Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[pvsi]

As for the "willing forced" quote. I actually didn't say that but I referenced a market situation where someone can find themselves in a desperate situation. A common illustrative example is the person in the desert dying of thirst who would be willing to pay anything for water. The real world example is the labor market where labor can have inelastic demand for wages producing results like child labor, poor working conditions, etc.

Remember, I am speaking to you not as a republican. in 1987 as a 13 year old me, my father and my mom came to this country with absolutely nothing. And we HAVE been in desperate situations, and that is precisely what I do not want to wish upon anyone, other than perhaps the bankers who created the system in the first place. do not take me for a libertarian, I'm a human being.

BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE PROBLEM IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE IT (something I believe GOP and the LP due to their attempt to play the same game, fail to do)

YES, a person dying of thirst in the desert should be helped and not be taken advantage of. But is that as far as we should look, when there may be at least two options: 1. no one is there in the desert with his water fountain stand, because there are not enough customers, or 2. when he sees an occasional victim, he better rip him off good. And that has a lot to do with why I'm not too in love with American system, anyway.......

Deserts are one thing, but as we know there are man made deserts (recessions). I think in America, there is no better example than market crash of 1929, the great depression. and if you want to continue looking short term, then we really are just not speaking the same language, but if you want to understand as I decided to wake up and understand, you have to realize WHY the founding fathers were warning about money lenders years and decades before they finally took it over in 1913, WHY the people, starting with children in schools are now being taught that they were slave owners, WHY just less than a year after that WW1 started, WHY depression in USA was a good way to get USA into the WW2, and WHY wars are a way to create those deserts, teach kids to keep smiling while a class of billionaires who controls those governments hide in the shadows.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe that these billionaires would be anything without their full control of the government, but sadly many people are easily bamboozled, when the propaganda plays in stereo (left vs. right circus, MSNBC vs. FOX NEWS etc.)

 

[pvsi]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Progressives will except you, so will liberals, but if you even hint that you have any of those thoughts to a con, you're out. Even Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are considered too "moderate" for the cons, and are being challenged by other cons for their senate seats. These days, if you're not to the right of Mussolini, you're not a true con.

You may be right, and it probably has to do with the fact that liberals descended from USSR where it is known that opposition was not accepted, and conservatives are living in a lost nation, with radicalism being the only form of dissent... chameleons have to keep changing their colors, but they are still all the same animal.

 

[Londoner]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

This is Libertarianism in practice. And this is what Reagan was in practice, an inside advocate for the concentrated power of corporations... but he used conservatism, religion, national security threats and patriotism to pull non-wealthy voters into the movement. [There's a term for this ideological shell game. We use to call it the Reagan Shuffle. It's when a politician sends people into the voting booth with the promise of religious advocacy and tight borders, and then right after the sucker pulls the lever, you ship his job to China and pass the largest Amnesty Bill in US History] Many posters here actually believe that the conservatism preached by their party leaders is actually genuine. The GOP has beat the Dems in their outreach to idiots. Republican voters have great faith in their leaders. They trusted Bush's Terrorism Narrative 100%. They don't question their party.

But let's get back to Libertarianism, which aims are more noble than merely dominating political, economic and cultural life. Libertarianism is theoretically very credible, if a little too utopian. It believes that government lacks the information and incentive to effectively control supply and demand. This makes sense. Problem is, it fails to realize that there is no such thing as a completely unregulated economy. There has never been a modern economy without rules and law enforcement. Sales on EBay or stock purchases would shrivel up if people weren't protected legally once they made a purchase. Try this: ask a republican what the administrative requirements are for running say one global futures market. Seriously, ask them to list the rules, regulations and safeguards for running a $1 billion dollar financial market where money moves all over the globe in an instant, transferring between currencies. Then ask your Republican friend about the patent system, where the American government protects the investments & research of our great businesses. Do Republicans know how much pressure the corporations who fund the Ayn Rand Institute put on government to give them patents, so that the nanny state can put a virtual monopoly wall around their products? Do Republicans know how much money the taxpayer contributes to the protection oilfields in the Middle East, so that Exxon can make a profit and the global economy can have reliable energy delivery? Do Republicans know where our satellite system came from? The State has always provided massive financial, technological and law-enforcement support for the accumulation of capital.

