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

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. As universities are losing state funding the quality of education is definitely dropping as I've seen first hand. Class sizes are increasing as enrollment is upped to add $$$ to replace the lost state funding. More classes are being taught by grad students and adjuncts rather than tenure track faculty. Etc.

Then you have the for profit schools as an example of whats wrong with education driven by money. All over the news lately over scandals of taking tuition, wasting federal student loan dollars etc. on students who often don't graduate due to almost know accountability, degrees being largely worthless in getting a job even for those who do graduate etc.

Privatizing K-12 schools and funding them with tax dollars would improve nothing. And it likely wouldn't save money if private prisons are any indication as studies have repeatedly found that they didn't deliver on their promises of saving costs vs. state ran prisons. And there have been concerns of more inmate abuse etc. in private prisons.

And it wouldn't at all solve the problem of poor districts/counties having poor school systems due to the lower tax base. That's one of our biggest issues in education, and it will remain regardless of whether it's public or private schools getting the tax dollars.

As long as education is funded even partially and the local level the inequality will remain with poor rural and urban districts/counties having worse schools due to smaller tax bases. Thus making it harder for people in those areas to break out of multi-generational poverty.

Some things need to be done for the greater good of society, and profit motive often goes against that. Be it education, funding research of things that doesn't have any profit incentive (i.e. anything that doesn't lead to a saleable good, but generates knowledge, makes the world safer etc.). That's where the public sector is better taking the lead than the private.[/QUOTE]

Ditto.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. As universities are losing state funding the quality of education is definitely dropping as I've seen first hand. Class sizes are increasing as enrollment is upped to add $$$ to replace the lost state funding. More classes are being taught by grad students and adjuncts rather than tenure track faculty. Etc.

Then you have the for profit schools as an example of whats wrong with education driven by money. All over the news lately over scandals of taking tuition, wasting federal student loan dollars etc. on students who often don't graduate due to almost know accountability, degrees being largely worthless in getting a job even for those who do graduate etc.

Privatizing K-12 schools and funding them with tax dollars would improve nothing. And it likely wouldn't save money if private prisons are any indication as studies have repeatedly found that they didn't deliver on their promises of saving costs vs. state ran prisons. And there have been concerns of more inmate abuse etc. in private prisons.

And it wouldn't at all solve the problem of poor districts/counties having poor school systems due to the lower tax base. That's one of our biggest issues in education, and it will remain regardless of whether it's public or private schools getting the tax dollars.

As long as education is funded even partially and the local level the inequality will remain with poor rural and urban districts/counties having worse schools due to smaller tax bases. Thus making it harder for people in those areas to break out of multi-generational poverty.

Some things need to be done for the greater good of society, and profit motive often goes against that. Be it education, funding research of things that doesn't have any profit incentive (i.e. anything that doesn't lead to a saleable good, but generates knowledge, makes the world safer etc.). That's where the public sector is better taking the lead than the private.[/QUOTE]

Are we talking about colleges? I thought we were talking about k - 12. You're also talking about the loss of state funding, I thought we were talking about the addition of state funding to schools? Colleges are optional, not mandatory, so while both involve education, it's apples and oranges. You mention it in one spot (I've put it in bold), but all you say is "it won't work." How do you know? You also start in about prisons. Not sure how we got there, but I definitely don't think those should be privitized. I actually have other ideas for those.

[quote name='kill3r7']State schools are heavily subsidized and offer free education/ scholarships to underprivileged kids (we are talking dirt poor). The reason I used colleges as an example is because under the proposed system some kids would still have to pay for school while others would get a free ride based on their financial needs.

You don't have to believe me. I'm sure you've read plenty about this very topic in the papers lately. Peruse any newspaper and you are likely to see folks are complaining about "Obamacare", especially doctors, nurses and hospital administrators. They are eager to tell everyone how much worse the system will become.[/QUOTE]

But that's taking something private and making it public through Obamacare, so wouldn't that be the opposite of your point?

Anyway, lunch is over and I have to get back to it, so I don't know if I'll have time to keep responding here. Few parting words though:

1. Does anyone see the irony that those here who disagree with me hold society to such low standards (in regards to giving charity), yet you believe that these same people should have more power to rule over the rest of us and have the power to, under threat of force, decide what to do with the money that we earn?

2. The system proposed by Libertarians isn't perfect and none of us will claim that it is, as no system is perfect, but as Jefferson said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

3. Think about the consequences that come with a government with too much power. That's the state we're in now. Pre-emptive wars. Suppression of constitutinal rights. Do you feel that it's right that the occupy movement is subjected to so much police brutality when they're simply using their first amendment rights? The same government that steals my money, under threat of force, will also have the power to mace you in the face when you speak out against it.

4. As altruistic as you think your positions are, you can't deny that the welfare state uses it's monoploy on force to take from people to give to others, which is the very definition of theft. Think of it this way, you have two friends, Joe and Bob. Joe lost his job and needs help. You decide to give him money to help out. Bob decides he doesn't want to. You might get angry at Bob for not wanting to help, but would you want the police to come over, guns at the ready, and force Bob to give his money to Joe? Would that seem like the right course of action to you?

Anyway, I'm done here. You're all welcome to disagree. Statists are the least of my worries. I think neocons pose a bigger threat. Not only are they statists, but they tend to be religious statists, which is far worse in my opinion.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']
But that's taking something private and making it public through Obamacare, so wouldn't that be the opposite of your point?[/QUOTE]

Actually no. Hospitals and insurance companies will continue to be privately owned and operated. Last I read, the government is not seizing control of them. The government is merely opening them up for everyone. Similarly, under your suggested plan all kids would have the opportunity to attend private schools, just as "everyone" will have access to medical care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government that steal his money, lol. Does that victim mentality seem familiar to anyone else? Any other group that often employs it?

edit- These folks remind me so much of the people who, after having won the revolutionary war, thought there would be no taxes, which the government quickly showed them otherwise. Until you can stop with the childish, bullshit rhetoric of it being "stealing" when you're taxed, we can't have a serious conversation.
 
