Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[Uncensored2008]

And we see how Libertarian logic works. You see, no actual Communism has existed either. When Lenin and Stalin got ahold of Marx's ideas, what they put into place instead was a totalitarian state. Marx actually had a lot more in common with anarchists than most people realize.

Utterly false. From mid-1922 through 1923, Lenin established true and absolute communism in Petrograd. (But not Moscow, as if he knew what would happen.) A system of Soviets (peoples congress) were setup on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Uparvdoms (Community organizers) were put in charge of armed men to enforce the Soviet decisions. Currency was outlawed, no buying or trading was permitted on penalty of death. The Soviets decided the needs of each person and the the jobs to be performed by them. Of course they sometimes decided that the Bourgeoisie (Middle Class) didn't have a need to sleep indoors or have any food. Doctors were put to work cleaning sewers. The illiterate in charge of libraries. It was all very democratic, the Soviets were elected by the people they ruled. They voted as a panel whether others would live or would be denied life. It was true communism, the absolute ideal of Engles and Marx. (Alinsky, Zinn and Chomsky)

Funny, with the results, Lenin instituted the NEP.

Yet, the fact that a true Communism has never existed doesn't validate its feasibility anymore than the fact that a purely free market has never existed.

But it did exist, and it was hell on Earth.

So, in effect, what a strict libertarian advocates is for a system that has never existed, just like Communists.

So, yes, I can't point to a pure Libertarian system failure, but I also can't point to the success of one either.

Government will always exist, and no market will ever be 100% free.

Libertarians seek minichrist government, not Anarchy.

 

[Navy1960]

I would love to shake the hand of the fella trying to explain to those dumb freaks that they havne't a clue how good they have it. Even if poor in America, it's a whole lot better than most of the world, at least you have the option to work harder and better yourself. Although fewer and fewer are willing to put in the effort it takes to be successful thanks to the generous social programs.
Fuck, you can even sit on your ass in America and "deserve" a living.

Someone needs to explain to the Russian (and you) that what he lived under in the USSR was not Socialism but Stalinism and that contemporary Denmark, which is a Socialist nation, is known to be the happiest country in the world.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

That ignorant Russian is a perfect example of the kind of brainwashed water carriers for the One Percent who are helping to ruin America. He really believes the stupid nonsense he tried to shove down the throats of those people.

Now you don't really believe that, do you?
Sadly, you probably do.

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939[,] in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”

The conclusion:
Their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.

This is the closest example of the two systems, side by side.

While no one would ever begin to compare Estonia under the USSR and say that under the USSR things were just wonderful, Estonia is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism much like many of the advanced European economies are. For example,

Estonian health insurance is a social insurance and it relies on the principle of solidarity: the Health Insurance Fund covers the cost of health services required by the person in case of illness regardless of the amount of social tax paid for the person concerned. The Fund uses the social tax paid for the working population also for covering the cost of health services provided to persons who have no income with regard to work activities.
Health Insurance in Estonia - Eesti Haigekassa

Indeed, Estonia, does some things worth looking at, and yes in fact they do have a flat tax if anyone care's to read about them, but the most interesting thing about this nation is that they produce over 80% of their own ENERGY needs, which is something we should take pause on. My personal opinion while not perfect, things such as these do tend to point out there are good idea's no matter where you find them, both left and right and as soon as we all realize that the better off we all will be.

 

[Seawytch]

Our country was strongest with a strong Middle Class. The income inequality we are experiencing is destroying the Middle Class...the ACTUAL "job creators".

The middle class creates jobs?

How many people do you employ?

Again, ignoring that is stupid...almost as stupid as thinking the free market will regulate itself and that the modern day Robber Barons will pay a living wage out of the goodness of their generous hearts.

Did you make it through high school?

Serious question.

Small businesses create the most jobs, asshole. Most small business owners are middle class.

Does questioning my intelligence bolster your pathetic ego somehow? Maybe you should consider Viagra.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess you haven't dealt with many insurance companies.

They're a breeze to work with compared to government.

Actually, the last claim I filed, a business interruption claim due to a hacking attack, WAS a breeze.

 

[Utilitarian]

And we see how Libertarian logic works. You see, no actual Communism has existed either. When Lenin and Stalin got ahold of Marx's ideas, what they put into place instead was a totalitarian state. Marx actually had a lot more in common with anarchists than most people realize.

Utterly false. From mid-1922 through 1923, Lenin established true and absolute communism in Petrograd. (But not Moscow, as if he knew what would happen.) A system of Soviets (peoples congress) were setup on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Uparvdoms (Community organizers) were put in charge of armed men to enforce the Soviet decisions. Currency was outlawed, no buying or trading was permitted on penalty of death. The Soviets decided the needs of each person and the the jobs to be performed by them. Of course they sometimes decided that the Bourgeoisie (Middle Class) didn't have a need to sleep indoors or have any food. Doctors were put to work cleaning sewers. The illiterate in charge of libraries. It was all very democratic, the Soviets were elected by the people they ruled. They voted as a panel whether others would live or would be denied life. It was true communism, the absolute ideal of Engles and Marx. (Alinsky, Zinn and Chomsky)

Funny, with the results, Lenin instituted the NEP.