My friend was doing research for a global mining company in Africa, in the 80s. The roads leading to his office were unpaved and frequently washed out by storms. The building he worked in had electrical fires and destroyed some of his work because much of Africa lacks fire codes. Finally, his building was routinely robbed because much of Africa lacks a sufficient police force. The investors got scared off because this region lacked the infrastructure and law enforcement to protect their investment - and my friend was called back to London. Point is, capital investment depends on modern industrial infrastructure and a minimum level of laws and regulations to protect property/investments. This is why there has never been a market completely free of state involvement, and it's why libertarian talk about free markets is as utopian as Marx's is "withering away of the state", which he claimed merely served to protect the propertied classes from the masses.

Libertarianism is a great tool for criticizing the limits of state involvement in the economy. It helps us spot the gross inefficiencies that stem from centralized power. This is why Milton Friedman was as good critic of postwar capitalism as Marx was of monopoly capitalism. Marx helps us see the dangers of Monopoly Capitalism, where Big Business accumulates the financial leverage to purchase Government and rig markets, enslaving consumers to ever rising prices and ever diminishing services. Friedman helps us see the dangers of Managed Capitalism, where the State destroys productivity and competition by over regulating and over taxing.

Each side of this conceptual divide has intelligent thinkers and obedient drones. The obedient drones have never taken an advanced university course on this topic. They get most of their information from places like talk radio. They are the front line soldiers of the movement. There is no use debating anything with them. When you ask them to defend their conclusions with reasons and arguments, they just get angry and call you a stupid fucking liberal. Their job is merely to clog the public debate with talking points that were made somewhere else.

 

[Bombur]

As for the "willing forced" quote. I actually didn't say that but I referenced a market situation where someone can find themselves in a desperate situation. A common illustrative example is the person in the desert dying of thirst who would be willing to pay anything for water. The real world example is the labor market where labor can have inelastic demand for wages producing results like child labor, poor working conditions, etc.

Remember, I am speaking to you not as a republican. in 1987 as a 13 year old me, my father and my mom came to this country with absolutely nothing. And we HAVE been in desperate situations, and that is precisely what I do not want to wish upon anyone, other than perhaps the bankers who created the system in the first place. do not take me for a libertarian, I'm a human being.

BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE PROBLEM IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE IT (something I believe GOP and the LP due to their attempt to play the same game, fail to do)

YES, a person dying of thirst in the desert should be helped and not be taken advantage of. But is that as far as we should look, when there may be at least two options: 1. no one is there in the desert with his water fountain stand, because there are not enough customers, or 2. when he sees an occasional victim, he better rip him off good. And that has a lot to do with why I'm not too in love with American system, anyway.......

Deserts are one thing, but as we know there are man made deserts (recessions). I think in America, there is no better example than market crash of 1929, the great depression. and if you want to continue looking short term, then we really are just not speaking the same language, but if you want to understand as I decided to wake up and understand, you have to realize WHY the founding fathers were warning about money lenders years and decades before they finally took it over in 1913, WHY the people, starting with children in schools are now being taught that they were slave owners, WHY just less than a year after that WW1 started, WHY depression in USA was a good way to get USA into the WW2, and WHY wars are a way to create those deserts, teach kids to keep smiling while a class of billionaires who controls those governments hide in the shadows.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe that these billionaires would be anything without their full control of the government, but sadly many people are easily bamboozled, when the propaganda plays in stereo (left vs. right circus, MSNBC vs. FOX NEWS etc.)

Capitalism favors the capitalist. No matter how hard you work you can only increase your own productivity so much. Real money is finding a way to be an employer and own the product of the labor of others and only pay them on average less than what you are selling their production for.

This is actually a relatively good system of allocating capital and labor and finding good prices for everything. The one weakness it generally has is creating an efficient market at the top end and the bottom end of the labor spectrum.

I am actually all for free market economics in a lot of situations but I would never assume the "free market" approach would actually automatically lead to a free market or more importantly a perfect market. Even an efficient market may not meet our moral standards.