[quote name='Clak']The government that steal his money, lol. Does that victim mentality seem familiar to anyone else? Any other group that often employs it?

edit- These folks remind me so much of the people who, after having won the revolutionary war, thought there would be no taxes, which the government quickly showed them otherwise. Until you can stop with the childish, bullshit rhetoric of it being "stealing" when you're taxed, we can't have a serious conversation.[/QUOTE]

I think its stealing when my tax dollars go to pay someone unemployment who womt get off their ass to find a job because daddy obama and his ilk keep extending unemployment benefits to over a freaking year.

Its also stealing when my tax dollars go to welfare for unfit parents to use to buy drugs, and then the same government wont put drug testing to stop that crap.

Basically its stealing to pay for whatever you disagree with

:) .
 
[quote name='kilik64']I think its stealing when my tax dollars go to pay someone unemployment who womt get off their ass to find a job because daddy obama and his ilk keep extending unemployment benefits to over a freaking year.

Its also stealing when my tax dollars go to welfare for unfit parents to use to buy drugs, and then the same government wont put drug testing to stop that crap.

Basically its stealing to pay for whatever you disagree with

:) .[/QUOTE]

What happens to all these folks? Where do they go after we kick them out? Who takes care of their kids? Are we not a civilized society?
 
Yeah, drug testing for welfare has worked out real well in Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.
Click to expand...

Nobody likes things like welfare recipients using drugs or buying alcohol etc. But systems to try to prevent it end up just wasting more money so financially it's better of just accepting there's going to be some abuse and realizing those are the exceptions to the rules and the vast majority of aid recipients are using it to get buy and hoping to turn their lives around and get a job etc.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']It's not a belief, it's a fact. Name one thing that the public sector does better than the private sector?[/QUOTE]

Public utilities *cough*Enron*cough*

PS I've got plenty but you only asked for one...
 
[quote name='Clak']The government that steal his money, lol. Does that victim mentality seem familiar to anyone else? Any other group that often employs it?

edit- These folks remind me so much of the people who, after having won the revolutionary war, thought there would be no taxes, which the government quickly showed them otherwise. Until you can stop with the childish, bullshit rhetoric of it being "stealing" when you're taxed, we can't have a serious conversation.[/QUOTE]

Well am I wrong? What do you call it when someone takes something from somebody under threat of force? Does that not fit your definition of stealing?

I remind you of someone after the war who thought there would be no taxes? DUMBASS, FOR THE LAST fuckING TIME, I NEVER SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO TAXES!!

You're legit retarded. Do you even pay taxes? I have a hard time believing that you do. Who else would advocate violence and theft as you do unless you had something to gain from it?

[quote name='kilik64']I think its stealing when my tax dollars go to pay someone unemployment who womt get off their ass to find a job because daddy obama and his ilk keep extending unemployment benefits to over a freaking year.

Its also stealing when my tax dollars go to welfare for unfit parents to use to buy drugs, and then the same government wont put drug testing to stop that crap.

Basically its stealing to pay for whatever you disagree with

:) .[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I have no problems paying for the services I want/need/use. Everything else is theft.

[quote name='kill3r7']What happens to all these folks? Where do they go after we kick them out? Who takes care of their kids? Are we not a civilized society?[/QUOTE]

Who owns you? Do you own you? Does the government own you? Aren't you ultimately responsible for yourself? I certainly believe that I own myself, and I'm responsible for myself and my actions.

When people need help, there are other ways of helping them than though forcing other people to fund their poor choices. And I'm not just talking about the poor, I'm also talking about rich corporations who take risk and fuck people over. Why should the tax payer be responsible for footing their bill?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, drug testing for welfare has worked out real well in Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html



Nobody likes things like welfare recipients using drugs or buying alcohol etc. But systems to try to prevent it end up just wasting more money so financially it's better of just accepting there's going to be some abuse and realizing those are the exceptions to the rules and the vast majority of aid recipients are using it to get buy and hoping to turn their lives around and get a job etc.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure who mentioned anything about drug testing (a common theme that I'm noticing here...the constant shift in topic), but your stats don't take into account the 25% that opted out once they found out there was going to be drug testing. Nice try though.

The article stating the numbers seems to be gone, but I still have the paragraph in questions.

Dead link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ss-drug-test/2011/10/24/gIQAWH5yDM_story.html

“Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.”
Click to expand...
[quote name='camoor']Public utilities *cough*Enron*cough*

PS I've got plenty but you only asked for one...[/QUOTE]

Public utilities? Right, because nobody suffers from problems with public utilities. I can provide plenty of examples if you so wish. The difference is that public utilities aren't held accountable for such crimes. At least when things are privately owned and they fuck up, they're usually held accountable.
 
Hahaha...we have a live one here.

I'm posting from my mobile, so I'm going to keep this shortish:

- Private schools do "better" for "less" because they can be more choosey with who they admit. Add special needs students and the ratio gets a lot closer to parity with public schools.

- If charity was enough, we wouldn't ever need any social safety nets. My proof? All of recorded history.

- Just because you did it, doesn't mean that anyone can and that still doesn't remove the necessity for all the shoulders you stand on to get to where you are today and make it possible for you to be a shithead lolbertarian on the internet. You're not a Randian ubermensch, but a typical anti-social sounding IT guy with no sense of history and an over-inflated sense of accomplishment and self-worth.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hahaha...we have a live one here.

