have to do with the minimum wage?
[/QUOTE]Are you asking what the state of public schooling has to do with the minimum wage?
 
What you've done isn't even moving the goalpost, dude.

What the motherfuck does any of this have to do with the minimum wage or the article in the OP?

You've been tasked with the burden of proof on how minimum wage keeps poor people depressed and in poverty, and now we're talking about one teacher and the fucking voucher system?

P'shaw. This thread already sucks. Thanks a bunch, guy.
 
It has a lot to do with the minimum wage. There are interaction effects among all these issues.

Interestingly enough, we enact Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) to deal with the negative effects of the minimum wage. High school teens who cannot find summer jobs may do unpaid on-the-job training at local businesses. I did this in high school. It wasn't training. It was simply working for free. It eventually led to a paying part-time position at the company which I held for a little while before I moved on to a full-time position at another company.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It has a lot to do with the minimum wage. There are interaction effects among all these issues.[/QUOTE]

You've been asked to elaborate on this several times. Jumping from point to point is not the same thing as elaborating on your alleged interaction effects.
 
Sadly, I get where Spokker is going with this, it's bull, but I get it. I believe he's trying to say that abolishing the minimum wage would increase the availability of jobs. Because paying people $7.25 an hour is just too big a burden for businesses.
 
It's not a huge burden for McDonald's. They can either hire the workers anyway (perhaps fewer of them) or invest in automation. Big business loves the minimum wage. They benefit in that smaller competitors have a tougher time competing or are never formed in the first place.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It's not a huge burden for McDonald's. They can either hire the workers anyway (perhaps fewer of them) or invest in automation. Big business loves the minimum wage. They benefit in that smaller competitors have a tougher time competing or are never formed in the first place.[/QUOTE]

:bs: Big corpo owns the govt. If they wanted federally-mandated minimum wage then we would have it. Period.
 
[quote name='Clak']Sadly, I get where Spokker is going with this, it's bull, but I get it. I believe he's trying to say that abolishing the minimum wage would increase the availability of jobs. Because paying people $7.25 an hour is just too big a burden for businesses.[/QUOTE]

2 people earning $3.62/hour doesn't do anything to bolster what he's saying - it does nothing to improve living standards for impoverished Americans. It's nothing but a canard.

Employment gains have nothing to do with wages, and they have nothing to do with taxes.

Well, not quite nothing, but the most important factor in employment is demand. We all know that. You, who bought a game at Best Buy this week - you're more active in "job creation" than Sheldon Adelson ever will be; you've validated the need for game publishers, disc manufacturing plants, truck drivers, floor employees, and cashiers at Best Buy (on the most rudimentary level). No amount of tax cuts will validate the need for those jobs, no degree of tax breaks will boost job creation compared with the demand side.
 
[quote name='camoor']:bs: Big corpo owns the govt. If they wanted federally-mandated minimum wage then we would have it. Period.[/QUOTE]
We do have it.

Not only is it not a living wage but it discriminates those without skills. The minimum wage is where it needs to be for big corporations.
 
Holy shit, best off the rails VS. thread in a while. What does that have to do with the minimum wage? Repeal no child left behind!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Holy shit, best off the rails VS. thread in a while. What does that have to do with the minimum wage? Repeal no child left behind![/QUOTE]
There is nothing off-topic about this. The con job article suggests that libertarians advocate for the interests of big business and the ruling class, but they do not. If libertarians advocated for big business, they would enjoy the support of big business. Big business likes Neocons as well as the current president for that matter. Large corporations are also fine with the minimum wage and regulations because those things create barriers to entry for potential competitors.

No, the biggest con job is the myth that liberal progressive Democrats give a shit about the poor, white or non-white, good intentions or not. There are some ways to lay down arms and come together on majorly important issues libertarians and Democrats say they care about, but that too is a farce according to Mr. Kilpatrick.

I agree with repealing No Child Left Behind.
 
Spokker is a big fan of the wall of gibberish method of debate.

I wonder why he hasn't posted in the healthcare thread recently..
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No amount of tax cuts will validate the need for those jobs, no degree of tax breaks will boost job creation compared with the demand side.[/QUOTE]

Um, how about, instead of taxing people so we can waste their money by throwing it at our broken school system, we put the money back in people's pockets so they can buy more games at bestbuy?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']2 people earning $3.62/hour doesn't do anything to bolster what he's saying - it does nothing to improve living standards for impoverished Americans. It's nothing but a canard.