 

[eflatminor]

So the point about inelastic demand was lost on you.

No, but the idea of forcing anyone to labor being against libertarian ideals is clearly lost on you.



And that example...just one???

Nope, still nothing.

You were saying something about ignorance...

As for the "willing forced" quote. I actually didn't say that but I referenced a market situation where someone can find themselves in a desperate situation. A common illustrative example is the person in the desert dying of thirst who would be willing to pay anything for water. The real world example is the labor market where labor can have inelastic demand for wages producing results like child labor, poor working conditions, etc.

Actually, you did say that.

So you're a liar as well. Shocking.

Now, when you can cite a single example of where libertarian ideals lead to forced child labor, you let us know.

Until then, you still got nothing.

I am sorry I thought we were talking about the reality of what a libertarian world would be like not your idealized made up version of a libertarian world.

Did you think I was going to provide an example of market failure that you would not think was a problem?



The fact is you are too ignorant about market economics to have this discussion. Your politics are based on a moral belief as opposed to an understanding of reality.

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

 

[Bombur]

No, but the idea of forcing anyone to labor being against libertarian ideals is clearly lost on you.



And that example...just one???

Nope, still nothing.

You were saying something about ignorance...



Actually, you did say that.

So you're a liar as well. Shocking.

Now, when you can cite a single example of where libertarian ideals lead to forced child labor, you let us know.

Until then, you still got nothing.

I am sorry I thought we were talking about the reality of what a libertarian world would be like not your idealized made up version of a libertarian world.

Did you think I was going to provide an example of market failure that you would not think was a problem?



The fact is you are too ignorant about market economics to have this discussion. Your politics are based on a moral belief as opposed to an understanding of reality.

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

 

[eflatminor]

I am sorry I thought we were talking about the reality of what a libertarian world would be like not your idealized made up version of a libertarian world.

Did you think I was going to provide an example of market failure that you would not think was a problem?



The fact is you are too ignorant about market economics to have this discussion. Your politics are based on a moral belief as opposed to an understanding of reality.

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

Child labor, which for the umpteenth time, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER LIBERTARIAN IDEALS!

Still not an example of how companies would FORCE anyone to do anything they didn't want to do.

Fail, again and again and again.

If what you believe is so obvious, why don't you come up with an example...one that is actually an example of how companies can force their will on people without government help...or how a flat tax is regressive.

You go girl!

 

[Vox]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

Bullshit.

FAMILIES put the kids into mines - so they can earn money for the family, or themselves.

If the family considered it acceptable - why employers won't?

and, btw, it is not the government achievement that child labor was actually banned - it is the union achievement and the people's uprising.

Governments then as governments now do not do good for the people becasue that is their function - governments then and governments now ( and always) only cave to the pressure of the mighty.
At the moment the people became mighty and the government caved to that pressure.

Gosh,, government worshipers are ignorant to the core.

It is like you are trying to be obtuse.

It is like it is way over your head - which is understandable, since you are a leftard.

 

[Bombur]

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

Child labor, which for the umpteenth time, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER LIBERTARIAN IDEALS!

Still not an example of how companies would FORCE anyone to do anything they didn't want to do.

Fail, again and again and again.

If what you believe is so obvious, why don't you come up with an example...one that is actually an example of how companies can force their will on people without government help...or how a flat tax is regressive.

You go girl!

I don't care about your "ideals" I care about the nature of the markets you are placing faith in. Of course I am going to pick a market condition that leads to an outcome that doesn't fit your ideals. That was the entire point of the question.

You now decided to place the emphasis of your argument on the idea of "force" being used. You have said time and again you don't like the results of the market outcome(child labor) but you also refuse to recognize it as "force." This is exactly my point. The employer does not need a gun when they control the means of production. The "force" you speak of is not the only POWER that is a threat to the rights of people.

We live in a world where people will literally CHOOSE SLAVERY given the right conditions. So your emphasis on the importance of choice needs to take into account what types of choices they actually have.

The lesson of child labor is an economic lesson in elasticity. Until you learn more about market economics I wouldn't put so much blind faith in their outcomes.