I'm posting from my mobile, so I'm going to keep this shortish:

- Private schools do "better" for "less" because they can be more choosey with who they admit. Add special needs students and the ratio gets a lot closer to parity with public schools.
[/QUOTE]

Any citation on that or are you just making shit up as you go?

[quote name='dohdough']
- If charity was enough, we wouldn't ever need any social safety nets. My proof? All of recorded history.
[/QUOTE]

Charity would be enough if you remove everyone who was bilking the system. Do you know how many people I've stood in line behind who I've seen using their benefits cards while texting on their iPhone? Fraud is rampant in the welfare system. I would also argue that, were everyone allowed to keep more of their paycheck, donations would increase.

[quote name='dohdough']
- Just because you did it, doesn't mean that anyone can [/QUOTE]

Why not?

[quote name='dohdough']
and that still doesn't remove the necessity for all the shoulders you stand on to get to where you are today and make it possible for you to be a shithead lolbertarian on the internet.[/QUOTE]

Whose shoulders did I stand on? Please be specific. I'm willing to bet you've stood on many more shoulders than I have just so you could be an entitled statist shithead on the internet.

[quote name='dohdough']
You're not a Randian ubermensch, but a typical anti-social sounding IT guy with no sense of history and an over-inflated sense of accomplishment and self-worth.[/QUOTE]

Quite a few assumptions there. No sense of history? I'm better than most. Anti-social? I have friends, I'm married...not really sure of your standards, but I hardly consider myself anti-social.

Over-inflated sense of accomplishment and self worth? Well, I own a middle-class house in a middle-class neighborhood and drive a middle class car. I do think I have more now than what my family had growing up, but again, I attribute it to not fucking around in school and getting my shit together at an early age, something that I owe only to myself.

What do you do for a living again?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']
Who owns you? Do you own you? Does the government own you? Aren't you ultimately responsible for yourself? I certainly believe that I own myself, and I'm responsible for myself and my actions. [/QUOTE]

No one owns me. I'm free to do as I please within the restrictions of the law. This is not a question of personal responsibility or personal freedom but of social responsibility. I'm sure i would do just fine in a libertarian society but I want to live in a society where famine, poverty and pollution are eliminated. Why can't we strive to be the greatest society in the world? Why must we only be concerned only with one's self?
 
[quote name='kill3r7']No one owns me. I'm free to do as I please within the restrictions of the law. This is not a question of personal responsibility or personal freedom but of social responsibility. I'm sure i would do just fine in a libertarian society but I want to live in a society where famine, poverty and pollution are eliminated. Why can't we strive to be the greatest society in the world? Why must we only be concerned only with one's self?[/QUOTE]

We should be. These are things that we should aspire to. These are things that should be important to us.

But should we be forced to do these things? Should people who don't care about those things be forced to care? Like I said, there's absolutely zero virtue in forced charity.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']We should be. These are things that we should aspire to. These are things that should be important to us.

But should we be forced to do these things? Should people who don't care about those things be forced to care? Like I said, there's absolutely zero virtue in forced charity.[/QUOTE]

Agreed hence why I never called it charity. The law (government) cannot be altruistic/philanthropic without "stealing/plundering" from the individual but so what. If we were to rely on individual charity our society would resemble ealy 20th century. Not such a great place for the little guy. Libertarian ideas work fine for the individual but when we start talking about the collective they are harder to apply. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with less taxes and smaller government but IMO our society isn't ready for that yet.
 
Between causality and neurology, reality is not constructed in a way where the notion of self, free will and liberty are things that can actually exist. So one might imagine that I find libertarianism to be the most ridiculous thing. The notion of coercive forces ring hollow to me, because there are no choices. So I could either say that all forces are coercive or that the notion itself is nonsensical.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Agreed hence why I never called it charity. The law (government) cannot be altruistic/philanthropic without "stealing/plundering" from the individual but so what. If we were to rely on individual charity our society would resemble ealy 20th century. Not such a great place for the little guy. Libertarian ideas work fine for the individual but when we start talking about the collective they are harder to apply. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with less taxes and smaller government but IMO our society isn't ready for that yet.[/QUOTE]

The early 20th century was hardly a Libertarian utopia. The problem with a system of forced charity is that it run rife with fraud and you have no recourse to say "I'm not funding that."

I think it would be interesting if they made the tax optional, and during tax time, you could submit any amount you wished. I wonder how much people like clak, doughdo (or whatever) and dmaul would give. My guess? Nothing, or next to it.

But listen, welfare is the least of my worries. We spend way more on the war machine and our overseas empire than we do on welfare. I'd even be willing to keep the welfare system if it meant getting rid of that bullshit.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']The early 20th century was hardly a Libertarian utopia.

But listen, welfare is the least of my worries. We spend way more on the war machine and our overseas empire than we do on welfare. I'd even be willing to keep the welfare system if it meant getting rid of that bullshit.[/QUOTE]


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe there has ever been a period of time that can be considered a libertarian utopia. The US came close after the revolutionary war but for slavery, voting rights and taxes/tariffs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Public utilities *cough*Enron*cough*

PS I've got plenty but you only asked for one...[/QUOTE]
Utilities, fuck that. Use the biggest, best example we have, our military. Either we have a government controlled military to protect us or hire morons like Blackwater to protect us, that'd be fucking GREAT.
 
[quote name='Clak']Utilities, fuck that. Use the biggest, best example we have, our military. Either we have a government controlled military to protect us or hire morons like Blackwater to protect us, that'd be fucking GREAT.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? I mean, you're right about Blackwater, but I could post a list of war atrocities committed by US forces two miles long. Not only that, but when members of the military point these things out, they're detained and tortured without due process.