Employment gains have nothing to do with wages, and they have nothing to do with taxes.

Well, not quite nothing, but the most important factor in employment is demand. We all know that. You, who bought a game at Best Buy this week - you're more active in "job creation" than Sheldon Adelson ever will be; you've validated the need for game publishers, disc manufacturing plants, truck drivers, floor employees, and cashiers at Best Buy (on the most rudimentary level). No amount of tax cuts will validate the need for those jobs, no degree of tax breaks will boost job creation compared with the demand side.[/QUOTE]
I'd assume that in his mind, two employees earning $3.62 an hour is better than one earning $7.25. How that really improves the lives of those two people I don't know, especially considering even on minimum wage people still need social programs just to survive.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']Um, how about, instead of taxing people so we can waste their money by throwing it at our broken school system, we put the money back in people's pockets so they can buy more games at bestbuy?[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

Are you a human or a see n' say? Because I've read this script already, many times in my life.
 
[quote name='Spokker']No, the biggest con job is the myth that liberal progressive Democrats give a shit about the poor, white or non-white, good intentions or not.[/QUOTE]

When you say Democrat do you mean politicians or voters?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*sigh*

Are you a human or a see n' say? Because I've read this script already, many times in my life.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to my life.

/offtopic
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*sigh*

Are you a human or a see n' say? Because I've read this script already, many times in my life.[/QUOTE]
*sigh*

There's no point. I don't even know why I come to this side of these forums.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']*sigh*

There's no point. I don't even know why I come to this side of these forums.[/QUOTE]

No, they really are good points to coming here. The problem is you can only think of tax cuts.

What about reducing the deficit? There are plenty of alternative ways of putting money in the hands of consumers. You could start with pegging the minimum wage to the inflation rate. You could increase the capital gains tax two it's 1990 rates. You could roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% of income earners.

But what you should do as far as education spending his concern is look at the source of that increasing spending. Is the teachers wages? Is it administration wages? Or is it textbook publishers and food purveyors and other private business interests that are trying to get in on some of that good good taxpayer money?

There many problems of education but this idea that we can simply stop spending money on education "put it back in the taxpayers pockets" is just horseshit. If you want to increase the demand side of the economy there're many ways to accomplish that. First and foremost among them is something we call a fucking stimulus.

So what I say you're a see and say it's because your ideas are paper fucking thin and show no foresight, show no depth of thought, show no critical thinking skills. You just hear wasted government money and think oh that should go back to the taxpayers pockets because your a goddamned sheep.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, they really are good points to coming here. The problem is you can only think of tax cuts.

What about reducing the deficit? There are plenty of alternative ways of putting money in the hands of consumers. You could start with pegging the minimum wage to the inflation rate. You could increase the capital gains tax two it's 1990 rates. You could roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% of income earners.

But what you should do as far as education spending his concern is look at the source of that increasing spending. Is the teachers wages? Is it administration wages? Or is it textbook publishers and food purveyors and other private business interests that are trying to get in on some of that good good taxpayer money?

There many problems of education but this idea that we can simply stop spending money on education "put it back in the taxpayers pockets" is just horseshit. If you want to increase the demand side of the economy there're many ways to accomplish that. First and foremost among them is something we call a fucking stimulus.

So what I say you're a see and say it's because your ideas are paper fucking thin and show no foresight, show no depth of thought, show no critical thinking skills. You just hear wasted government money and think oh that should go back to the taxpayers pockets because your a goddamned sheep.[/QUOTE]

First off, I'm not a sheep, because fuck apple.
Secondly, fuck stimulus, that is garbage
Third, a tax on anything at this point is just stupid. There is so Much fucking waste in the government that the only way I'll give them more of my money is by prying it out of my cold, dead, hands.
I'm all for reducing the deficit, but I ain't paying for it. They take enough of my God damn money as it is.
 