 

[Bombur]

Bullshit.

FAMILIES put the kids into mines - so they can earn money for the family, or themselves.

If the family considered it acceptable - why employers won't?

and, btw, it is not the government achievement that child labor was actually banned - it is the union achievement and the people's uprising.

Governments then as governments now do not do good for the people becasue that is their function - governments then and governments now ( and always) only cave to the pressure of the mighty.
At the moment the people became mighty and the government caved to that pressure.

Gosh,, government worshipers are ignorant to the core.

It is like you are trying to be obtuse.

It is like it is way over your head - which is understandable, since you are a leftard.

 

[eflatminor]

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

Child labor, which for the umpteenth time, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER LIBERTARIAN IDEALS!

Still not an example of how companies would FORCE anyone to do anything they didn't want to do.

Fail, again and again and again.

If what you believe is so obvious, why don't you come up with an example...one that is actually an example of how companies can force their will on people without government help...or how a flat tax is regressive.

You go girl!

I don't care about your "ideals" I care about the nature of the markets you are placing faith in. Of course I am going to pick a market condition that leads to an outcome that doesn't fit your ideals. That was the entire point of the question.

You now decided to place the emphasis of your argument on the idea of "force" being used. You have said time and again you don't like the results of the market outcome(child labor) but you also refuse to recognize it as "force." This is exactly my point. The employer does not need a gun when they control the means of production. The "force" you speak of is not the only POWER that is a threat to the rights of people.

We live in a world where people will literally CHOOSE SLAVERY given the right conditions. So your emphasis on the importance of choice needs to take into account what types of choices they actually have.

The lesson of child labor is an economic lesson in elasticity. Until you learn more about market economics I wouldn't put so much blind faith in their outcomes.

Okay, no example. We'll just have to accept that you're unable to provide a modicum of evidence to support your position. And not a peep about a flat tax being regressive. Okay, fine.

Let's move on to forcing children and others into slavery. While that clearly would not be allowed under libertarian ideals, is it your contention that under a system of limited government (limited to the enumerated powers), where politicians would not have the ability to benefit or otherwise assist certain corporations in exchange for money or votes (the very heart of libertarian philosophy), that children would end up in slavery?

Stated differently, are you saying if politicians didn't meddle outside their enumerated powers that we'd see people choosing slavery and children working mines? The labor market elasticity would be such that folks would be literally be unable to choose to work in a non-slave like environment?

Is that what you're saying, because I have to say...that's fucking ridiculous.

 

[Bombur]

Child labor, which for the umpteenth time, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER LIBERTARIAN IDEALS!

Still not an example of how companies would FORCE anyone to do anything they didn't want to do.

Fail, again and again and again.

If what you believe is so obvious, why don't you come up with an example...one that is actually an example of how companies can force their will on people without government help...or how a flat tax is regressive.

You go girl!

I don't care about your "ideals" I care about the nature of the markets you are placing faith in. Of course I am going to pick a market condition that leads to an outcome that doesn't fit your ideals. That was the entire point of the question.

You now decided to place the emphasis of your argument on the idea of "force" being used. You have said time and again you don't like the results of the market outcome(child labor) but you also refuse to recognize it as "force." This is exactly my point. The employer does not need a gun when they control the means of production. The "force" you speak of is not the only POWER that is a threat to the rights of people.

We live in a world where people will literally CHOOSE SLAVERY given the right conditions. So your emphasis on the importance of choice needs to take into account what types of choices they actually have.

The lesson of child labor is an economic lesson in elasticity. Until you learn more about market economics I wouldn't put so much blind faith in their outcomes.

Okay, no example. We'll just have to accept that you're unable to provide a modicum of evidence to support your position. And not a peep about a flat tax being regressive. Okay, fine.

Let's move on to forcing children and others into slavery. While that clearly would not be allowed under libertarian ideals, is it your contention that under a system of limited government (limited to the enumerated powers), where politicians would not have the ability to benefit or otherwise assist certain corporations in exchange for money or votes (the very heart of libertarian philosophy), that children would end up in slavery?