Nice example guy. You're doing great!

[quote name='kill3r7']Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe there has ever been a period of time that can be considered a libertarian utopia. The US came close after the revolutionary war but for slavery, voting rights and taxes/tariffs.[/QUOTE]

You're correct.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Any citation on that or are you just making shit up as you go?



Charity would be enough if you remove everyone who was bilking the system. Do you know how many people I've stood in line behind who I've seen using their benefits cards while texting on their iPhone? Fraud is rampant in the welfare system. I would also argue that, were everyone allowed to keep more of their paycheck, donations would increase.



Why not?



Whose shoulders did I stand on? Please be specific. I'm willing to bet you've stood on many more shoulders than I have just so you could be an entitled statist shithead on the internet.



Quite a few assumptions there. No sense of history? I'm better than most. Anti-social? I have friends, I'm married...not really sure of your standards, but I hardly consider myself anti-social.

Over-inflated sense of accomplishment and self worth? Well, I own a middle-class house in a middle-class neighborhood and drive a middle class car. I do think I have more now than what my family had growing up, but again, I attribute it to not fucking around in school and getting my shit together at an early age, something that I owe only to myself.

What do you do for a living again?[/QUOTE]
Why would I need to prove that a student with disbilities costs more and requires more resources to send to school and educate? It should be an obvious conclusion because the school system is setup for students with as few mental and physical problems as possible.

Private charity has never ever been sufficient to address a vast majority of even medical needs, muchless food and shelter. That massive fraud you're talking about is also at about 2%.

And LOLZ@why not. Maybe because the world only needs a certain amount of IT guys with a degree and there can only be IT guys if there are people that create the infrastructure for it. There wouldn't be IT guys if most people are doing subsistence farming in order to survive. This is one of the reasons why I find your perspective on history farcical because you completely ignore this.

Lets say that I make 120k as network admin for a fortune 500. Would that change your mind about me? Or how about if I was a retired venture capitalist living off dividends? The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what I do for money or how much I make in regards to the accuracy of my facts or the veracity of my arguments.

NO ONE does anything on their own and no man is an island. If you think you've done everything purely out of your own gumption, you're an ungrateful prick along with being antisocial. Just because you have a wife and friends doesn't mean that you don't have contempt for other people. And don't say that you don't because it literally oozes from your posts.

edit: Any altruism on your part is merely a consequence rather than the goal. Your goal is self-interest; not societal interest.

edit2: There's actually so much bullshit to disseminate that I'm going to hold off in addressing anymore of it until I get to an actual computer.

edit3: Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about Ron Paul and the gold standard?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Why would I need to prove that a student with disbilities costs more and requires more resources to send to school and educate? It should be an obvious conclusion because the school system is setup for students with as few mental and physical problems as possible.[/QUOTE]

I just doubt that it would cost so much as to raise what privates schools pay to the level of public schools. My school didn't have that many special needs kids. I think you're exaggerating the cost. Are you really claiming that public schools cost more than private schools simply because of special needs students?

[quote name='dohdough']
Private charity has never ever been sufficient to address a vast majority of even medical needs, muchless food and shelter. That massive fraud you're talking about is also at about 2%.
[/QUOTE]

2%? Where did you pull that statistic?

To use LA as an example.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v99/n3/9903_643.Gustafson.pdf

A 2003
Los Angeles audit found only 34% of statewide fraud investigations and
30% of Los Angeles fraud investigations produced evidence of fraud.187
Click to expand...
[quote name='dohdough']
And LOLZ@why not. Maybe because the world only needs a certain amount of IT guys with a degree and there can only be IT guys if there are people that create the infrastructure for it. There wouldn't be IT guys if most people are doing subsistence farming in order to survive. This is one of the reasons why I find your perspective on history farcical because you completely ignore this.
[/QUOTE]

What exactly does my profession have to do with anything? Farming? Who the fuck said anything about subsistence farming? Why does this countries history of subsistence farming have anything to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying I owe me career to subsistence farmers?

[quote name='dohdough']
Lets say that I make 120k as network admin for a fortune 500. Would that change your mind about me? Or how about if I was a retired venture capitalist living off dividends? The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what I do for money or how much I make in regards to the accuracy of my facts or the veracity of my arguments.[/QUOTE]

You're right, but I wasn't asking because of that. I was asking because you seemed to be shitting on my profession, so I just assumed that you must have something that puts you higher up the social and economic chain.

I find it interesting that you avoided the question though. And no, it wouldn't change my opinion of you.

[quote name='dohdough']
NO ONE does anything on their own and no man is an island. If you think you've done everything purely out of your own gumption, you're an ungrateful prick along with being antisocial.[/QUOTE]

Ok, oh great one, please tell me who helped me get to where I am today.

[quote name='dohdough']
Just because you have a wife and friends doesn't mean that you don't have contempt for other people. And don't say that you don't because it literally oozes from your posts.[/QUOTE]

Contempt oozes from MY posts? Are you fucking serious? I've read some of your past posts and I have yet to find one that didn't have dershberg written all over it. Seriously, compare my posts just in this thread to yours and you tell me which sound more snide and hateful.


[quote name='dohdough']
edit: Any altruism on your part is merely a consequence rather than the goal. Your goal is self-interest; not societal interest.[/QUOTE]

There you go, making assumptions again. Dude, you don't fucking know me or my objectives, so don't act like you do. Again, my posts are full of contempt? Give me a fucking break.