Speaking of education, I was talking to my fiance yesterday about a cousin of hers, and she told me that her cousin's daughter is using the same textbooks that this school district has been using for 15 years. Imagine a young teacher, say around 23 or so years old, teaching a class using textbooks they themselves used.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']First off, I'm not a sheep, because fuck apple.
Secondly, fuck stimulus, that is garbage
Third, a tax on anything at this point is just stupid. There is so Much fucking waste in the government that the only way I'll give them more of my money is by prying it out of my cold, dead, hands.
I'm all for reducing the deficit, but I ain't paying for it. They take enough of my God damn money as it is.[/QUOTE]

You know what? I actually agree with you earlier post. I don't know why you come to these forums either.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You know what? I actually agree with you earlier post. I don't know why you come to these forums either.[/QUOTE]

Good bye. If you want to have a nice discussion about video game deals or TV shows, I'll see you on the other side.
 
Do some Republicans use the label of Libertarian as a cover? Absolutely but there are some people who are legitimate Libertarians.

I consider myself a Daoist Libertarian, that is a Libertarian in the old sense of our Founding Fathers. One of the things I am totally for is Corporations only being allowed to exist for 30 years, 35 if they're at work on a Public Works project at the time. I also oppose mergers accordingly.

I believe in a Free Market with certain caveats and I can justify it perfectly well if certain regulations must be in place. One of the giant ones for me is the Gulf oil spill. The regulations are necessitated by the consequences of the subsequent loss of livelihood if they were to be removed. In seeing this removal we've seen the livelihood lost of the subjects who fish, with a reasonable inability to sell and eat said food given previous understanding of the effects of oil on human subjects.
I don't support Big Business being able to use government as an enforcer to its whims to stifle competition that may ultimately wreck its desired blossoming industry at the time, case in point Hemp vs. Nylon. Another point to this is Genetically Modified Foods in that they should be labeled in accordance to transparency(same goes with listing the components of MSG) as necessary to have a healthy free market in food. This should go so far as besides listing where the food is made the flag of said country should be included to make it clearer.
The only non-Libertarian but more Daoist idea I believe is the prevention or controlled submission of the Albatross by using government funds through a nonprofit, unbiased organization to provide start-up costs for promising alternatives to things like oil. Through this to fund enough whereby they have a viable distribution to compete. This is desirable before said industry starts to become an Albatross. If it has become an Albatross, allowing it's industry to seep through the economy and it's sludge of money to infiltrate the government then only controlling it and making it submit somewhat is the only choice aside from total economic collapse. Well that or the resource near runs out. The former would, of course, create the desired paradigm shift as this is not like the behavior of science as Kuhn believes but a similar concept can apply albeit with more necessary disastrous consequences.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Do some Republicans use the label of Libertarian as a cover? Absolutely but there are some people who are legitimate Libertarians.

I consider myself a Daoist Libertarian, that is a Libertarian in the old sense of our Founding Fathers. One of the things I am totally for is Corporations only being allowed to exist for 30 years, 35 if they're at work on a Public Works project at the time. I also oppose mergers accordingly.

I believe in a Free Market with certain caveats and I can justify it perfectly well if certain regulations must be in place. One of the giant ones for me is the Gulf oil spill. The regulations are necessitated by the consequences of the subsequent loss of livelihood if they were to be removed. In seeing this removal we've seen the livelihood lost of the subjects who fish, with a reasonable inability to sell and eat said food given previous understanding of the effects of oil on human subjects.
I don't support Big Business being able to use government as an enforcer to its whims to stifle competition that may ultimately wreck its desired blossoming industry at the time, case in point Hemp vs. Nylon. Another point to this is Genetically Modified Foods in that they should be labeled in accordance to transparency(same goes with listing the components of MSG) as necessary to have a healthy free market in food. This should go so far as besides listing where the food is made the flag of said country should be included to make it clearer.
The only non-Libertarian but more Daoist idea I believe is the prevention or controlled submission of the Albatross by using government funds through a nonprofit, unbiased organization to provide start-up costs for promising alternatives to things like oil. Through this to fund enough whereby they have a viable distribution to compete. This is desirable before said industry starts to become an Albatross. If it has become an Albatross, allowing it's industry to seep through the economy and it's sludge of money to infiltrate the government then only controlling it and making it submit somewhat is the only choice aside from total economic collapse. Well that or the resource near runs out. The former would, of course, create the desired paradigm shift as this is not like the behavior of science as Kuhn believes but a similar concept can apply albeit with more necessary disastrous consequences.[/QUOTE]

It's funny.