Yet, the fact that a true Communism has never existed doesn't validate its feasibility anymore than the fact that a purely free market has never existed.

But it did exist, and it was hell on Earth.

So, in effect, what a strict libertarian advocates is for a system that has never existed, just like Communists.

So, yes, I can't point to a pure Libertarian system failure, but I also can't point to the success of one either.

Government will always exist, and no market will ever be 100% free.

Libertarians seek minichrist government, not Anarchy.

Fair enough, but I'm assuming you mean minarchist government.

Still, I've met some libertarians that I guess better represent anarcho-capitalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It looks like most posters ignore Chic's cut-and-paste-and-then-pat-her-own-back posts.

Good call.

Anyway, what we're seeing is not a longing for a return to an aristocracy, but an apparent longing for good old feudalism. The right wingers have allegiance to their overlords, and hope that someday their personal merit will be recognized and rewarded by their betters.

There's not a good reason for Warren Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. There are reasons, they just aren't good reasons.

You know who loved the progressive income tax? Adam Smith.

Isn't that interesting?

Here...Let me make you feel at home, I’ll speak to you in the language you are most familiar with: sit-stay-roll over.

Still can't handle post #188?

No surprise.

But I'll say this for you: You have the uncanny ability to demonstrate that you have no ability.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And oddly, it's the Left who has waged war on the "middle class" by defining the evil rich, who are to be tagged as families earning $250,000+

Sorry bub, that's the middle class, not the rich. The left is working feverishly to destroy any notion of upward mobility by waging war on the next rung up from lower income.

 

[eflatminor]

And we see how Libertarian logic works. You see, no actual Communism has existed either. When Lenin and Stalin got ahold of Marx's ideas, what they put into place instead was a totalitarian state. Marx actually had a lot more in common with anarchists than most people realize.

Yet, the fact that a true Communism has never existed doesn't validate its feasibility anymore than the fact that a purely free market has never existed.

So, in effect, what a strict libertarian advocates is for a system that has never existed, just like Communists.

So, yes, I can't point to a pure Libertarian system failure, but I also can't point to the success of one either.

Government will always exist, and no market will ever be 100% free.

What you overlook is that true CENTRAL PLANNING, whatever you want to call it, has always existed and it always fails. Only limited government as envision in the founding of this country has ever proved to bring more people out of poverty and turned more middle class into rich people. America became the richest country the world has ever know precisely because we rejected central planning...which people like you insist on bringing back despite the history of its failing.

Was the Interstate Highway System a failure? Was the development of our military infrastructure leading up to WW2 a failure? Was NASA a failure?

The most successful economies MIX planning with privatization. It's not an either or thing like so many Libertarians seem to assume.

The interstate highway system was built under the Department of Defense budget and of course, or military, are a required oversight of the federal government....it's right there in the Constitution. NASA has had plenty of failures but tells us exactly how that organization represents your example of a successful centrally planned government. Still searching? Take your time...

 

[MikeK]

Nobody has a problem with anyone having food and lights. We just don't want to pay for it...nor do we want to pay for bailouts and loopholes for the rich. Big frickin' difference wouldn't you say?

If you don't have some sort of safety net, you end up with a lot more crime.

Excellent play of the fear card. Rape! Rape! Redistribute more wealth or there will be more rape! Go ahead and drop the race card next...it's all you central planners have.

If you feel so passionately about a safety net, stop bitching and start a charity. Stealing money from productive members of society does not a safety net create...though it does create dependence on government and less jobs for those at risk. On the other hand, get them on the dole and they'll vote your way, eh?

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

 

[Si modo]

If you vote republican, you only support the illusions of those things. Those things are not what they're about; They're just bumper stickers. Republicans trick people like yourself who suffer from their policies by appealing to a part of the brain, specifically the basal ganglia or the "Reptilian Brain."

What they really advocate for is aristocracy, and damned if they ain't winning that fight.

Cuyo. I'm a hell of a lot brighter than you give me credit.

1. Likewise,
2. Then you must know I'm exactly right in what I said.

Well, my post was pretty clear that I don't think you are right, but somehow you understood differently.

And, I doubt any logical critique of what you said would influence you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fair enough, but I'm assuming you mean minarchist government.

Still, I've met some libertarians that I guess better represent anarcho-capitalism.

Spell checker got me again. Minarchist isn't in the dictionary, so Firefox likes to change it to "minichrist," which I assume is a really small Jesus....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fair enough, but I'm assuming you mean minarchist government.