[quote name='dohdough']
edit2: There's actually so much bullshit to disseminate that I'm going to hold off in addressing anymore of it until I get to an actual computer.[/QUOTE]

I was going to ask you if you wrote all this on your cell phone. That's pretty impressive.

[quote name='dohdough']
edit3: Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about Ron Paul and the gold standard?[/QUOTE]

I've wasted enough of my free time trying to convince statists that stealing and violence against people are wrong, so I'm not really interested in having that discussion with you. I'll sum it up as quickly as I possibly can.

I like Ron Paul and I agree with much of what he says except on the topics of abortion and his support for putting military on our border. Oh, and yes to the gold standard.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Public utilities? Right, because nobody suffers from problems with public utilities. I can provide plenty of examples if you so wish. The difference is that public utilities aren't held accountable for such crimes. At least when things are privately owned and they fuck up, they're usually held accountable.[/QUOTE]

Bull fucking shit.

How long, how motherfucking long, how many 'aunt millies' got screwed when CA privatized their utilities. How many paid out the ass for absolute shit service. I don't think you'll find an example of a public utility fucking over the general public in such a sustained manner anywhere in American history.

You're fucking wrong dude.
 
Ummm dohdough, I think you mean Nietzsche for Ubermensch.

As for utilities people seem to get hosed on both sides, public and private. But I got something to tell you scars, tell the people of Uruguay or whatever South American country who decided to privatize their water resources. It was an absolute clusterfuck, it was made illegal for people to collect rainwater. As far as I'm concerned the water utility should stay public and if you claim ownership of any large amount of water and try to enforce it you should expect to get killed and rightfully so. Adam Smith wondered why water didn't work, in being able to gouge them for that need. Well it's because people will kill you for it if you try to charge them too much for it.
 
Private companies are held accountable, are you fucking serious? I guess you thought that the government was too hard on BP as well? You're a fucking joke of a human being.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Sorry! I'm interested in hearing your position but I couldn't see through all the snark. You're still making it unclear, but if I had to take a stab at it, I would guess that you're saying that Libertarians think they should have WMDs to protect themselves? That's interesting, since I don't think I've ever talked to one that held that position.[/quote]

Bingo - therefore, everyone you know believes in limitations to the second amendment. A truly open second amendment would, at its extreme, keep WMDs on shelves for sale at retail stores. Sounds absurd, yes, but if you will entertain me, please explain the logic of the second amendment such that it makes sense, from a Libertarian point of view, to selectively prohibit the sales of any armaments, even those that virtually 100% of American society would agree with prohibiting.

Vague? How so? It's pretty much the golden rule. Basically, as long as what you're doing doesn't interfere with another's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, then you're good to go.
Click to expand...

The golden rule is vague. Corporations lobbying against legislation that would require them to openly label any GMOs in their food curtails my freedom to know what's in my food. Hershey lobbying to change the legal definition of chocolate such that they can use engineered vegetable solids in candy bars, devoid of any cacao bean whatsoever, and still call it chocolate, infringes upon my freedom to believe that what I read that I'm eating ('milk chocolate' or what-have-you) is an accurate representation of what I am putting in my body. Derivatives trading and risky investment instruments, tossed around from bank to bank, like a bomb ready to explode, devalued millions of homes, increased the number of families whose homes went underwater, annihilated portfolios of millions of people, caused the market crash, led to a massive shedding of jobs nationwide that we have not recovered from - such an example of an unregulated market "infringing upon freedoms" could not be any clearer or more disastrous in an abstract (i.e., non-lethal) way. Yet it is those on the right (and let's not play this charade that Libertarians are neither "left nor right" - they are perpetually right by virtue of their Randian economic emphasis, combined with utter disinterest in social issues that they try to pawn off as somehow making them "balanced" or "center" - you are to the right, since your ideology demands your allegiance to right-wing fiscal philosophy, and makes no similar demands of social issues)...

...it is those on the right who have fought against legislation that would break up commercial and investment banks based on provisions in the banking act of 1933 (what is more commonly called Glass-Steagal). The market collapse and the economic ruin that followed is somehow evidence for the need for *less* regulation, not more.

That's why it is vague. Because "life, liberty and happiness" are just buzzwords used by Libertarians that are selectively viewed in ways that are brutal, arcane, and myopically fixated on "having stuff." Losing the freedom to have clean, potable, non-flammable tap water because your state opened up fracking to commercial interests? You don't care about enforcing that freedom, because the freedom to accrue capital at any social cost is, to Libertarians, a virtue and not a liability.

That is why I say it is vague. Because Libertarians are full of shit when they say it.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Ummm dohdough, I think you mean Nietzsche for Ubermensch.

As for utilities people seem to get hosed on both sides, public and private. But I got something to tell you scars, tell the people of Uruguay or whatever South American country who decided to privatize their water resources. It was an absolute clusterfuck, it was made illegal for people to collect rainwater. As far as I'm concerned the water utility should stay public and if you claim ownership of any large amount of water and try to enforce it you should expect to get killed and rightfully so. Adam Smith wondered why water didn't work, in being able to gouge them for that need. Well it's because people will kill you for it if you try to charge them too much for it.[/QUOTE]

So the private company made it illegal for them to collect rainwater? Sounds more like something their government did.

[quote name='Clak']Private companies are held accountable, are you fucking serious? I guess you thought that the government was too hard on BP as well? You're a fucking joke of a human being.[/QUOTE]

No, I didn't think they were too hard on BP, but BP was held accountable way more than any government agency would have been. At least with BP, consumers can make a choice whether or not they buy gas from their stations. Can you boycott your government? Whenever a large corporation isn't held accountable, it's because the government has it's hand so far up it's ass it can poke it in the eye. Need proof? See: the last five years.
 