Stated differently, are you saying if politicians didn't meddle outside their enumerated powers that we'd see people choosing slavery and children working mines? The labor market elasticity would be such that folks would be literally be unable to choose to work in a non-slave like environment?

Is that what you're saying, because I have to say...that's fucking ridiculous.

You asked me to provide an "example as to how companies can force their will on people" and I provided to you an example of how placing the emphasis on the word "force" is stupid as even without "force" people can be put in a situation where they choose an outcome that we can all agree is bad.

People did choose to put their kids into mines and factories. I don't have to assume anything.

The lesson here isn't as simple as needing to prevent child labor. The point is that this is an important lesson in market economics as it relates to a fundamental problem markets can have with inelasticity.

I have had to beat this into your thick skull and you still don't get it because you fundamentally don't understand the nature of markets. So you don't really understand how government has been built up as a reaction to these markets. So you don't understand how ridiculously naive and ignorant you sound when you talk about "enumerated powers" and a flat tax and going back to the good ole days.

 

[Vox]

I am sorry I thought we were talking about the reality of what a libertarian world would be like not your idealized made up version of a libertarian world.

Did you think I was going to provide an example of market failure that you would not think was a problem?



The fact is you are too ignorant about market economics to have this discussion. Your politics are based on a moral belief as opposed to an understanding of reality.

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

Bullshit.

the history of child labor is simply the history of mankind.
Children have always been a labor force - until the amount of work became too strangling and the revolt of the people and the real unions of the time put so much pressure on your beloved government ( which could not care less about children being exploited) so the government had no other choice - and caved - as it always does under pressure.

but the government worshipers of your kind, oblivious to the history and economic rules, will repeat as good brainwashed parrots that abolishing child labor is the gubmint achievement

as if the government EVER is protecting the individual

leftards are incredibly gullible

 

[Vox]

I don't care about your "ideals" I care about the nature of the markets you are placing faith in. Of course I am going to pick a market condition that leads to an outcome that doesn't fit your ideals. That was the entire point of the question.

You now decided to place the emphasis of your argument on the idea of "force" being used. You have said time and again you don't like the results of the market outcome(child labor) but you also refuse to recognize it as "force." This is exactly my point. The employer does not need a gun when they control the means of production. The "force" you speak of is not the only POWER that is a threat to the rights of people.

We live in a world where people will literally CHOOSE SLAVERY given the right conditions. So your emphasis on the importance of choice needs to take into account what types of choices they actually have.

The lesson of child labor is an economic lesson in elasticity. Until you learn more about market economics I wouldn't put so much blind faith in their outcomes.

Okay, no example. We'll just have to accept that you're unable to provide a modicum of evidence to support your position. And not a peep about a flat tax being regressive. Okay, fine.

Let's move on to forcing children and others into slavery. While that clearly would not be allowed under libertarian ideals, is it your contention that under a system of limited government (limited to the enumerated powers), where politicians would not have the ability to benefit or otherwise assist certain corporations in exchange for money or votes (the very heart of libertarian philosophy), that children would end up in slavery?

Stated differently, are you saying if politicians didn't meddle outside their enumerated powers that we'd see people choosing slavery and children working mines? The labor market elasticity would be such that folks would be literally be unable to choose to work in a non-slave like environment?

Is that what you're saying, because I have to say...that's fucking ridiculous.

You asked me to provide an "example as to how companies can force their will on people" and I provided to you an example of how placing the emphasis on the word "force" is stupid as even without "force" people can be put in a situation where they choose an outcome that we can all agree is bad.

People did choose to put their kids into mines and factories. I don't have to assume anything.

The lesson here isn't as simple as needing to prevent child labor. The point is that this is an important lesson in market economics as it relates to a fundamental problem markets can have with inelasticity.

I have had to beat this into your thick skull and you still don't get it because you fundamentally don't understand the nature of markets. So you don't really understand how government has been built up as a reaction to these markets. So you don't understand how ridiculously naive and ignorant you sound when you talk about "enumerated powers" and a flat tax and going back to the good ole days.

you really are that stupid?

you think "government has been built as a protection against the markets"?

gosh, they really brainwashed you thoroughly

 

[pvsi]

Capitalism favors the capitalist. No matter how hard you work you can only increase your own productivity so much. [1] Real money is finding a way to be an employer and own the product of the labor of others and only pay them on average less than what you are selling their production for.