You wrote a wall of text but all I see are two or three crap policy ideas and a bunch of "wouldnt it be nice" bullshit.
 
[quote name='camoor']When you say Democrat do you mean politicians or voters?[/QUOTE]

Both, however I think voters tend to be more likely to be well-intentioned than politicians. Then again, some say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']First off, I'm not a sheep, because fuck apple.
Secondly, fuck stimulus, that is garbage
Third, a tax on anything at this point is just stupid. There is so Much fucking waste in the government that the only way I'll give them more of my money is by prying it out of my cold, dead, hands.
I'm all for reducing the deficit, but I ain't paying for it. They take enough of my God damn money as it is.[/QUOTE]

I bet you make 8 dollars an hour.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Both, however I think voters tend to be more likely to be well-intentioned than politicians. Then again, some say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.[/QUOTE]

So do you think only Republicans really care about the poor? Or noone really cares about the poor? Please expound a little further - this is fascinating.
 
[quote name='camoor']So do you think only Republicans really care about the poor? Or noone really cares about the poor? Please expound a little further - this is fascinating.[/QUOTE]
Some do, some don't. Some care about the poor but express it in different ways. Others take a tough love stance.

I'm personally poor and I feel no one cares about me, but why should I expect anyone to?
 
[quote name='camoor']It's funny.

You wrote a wall of text but all I see are two or three crap policy ideas and a bunch of "wouldnt it be nice" bullshit.[/QUOTE]

So you don't support transparency in food labeling. I think we should all know on the label if there are genetically modified ingredients in a food product. So if people don't want GMO's they vote with their dollars and don't buy them. I found it disgusting how Gillespie was so ardent on people being against GMO's and Ruffalo called him out on it and raked him over the coals on the free market argument, deservedly so. Don't call yourself a Libertarian and pull that bullshit.
The reason I put forth the idea of funding an emerging technology to keep a longstanding one from becoming entrenched and a burden to society as well as an almost impossible weight to throw off is valid. The idea, to a much different degree but the same concept is seen in newly started companies. They are fit, risk takers creating new, great innovative products to really advance the marketplace. Flash forward 10 to 15 years or more and they become complacent. If it's a much used seemingly necessary industry by then it becomes the Albatross. If it's not it becomes a company like Pixar that is now suffering from pushing out sequels, some looking crap like "Cars 2". You may say these are only two besides Toy Story. Trust me, it'll get worse.
It's not a wouldn't it be nice. If you want to pull out as many regulations as reasonably possible then the corporation should not be allowed to be around for more then the designated date. Mergers allow infrastructure all around to stagnate when it would've been kept up to date. This is part of why I'm so happy the AT&T merger with T-Mobile failed as now they actually have to get off their asses and build their own 4G network. One can only guess how much T-Mobile was getting screwed on the sale price compared to what it cost for them to create that 4G network in the beginning.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Some do, some don't. Some care about the poor but express it in different ways. Others take a tough love stance.

I'm personally poor and I feel no one cares about me, but why should I expect anyone to?[/QUOTE]

Interesting, I'd like to know more. Could you please give some examples of Republican congressmen who care about poor people.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']So you don't support transparency in food labeling. I think we should all know on the label if there are genetically modified ingredients in a food product. So if people don't want GMO's they vote with their dollars and don't buy them. I found it disgusting how Gillespie was so ardent on people being against GMO's and Ruffalo called him out on it and raked him over the coals on the free market argument, deservedly so. Don't call yourself a Libertarian and pull that bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

Of course I do and I would never ever call myself a libertarian. I may have read some Heinlein in HS, but I'm more of a Sinclair Lewis fan.