[quote name='temporaryscars']no, i didn't think they were too hard on bp, but bp was held accountable way more than any government agency would have been.[/quote]

no, you're wrong
 
One could say that the problem with utility privatization is the granted monopoly by the government, because monopoly comes about as a result of government. This is technically correct, but only because markets dont exist without governments. So you can always always say - not free market enough, because you are aspiring to a scenario which cannot, has not, and will never exist in a dimension governed by causality.
 
But you can't choose to not buy BP gasoline because it's all the same in the damn pipeline. Besides that, those stations are probably not owned by BP itself.
 
Right-o. You can fuck over franchisees, but if you go fill up at Kroger instead, you're only fucking over the franchisees.

They're infringing on my right to be a conscious, knowledgeable consumer, Temp. What say you Libertarians to that kind of shell game (no pun intended)?
 
That's the fallacy that so many still believe in, but that is completely ridiculous in this day and age, that a single person can really boycott a large company. Most large corporatiosn go to great lengths to insulate themselves from dealing directly with the public. Like the oil companies for exmaple, you don't buy from them, you buy from station owners. You're not hurting BP, you're hurting whoever owns the station.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bingo - therefore, everyone you know believes in limitations to the second amendment. A truly open second amendment would, at its extreme, keep WMDs on shelves for sale at retail stores. Sounds absurd, yes, but if you will entertain me, please explain the logic of the second amendment such that it makes sense, from a Libertarian point of view, to selectively prohibit the sales of any armaments, even those that virtually 100% of American society would agree with prohibiting.
[/QUOTE]

Any Libertarian will tell you that people shouldn't have WMDs, but they'll also tell you that neither should their government. Your point is absurd.

[quote name='mykevermin']
The golden rule is vague. Corporations lobbying against legislation that would require them to openly label any GMOs in their food curtails my freedom to know what's in my food. Hershey lobbying to change the legal definition of chocolate such that they can use engineered vegetable solids in candy bars, devoid of any cacao bean whatsoever, and still call it chocolate, infringes upon my freedom to believe that what I read that I'm eating ('milk chocolate' or what-have-you) is an accurate representation of what I am putting in my body. [/QUOTE]

Well first off, you don't have a right to any of those things. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to know what you're eating. But, you have every right to send your food to a lab for testing. You have a right to grow and raise your own food if you're concerned about what's in it. You have a right to ask those companies what's in their products, and if you don't like the answer, or don't like that you didn't get an answer, you can stop giving them your money for said product.


[quote name='mykevermin']
Derivatives trading and risky investment instruments, tossed around from bank to bank, like a bomb ready to explode, devalued millions of homes, increased the number of families whose homes went underwater, annihilated portfolios of millions of people, caused the market crash, led to a massive shedding of jobs nationwide that we have not recovered from - such an example of an unregulated market "infringing upon freedoms" could not be any clearer or more disastrous in an abstract (i.e., non-lethal) way. [/QUOTE]

Yes, the banks committed atrocious acts, and they would have paid dearly if the government wasn't already waste deep in the banking industry. Who was it that decided to take keep the banks going, bail them out with tax payer money while the tax payer floundered? The government. The same government that you think should have even more power over it's citizens.


[quote name='mykevermin']Yet it is those on the right (and let's not play this charade that Libertarians are neither "left nor right" - they are perpetually right by virtue of their Randian economic emphasis,[/QUOTE]

When did Libertarians claim not to be to the right? We only make distinctions between us and the neocons.

[quote name='mykevermin']
combined with utter disinterest in social issues that they try to pawn off as somehow making them "balanced" or "center" - you are to the right, since your ideology demands your allegiance to right-wing fiscal philosophy, and makes no similar demands of social issues)...[/QUOTE]

That's just completely false. Social issues are very important to Libertarians. You won't find a real Libertarian who isn't pro-gay marriage, pro-equality or anti-drug war. It's a big part of what we believe. If we had to choose between a free society or a free market, I think most would choose a free society.


[quote name='mykevermin']
...it is those on the right who have fought against legislation that would break up commercial and investment banks based on provisions in the banking act of 1933 (what is more commonly called Glass-Steagal). The market collapse and the economic ruin that followed is somehow evidence for the need for *less* regulation, not more.[/QUOTE]

Because the federal government doesn't have the power to do so and it's over-stepping its bounds. By the way, it was Clinton who ended Glass-Steagal, NOT those on the right. While Glass-Steagal would have been good in the idea that they would have had to bail themselves out, instead of the tax payer having to, but other than that, I don't have a whole lot to add since I'm not entirely familiar with the complex nature of the banking sector.


[quote name='mykevermin']That's why it is vague. Because "life, liberty and happiness" are just buzzwords used by Libertarians that are selectively viewed in ways that are brutal, arcane, and myopically fixated on "having stuff." [/QUOTE]

Did I ever just say those buzz-words and leave it at that? I'm pretty sure I went on to explain my positions and why I hold them.



[quote name='mykevermin']
Losing the freedom to have clean, potable, non-flammable tap water because your state opened up fracking to commercial interests? You don't care about enforcing that freedom, because the freedom to accrue capital at any social cost is, to Libertarians, a virtue and not a liability.[/QUOTE]

Studies have shown that sometimes, tap water is flammable even without the fracking due to small pockets of gas. Just like anything else, if a private company does something on their land that negatively effects somebody else, that other person can take the company to court and sue them and have an injunction ordered to make them stop.

I happen to be anti-fracking. While it's important that we tap our resources, I just don't think it's to the point where it's safe enough to do so (I feel the same way about nuclear power). But anyway, these are things that should be determined by the people at community levels, not federal or state, and that's how it currently happens. I live in the part of the country that does a lot of the fracking and they all have town meetings about it.
 