This is actually a relatively good system of allocating capital and labor and finding good prices for everything. The one weakness it generally has is creating an efficient market at the top end and the bottom end of the labor spectrum.

I am actually all for free market economics in a lot of situations but I would never assume the "free market" approach would actually automatically lead to a free market or more importantly a perfect market. Even an efficient market may not meet our moral standards.

[1] Good point, and I agree with this. And although I am not against this idea of capitalism that those who are creative and dedicated are able to advance in life by creating jobs for others, I AM fiercely against the idea that these rich people (or other super rich people, same but different) are then able to buy government, have lobbyists, and destroy the balance of power. THEN they can create depressions just to get people to fight for their wars, to create those desert situations, and people like Romney can buy up smaller companies and play good business investors. And while I am somewhat relieved that there were not enough Americans to vote for the likes of that scumbag, or McMann, it is still sad to see them falling for GOP recruitment party which is Democrats.

But let me tell you what my other problem with liberals/democrats is: I lived in North Philadelphia, the literal ghetto, on the other side of the street, it was a thrash can, the whole block. much of the neighborhood was (don't blame me, I never once threw even a candy wrapper on the street anywhere) Can you explain to me, how has this country come to a point where a welfare is being given out to communities, while they are not even required to clean up their neighborhoods? are they all handicapped? mentally disabled? too busy watching the ball game? too well fed to care?

 

[pvsi]

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

You know, I admire more the children of America BEFORE 1913, then the children AFTER 1913, because it was the BEFORE that built this nation, since then, America was only able to obtain it's power by war mongering and serving international bankers

BEFORE:

AFTER:

AFTER: (these turds nor their parents did not create America, did not invent anything and did not contribute to humanity in any way)

 

[FA_Q2]

I am sorry I thought we were talking about the reality of what a libertarian world would be like not your idealized made up version of a libertarian world.

Did you think I was going to provide an example of market failure that you would not think was a problem?



The fact is you are too ignorant about market economics to have this discussion. Your politics are based on a moral belief as opposed to an understanding of reality.

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

The problem bombur is that you are NOT arguing against libertarianism but rather anarco- capitalism. While anarco-capitalism does, technically, fall under libertarianism it is an extreme version that does not represent the whole. You keep wandering to child labor as a point when the reality is that in a libertarian world that many of us envision and vote for such WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

IOW, just because you hold that the government should not have the ability to interfere with the normal operation of markets and trade DOES NOT mean that regulation would be nonexistent. You can’t argue against libertarianism by resorting to some asinine extreme that has NOTHING to do with what the people you are arguing with actually stand for.

On that same vein, I could argue against libs by demanding that government ownership of all the means of production is an abysmal failure. This is not what a lib stands for but there are extreme elements on the left that belive in that very thing.


Why don’t you actually try addressing libertarianism rather than anarco-capitalism?

 

[Bombur]

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

Bullshit.

the history of child labor is simply the history of mankind.
Children have always been a labor force - until the amount of work became too strangling and the revolt of the people and the real unions of the time put so much pressure on your beloved government ( which could not care less about children being exploited) so the government had no other choice - and caved - as it always does under pressure.

but the government worshipers of your kind, oblivious to the history and economic rules, will repeat as good brainwashed parrots that abolishing child labor is the gubmint achievement

as if the government EVER is protecting the individual

leftards are incredibly gullible

 

[FA_Q2]

PERFECT example of the mindset around here. I think most carry little boxes and plain labels with a big ol marker so they can stuff others in that little box and then neatly label it with their marker.

I will never understand the hatred of ‘labels.’ It is completely unfounded. Just because you identify yourself as a democrat or conservative does not make you conform to all of the positions of that party. Nor do you have to remain under such a label. For myself, I don’t identify with any party but consider myself a libertarian. Just because I am a libertarian does not mean that I am going to agree with all the positions of other libertarians. I was not always calling myself a libertarian either. I used to think that I was a conservative until I examined what other conservatives actually believe and the context in which they construct their worldview rather than what is said or written. I found that my worldview is MUCH closer to a libertarian point of view. Me, dblack and eflat (just to name a few of the libertarians here) have had some differences that we have debated here before.