[quote name='Sarang01']The reason I put forth the idea of funding an emerging technology to keep a longstanding one from becoming entrenched and a burden to society as well as an almost impossible weight to throw off is valid. The idea, to a much different degree but the same concept is seen in newly started companies. They are fit, risk takers creating new, great innovative products to really advance the marketplace. Flash forward 10 to 15 years or more and they become complacent. If it's a much used seemingly necessary industry by then it becomes the Albatross. If it's not it becomes a company like Pixar that is now suffering from pushing out sequels, some looking crap like "Cars 2". You may say these are only two besides Toy Story. Trust me, it'll get worse.
It's not a wouldn't it be nice. If you want to pull out as many regulations as reasonably possible then the corporation should not be allowed to be around for more then the designated date. Mergers allow infrastructure all around to stagnate when it would've been kept up to date. This is part of why I'm so happy the AT&T merger with T-Mobile failed as now they actually have to get off their asses and build their own 4G network. One can only guess how much T-Mobile was getting screwed on the sale price compared to what it cost for them to create that 4G network in the beginning.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's fair to compare entertainment to technology. Making your money back on an entertainment IP is completely different from funding a foray into experimental technology. Different businesses entirely.
 
Here’s the real reason libertarians hate the idea. The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say fuck You to our bosses—this is the power to say “I’m gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band. And I’ll still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.”
Sounds like freedom to me.
Click to expand...
Read the article; I'm not very impressed.

Does the quote above represent the new American Dream?

Is it truly freedom to be able to say fuck you to your boss but then hold out your hand to receive welfare from your other, more powerful boss, the US government? Is that the message that we want to send to people? I.e., do what you want, do what feels good without paying heed to the laws of cause and effect... and don't worry because the government will bail you out

Once again, is it truly "freedom" and "power" to be dependent on the government?

And then all the rest about libertarianism being a cover for those who claim to be “socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is an oversimplification. I espouse libertarian views because I do not trust those in power (government included). I believe that both governments and big businesses should have their power restricted as much as possible. I am both socially and fiscally conservative, but I do not believe that I have the right to restrict otherwise lawful and non-harmful actions of others...
 
Nah, freedom is working all your life doing something you can barely stand doing, then if you're lucky you can have the last couple of decades of your life to do what you enjoy. Yay freedom.
 
[quote name='BigT']Read the article; I'm not very impressed.

Does the quote above represent the new American Dream?

Is it truly freedom to be able to say fuck you to your boss but then hold out your hand to receive welfare from your other, more powerful boss, the US government? Is that the message that we want to send to people? I.e., do what you want, do what feels good without paying heed to the laws of cause and effect... and don't worry because the government will bail you out

Once again, is it truly "freedom" and "power" to be dependent on the government?

And then all the rest about libertarianism being a cover for those who claim to be “socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is an oversimplification. I espouse libertarian views because I do not trust those in power (government included). I believe that both governments and big businesses should have their power restricted as much as possible. I am both socially and fiscally conservative, but I do not believe that I have the right to restrict otherwise lawful and non-harmful actions of others...[/QUOTE]

'welfare state' is a concept removed from 'welfare' as thought of in the mind of reactionary Republicans.

Y'know, like 'neoliberalism' as a concept is something you would actually support, even though on the surface you would think the term and you share little to nothing in common.

So, if you can appreciate that distinction, you'll see that your understanding of the quote is pretty far removed from what it is actually saying.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It has a lot to do with the minimum wage. There are interaction effects among all these issues.

Interestingly enough, we enact Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) to deal with the negative effects of the minimum wage. High school teens who cannot find summer jobs may do unpaid on-the-job training at local businesses. I did this in high school. It wasn't training. It was simply working for free. It eventually led to a paying part-time position at the company which I held for a little while before I moved on to a full-time position at another company.[/QUOTE]

Already, you have pointed out that people are WORKING FOR FREE. (Them being kids or whatever age is irrelevant.) Free labor for business. So, they don't pay labor. Nice deal... for business. Stay around and get exploited long enough and take it so that the oh benevolent masters may grant you a wage. How does that fuck the wages received by workers? This is another means to circumvent minimum wage.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']First off, I'm not a sheep, because fuck apple.
[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something? What does Apple have to do with this? Is he really arguing that because he does not have an Apple phone that he is some kind of rebel? "I am not a sheep because I dislike Apple." Am I losing it? Did I miss a relevant post and proving my low attention to detail? Or is it some jr high level of argumentation that I am missing from my ivory tower of grownup thinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top