It's charming yet frustrating that you sidestep a question about the language of the constitution, and one sentence later, declare that the constitution doesn't provide me the right to know what I'm eating (therefore I have no leg to stand on, it would seem).

As I said before, the premise of Libertarianism is rooted in selective interpretation of the constitution. You've done a good job at validating that claim.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's charming yet frustrating that you sidestep a question about the language of the constitution, and one sentence later, declare that the constitution doesn't provide me the right to know what I'm eating (therefore I have no leg to stand on, it would seem).

As I said before, the premise of Libertarianism is rooted in selective interpretation of the constitution. You've done a good job at validating that claim.[/QUOTE]

Does the constitution provide you the right to know what you're eating?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Does the constitution provide you the right to know what you're eating?[/QUOTE]

The same constitution that doesn't prohibit the ownership or sale of any kind of armaments? That same provision you deny has any merit?

Well, I suppose the freedom to not eat rat poison unknowingly might fall under the concept of "general welfare," so at least I got that goin' for me.
 
Either way, what do you expect? I'm one person trying to explain the position of a complex political party that has varying opinions and factions and I have to be on the defensive against a room full of statists? I don't speak for the entire party. It's hard enough to even keep track of the various comments that keep popping up and shifting gears. How about you do some explaining? How can you support Obama after NDAA, extending the patriot act, not ending the war on drugs, not ending wars oversears and pretty much breaking every single campaign promise he made? Please, lets hear your justifications for that.
 
[quote name='camoor']
[quote name='Temporaryscars']No, I didn't think they were too hard on BP, but BP was held accountable way more than any government agency would have been.[/QUOTE]

no, you're wrong[/QUOTE]

Really? I missed the news articles proclaiming which federal agencies and employees took the fall for A) The damage that the land they were leasing out caused and B) The damaged caused by them doing a half-***ed job when it came to the required safety inspections they were supposed to be completing. And, before someone brings it up, C) The politicians who cut funding to the agencies that were responsible for conducting and auditing BP... I missed the articles where they were held accountable as well. Maybe you could link us all to a few of them? I'm curious if Obama summoned them all to his office for private, closed door (a.k.a. "Open and Transparent") meetings with him and his Attorney General.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's charming yet frustrating that you sidestep a question about the language of the constitution, and one sentence later, declare that the constitution doesn't provide me the right to know what I'm eating (therefore I have no leg to stand on, it would seem).

As I said before, the premise of Libertarianism is rooted in selective interpretation of the constitution. You've done a good job at validating that claim.[/QUOTE]
It's like their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They completely ignore the part about a militia, it might as well not even exist. All the time that was spent revising it (and it went through many revisions) and a good number of people only read half of it.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's like their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They completely ignore the part about a militia, it might as well not even exist. All the time that was spent revising it (and it went through many revisions) and a good number of people only read half of it.[/QUOTE]

Did you not watch the video I posted?
 
In terms of fracking there supposedly is an alternative to it called Hydraulic Cavitation. Of course this came from a paper by a university student when I looked up alternatives to fracking so I don't really know if it's been used much except possibly in research.
Oh and scar bringing someone to court for irreparably poisoning the freshwater supply seems a pitiful response.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']In terms of fracking there supposedly is an alternative to it called Hydraulic Cavitation. Of course this came from a paper by a university student when I looked up alternatives to fracking so I don't really know if it's been used much except possibly in research.
Oh and scar bringing someone to court for irreparably poisoning the freshwater supply seems a pitiful response.[/QUOTE]

Criminal charges could (and should, in my opinion) be brought as well.
 
Oh, Obama's diet Reagan fiscally (actually, he's to the right of Reagan if we're talking policy and not what he simply proposes to do), and he's done a good amount of work in social avenues (repealing DADT, coming out in support of same-sex marriages, health care reform (though sadly that's a heritage foundation policy - I'd prefer to see a single-payer universal coverage system), Lily Ledbetter Act, etc.) But I feel that a lot of the social issues are bread and circuses, since we're "pretty fucked fiscally, according to Neil Barofsky.

But the guy fiscally is so far right it blows my mind that Republicans aren't beating each other to the voting booths to re-elect him. Well, okay, it doesn't blow my mind - I know that a "pro sports team" mentality has replaced genuine political discourse, where my team good and your team bad, and sadly the very notion of "compromise" is a bad word anymore. So I know why, but the way people make their minds up that he's a socialist, or far left, or what have you - it makes me woe for the general knowledge of the public.

Is that what you wanted? Oh, you wanted me to defend voting for him. Well, I tried that third party shite in 2000 to help get the Green Party enough votes to receive federal funding (and with any luck a seat at the debate table) in the 2004 elections. Missed by a country mile.

Why do I support Obama? In part, it's naivete - the naivete that, once he's elected to his second term, he will no longer have to play to the center in order to get re-elected, and we'll get some good, righteous, honest to goodness left-wing policies in place. Blow up the capital gains tax, roll back the Bush tax cuts, eliminate corporate subsidies, peg-the-minimum-wage-to-inflation - you know, crazy left wing stuff. I know I'm pie in the sky dreaming, but here's the thing: my ideal candidates for president are wholly unelectable (and don't run anyway) - Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. So I'm left to settle for a Reagan clone because I'd rather have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing legit liberal policies than I would no chance whatsoever.