A label is a tool and nothing more. If I were to explain my political viewpoint each and every time that I entered into a debate there would be a wall of text that would take pages and completely detract from the debate. Why would I want to do such a thing? If I chose not to but also kept my label hidden because I didn’t want to choose one then the reader has no concept of where I am coming from or how I view the world/debate. That label conveys a rather large amount of information to the intended reader is a very simple and succinct way.

In all honesty, l have only ever found a single reason that someone does not want to accept a label for their beliefs: they have not fully formed them. Several of my friends that claim to not have a ‘label’ quite frankly simply did not have a political worldview for lack of information/interest. If you have such than you should adopt one such label that BEST describes your worldview. It is not perfect but it helps us understand how you view things. Also, I use worldview because positions are not really that important in this context because they are nuanced – there is a LOT more to most positions than yea or nay. The method that you approach that position, in my mind, is what separates us into rough political categories.

It's well founded, and it's extremely simple.

The function of labels in a forum like this is to facilitate blanket generalizations so that that fallacy can then be used as a crutch for a lame pseudoargument. That's it.

Take me for instance. Did you know I'm an O'bama worshipper, an abortionist, a communist, a Democrat, a welfare soaker, and a gun-grabber? I didn't either, since I've never posted any of that, ever.

That's what labels do. Foment ignorance and dehumanize.

Fuck that. Fuck that left-brained categorization obsession and fuck the little boxes, which Gracie described exactly right. Fuck the labels and grok. If you want my opinion on A, just ask. But that does not serve as a predictor of my opinions on B, C, or Q.

No it’s not Pogo. You are taking the asinine attacks of hyper partisans and shifting those attacks on to the label itself. That is asinine. Those that would levy such attacks do so whether or not you call yourself a lib and will apply the label incorrectly even of you reject it. If you are looking for a way to avoid such the solution is NOT rejecting viable and useful terms – it’s not debating idiots.

Labels are still an effective and succinct way to communicate even if there are those out there that cant handle them.

 

[Bombur]

There's that example we've been looking for!

Oh, wait, no...still got nothing.

Ah well, maybe another "because I say so" retort will do the trick...

Child labor.

For the.. I have not kept count.

The history of child labor is an example of how corporations have power over the people.

It is also an example of inelastic demand for a job/wage. The same market conditions that lead to child labor can lead to other examples of employers/corporations having power over people.

It is funny you watch you make such a fool of yourself. I don't blame you for ignoring that ridiculous nonsense you said about going back in time and using the government policies of 200+ years ago.

The problem bombur is that you are NOT arguing against libertarianism but rather anarco- capitalism. While anarco-capitalism does, technically, fall under libertarianism it is an extreme version that does not represent the whole. You keep wandering to child labor as a point when the reality is that in a libertarian world that many of us envision and vote for such WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

IOW, just because you hold that the government should not have the ability to interfere with the normal operation of markets and trade DOES NOT mean that regulation would be nonexistent. You can’t argue against libertarianism by resorting to some asinine extreme that has NOTHING to do with what the people you are arguing with actually stand for.

On that same vein, I could argue against libs by demanding that government ownership of all the means of production is an abysmal failure. This is not what a lib stands for but there are extreme elements on the left that belive in that very thing.


Why don’t you actually try addressing libertarianism rather than anarco-capitalism?

I made the claim that government was not the only power that was a threat to people's freedom and I was backing up that claim. Child labor is just one example of the nature of markets that doesn't fit into the libertarian view of the benevolent nature of markets.

I am actually a big fan of well functioning and healthy markets and capitalism. To suggest that our government is the only barrier to them is pretty darn ridiculous. I think our nation is by and large pretty well off. Our major challenge of today is not socialism but practices more akin to mercantilism being practiced by our trading partners. Our government and political system is in need of reform. Which is one of the commonalities of the Tea Party/Libertarian movement and OWS. Although there is a lot of big money in both those movements.