Still, I've met some libertarians that I guess better represent anarcho-capitalism.

Spell checker got me again. Minarchist isn't in the dictionary, so Firefox likes to change it to "minichrist," which I assume is a really small Jesus....

 

[eflatminor]

If you don't have some sort of safety net, you end up with a lot more crime.

Excellent play of the fear card. Rape! Rape! Redistribute more wealth or there will be more rape! Go ahead and drop the race card next...it's all you central planners have.

If you feel so passionately about a safety net, stop bitching and start a charity. Stealing money from productive members of society does not a safety net create...though it does create dependence on government and less jobs for those at risk. On the other hand, get them on the dole and they'll vote your way, eh?

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

"Exploiting" resources requires payment to the legal owner of those resources. Otherwise no one would sell their land or render their labor. They already paid for those services rendered or resources provided. Are you really so thick to not get that?

Are you saying it's okay to steal from a wealth person if you are poor? Sorry, you lose on that one.

 

[SAT]

Utilitarian, MikeK, good posts.

We do live in a society, and have debts to each other, IMO.

Is that something that is repellent to glibertarians?

 

[The T]

It looks like most posters ignore Chic's cut-and-paste-and-then-pat-her-own-back posts.

Good call.

Anyway, what we're seeing is not a longing for a return to an aristocracy, but an apparent longing for good old feudalism. The right wingers have allegiance to their overlords, and hope that someday their personal merit will be recognized and rewarded by their betters.

There's not a good reason for Warren Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. There are reasons, they just aren't good reasons.

You know who loved the progressive income tax? Adam Smith.

Isn't that interesting?

Adam Smith was a fucking Socialist.

And loved by Noam Chomsky...a noted Crony Capitalist...right UP Obama's alley.

 

[eflatminor]

Utilitarian, MikeK, good posts.

We do live in a society, and have debts to each other, IMO.

Is that something that is repellent to glibertarians?

Bullshit. "We" do not owe a debt, a person who has borrowed money or services has a debt, which he owes to the lender. Stealing from some to give to others is theft and yes, that is repellent.

 

[Intense]

Someone needs to explain to the Russian (and you) that what he lived under in the USSR was not Socialism but Stalinism and that contemporary Denmark, which is a Socialist nation, is known to be the happiest country in the world.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

That ignorant Russian is a perfect example of the kind of brainwashed water carriers for the One Percent who are helping to ruin America. He really believes the stupid nonsense he tried to shove down the throats of those people.

Now you don't really believe that, do you?
Sadly, you probably do.

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939[,] in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”

The conclusion:
Their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.

This is the closest example of the two systems, side by side.

While no one would ever begin to compare Estonia under the USSR and say that under the USSR things were just wonderful, Estonia is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism much like many of the advanced European economies are. For example,

Estonian health insurance is a social insurance and it relies on the principle of solidarity: the Health Insurance Fund covers the cost of health services required by the person in case of illness regardless of the amount of social tax paid for the person concerned. The Fund uses the social tax paid for the working population also for covering the cost of health services provided to persons who have no income with regard to work activities.
Health Insurance in Estonia - Eesti Haigekassa

Indeed, Estonia, does some things worth looking at, and yes in fact they do have a flat tax if anyone care's to read about them, but the most interesting thing about this nation is that they produce over 80% of their own ENERGY needs, which is something we should take pause on. My personal opinion while not perfect, things such as these do tend to point out there are good idea's no matter where you find them, both left and right and as soon as we all realize that the better off we all will be.

Fair and honest points. Still there are Principles to keep in mind and Protect with Vigilance. Why not consider how something applies from a Federalist Perspective, applying Free Market Principles. We should not always be wrestling for control. We should instead seek to establish and service what is Just.

 

[Avatar4321]

Utilitarian, MikeK, good posts.

We do live in a society, and have debts to each other, IMO.

Is that something that is repellent to glibertarians?

Bullshit. "We" do not owe a debt, a person who has borrowed money or services has a debt, which he owes to the lender. Stealing from some to give to others is theft and yes, that is repellent.

I agree. If you borrow money you owe a debt. Otherwise, what debt do you owe anyone?

 

[SAT]

Adam Smith was a fucking Socialist.

And loved by Noam Chomsky...a noted Crony Capitalist...right UP Obama's alley.

Do tell.

 

[Seawytch]

I yearn for functional public infrastructures.

You mean like the TSA, Post Office or the DMV?

A lot of countries have them, but they're becoming a rarity in much of America.

Yet government continues to grow. So how can massive expansion of government be the answer?

I can send a letter across country in 3 days for 44 cents. I get my registration within a week of making an online payment. When I fly, I feel SAFER than I did when non citizens were checking bags for minimum wage. What's the problem?