I know you're one dude, and I'm trying to keep concise because there's a lot of discussions going on here at once. I do appreciate your participation, and I'm legit trying to tone down the snark (you should know that's bloody hard for me to do). But the fact remains that you seem to be cherry picking the constitution such that it remains consistent with the Libertarian party, not questioning why the Libertarian party is not consistent with the Constitution. It shouldn't be that way. I find that approach disheartening and, frankly, dishonest.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, Obama's diet Reagan fiscally (actually, he's to the right of Reagan if we're talking policy and not what he simply proposes to do), and he's done a good amount of work in social avenues (repealing DADT, coming out in support of same-sex marriages, health care reform (though sadly that's a heritage foundation policy - I'd prefer to see a single-payer universal coverage system), Lily Ledbetter Act, etc.

But the guy fiscally is so far right it blows my mind that Republicans aren't beating each other to the voting booths to re-elect him. Well, okay, it doesn't blow my mind - I know that a "pro sports team" mentality has replaced genuine political discourse, where my team good and your team bad, and sadly the very notion of "compromise" is a bad word anymore. So I know why, but the way people make their minds up that he's a socialist, or far left, or what have you - it makes me woe for the general knowledge of the public.[/QUOTE]

Well, I was actually hoping you'd respond to the issues I brought up. You really think he has come out in support of same sex marriage? I thought that was just Joe Biden. If he were really in support of it, he'd make it illegal for states to prohibit it under the 14th amendment.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Is that what you wanted? Oh, you wanted me to defend voting for him. Well, I tried that third party shite in 2000 to help get the Green Party enough votes to receive federal funding (and with any luck a seat at the debate table) in the 2004 elections. Missed by a country mile.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to defend voting for him. Like I said before, I voted for him too because of what he said he would do. I'm just pissed that, not only didn't he deliver, but I feel he has made things worse with the things I mentioned earlier.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Why do I support Obama? In part, it's naivete - the naivete that, once he's elected to his second term, he will no longer have to play to the center in order to get re-elected, and we'll get some good, righteous, honest to goodness left-wing policies in place. Blow up the capital gains tax, roll back the Bush tax cuts, eliminate corporate subsidies, peg-the-minimum-wage-to-inflation - you know, crazy left wing stuff. I know I'm pie in the sky dreaming, but here's the thing: my ideal candidates for president are wholly unelectable (and don't run anyway) - Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. So I'm left to settle for a Reagan clone because I'd rather have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing legit liberal policies than I would no chance whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Based on why you're supporting him, I'd say YOU'RE more concerned with economic issues than social issues. Honestly, his policies scare me as much as Bush's did and I didn't even think it was possible. The guy scolds other countries for their lack of civil liberties all while protestors in the US are being shot, maced and beaten.

[quote name='mykevermin']
I know you're one dude, and I'm trying to keep concise because there's a lot of discussions going on here at once. I do appreciate your participation, and I'm legit trying to tone down the snark (you should know that's bloody hard for me to do). But the fact remains that you seem to be cherry picking the constitution such that it remains consistent with the Libertarian party, not questioning why the Libertarian party is not consistent with the Constitution. It shouldn't be that way. I find that approach disheartening and, frankly, dishonest.[/QUOTE]

I'm not cherry picking the constitution, but we all have lines that we draw. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment because I fear what happens to us when our first stops working. I draw the line at WMDs. That's my own personal line and it differs for everyone in my party, not to mention everyone outside my party. I'm not trying to be dishonest, but when you push subjects to their maxim, you're going to get inconsistencies.

I'll assume you support the first amendment, so does that mean you think people should be able to yell fire in a crowded room? No? Well then, you must not support the first amendment!

I find that tactic to be dishonest because you're setting unrealistic expectations in accordance with human nature.
 
By the way, wouldn't the whole "peg the minimum wage to inflation" thing increase inflation? The costs have to be absorbed somewhere. Either that or a company will employ fewer workers.
 
What you're missing is that you're exemplifying his points.

- LOLZ @ human nature when it's anything but natural

- LOLZ @ the 2nd protecting the 1st

- LOLZ @ no true Scotsman

For someone that talks about someone else ignoring political realities, you sure do like to ignore them in the very post you lecture others on it.

edit: You know what happened when there was no minimum wage protections? Workers were given wages they were barely able to survive on and were in debt-slavery to the company store. You wanna know what happened when the workers wanted better working conditions? They were killed. For someone that boasted about their know ledge of history, you sure do like to ignore it a whole lot!
 
[quote name='dohdough']What you're missing is that you're exemplifying his points.

- LOLZ @ human nature when it's anything but natural

- LOLZ @ the 2nd protecting the 1st

- LOLZ @ no true Scotsman

For someone that talks about someone else ignoring political realities, you sure do like to ignore them in the very post you lecture others on it.[/QUOTE]

It's unnatural for humans to not be at one extreme or another? I'm willing to bet that most people fall into that category. Maybe not you though.

I never said the second protects the first, I said that the second is there if the first fails.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What you're missing is that you're exemplifying his points.

- LOLZ @ human nature when it's anything but natural

- LOLZ @ the 2nd protecting the 1st

- LOLZ @ no true Scotsman

For someone that talks about someone else ignoring political realities, you sure do like to ignore them in the very post you lecture others on it.

edit: You know what happened when there was no minimum wage protections? Workers were given wages they were barely able to survive on and were in debt-slavery to the company store. You wanna know what happened when the workers wanted better working conditions? They were killed. For someone that boasted about their know ledge of history, you sure do like to ignore it a whole lot![/QUOTE]

I can't believe I'm quoting you again, but first off, who said anything about conditions?! Once again, you're switching the topic and putting words in my mouth, THEN accusing me of not knowing history. I simply pointed out that raising the minimum wage would result on either one of two things since companies don't just absorb costs. Instead of addressing what I said, you go on a historical tirade and then start throwing baseless accusations around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top