Political Philosphies that work, "progressivism" doesn't.

[Pete7469]

Is that supposed to be a plus? It just proves you're on the same level as the Marxists, i.e. you've adopted a philosophy that would require a basic change in human nature in order to work!!!

In resonse to this statement I had more thoughts than a normal post could cover, and I didn't want to change the focus of the OP.

Indeed in order for Marxism to work, human nature would either have to change or the people would have to be lobotomized. There's no way too effectively suppress the instinct to achieve a higher standard of live, pursue leisure and luxury, or the will most of us have to be independent and keep as much of what we work for as possible. Only ants can make marxism work.

Many bed wetters don't have these traits. They're pathetic excuses for human beings who in many cases don't want to work to achieve anything. They're happy being led around like livestock, they're not happy allowing other people to enjoy what they've earned. They're just as comfortable in their ghettos and single wide trailers as they would be in a mansion, yet since they're unwilling to achieve that standard it's easier to be envious of those who have and support the democrooks who promise to punish them.

Some bed wetters are wealthy of course, yet feel guilty for being successful, or simply inheriting that wealth. For whatever reason they also feel compelled to steal from others through force of government to alieviate their guilt. Then of course you have the sociopaths who know damn well liberalism is a complete sham. They know the senators and officials they've purchased will protect their own wealth, while making it more difficult for others to achieve the same or keep what they have.

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it is based on jealousy, envy and hatred. It's a philosiphy only those of little intelligence, or very poor character can embrace.

Libertarianism on the otherhand takes into account human nature. Mankind did not suddenly appear in a world with laws and authority. Through the ages people have lived in a state of complete anarchy for long periods of time. They developed laws to protect each other from predatory people, and authority to enforce the laws and act as official quarantors of public trust. It allowed people to title lands and wealth, focus resources on building infrastructre, and raise armies to protect their tribe, city, state or nation.

These governments have always grown too big, suppressed and tyrannized their people, or failed to stand up to outside agression and fallen. Once again leaving behind a state of anarchy. Eventually the people pick up the pieces and drive on.

Only once in human history (that I'm aware of) have a people overthrown tyranny and established a government system that attempted to suppress itself rather than the people. It worked for quite a while, and even today we enjoy more liberty than most any other nation. Our system was based on liberty and flourished. Within 200 years we became and industrial and economic jaugernaut in spite of incredible wars and civil strife.

Libertarianism even allows pathetic bed wetters to exist, but they would have to fend for themselves. Had we adhered more to our government's constitutional limits we wouldn't have lard assed oxygen thieves with EBT cards loading up shopping carts with snacks, going home in any sort of vehicle let alone an SUV, to sit on their fat asses to watch Judge Judy on Cable TV, talk shit on their obozophones, all paid for with the fruits of other people's endeavors.

That's why I support the Tea Party. They're the largest movement that embraces the most appealing ideas of libertarianism, and they're also the focus of virulent hatred from the bed wetters and statist moonbats who for whatever reason claim to belong to the GOP.

 

[konradv]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now. Wouldn't the powerful just take advantage of the "bedwetters", leaving them in a worse position than they're in now, leading to increases in criminality and armed revolt?

 

[Truthmatters]

libertarianism is the Austrian school of economics.

that is roundly considered the Short Bus school of economics.


They refuse to use real numbers

 

[Truthmatters]

Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics, experimental economics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox".[7][8][9][10] Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics.[11] Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed academic and public interest starting in the 1970s

 

[Truthmatters]

its crap sceince just like the anti global warming fools.

Its designed to trap the stupid

 

[Pete7469]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now. Wouldn't the powerful just take advantage of the "bedwetters", leaving them in a worse position than they're in now, leading to increases in criminality and armed revolt?

No, because the judiciary could be used to prevent the powerful from dominating people unfairly.

You can't take "advantage" of bed wetters. They're parasites who produce nothing of value. I don't care if they starve to death. If you're unwilling to work in a system that allows you to earn enough for a basic standard of living you do not deserve to live, least of all be subsidized by the people who do work.

They can resort to criminal endeavors if they like, but their victims can also shoot them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is that supposed to be a plus? It just proves you're on the same level as the Marxists, i.e. you've adopted a philosophy that would require a basic change in human nature in order to work!!!

In resonse to this statement I had more thoughts than a normal post could cover, and I didn't want to change the focus of the OP.

Indeed in order for Marxism to work, human nature would either have to change or the people would have to be lobotomized. There's no way too effectively suppress the instinct to achieve a higher standard of live, pursue leisure and luxury, or the will most of us have to be independent and keep as much of what we work for as possible. Only ants can make marxism work.

Many bed wetters don't have these traits. They're pathetic excuses for human beings who in many cases don't want to work to achieve anything. They're happy being led around like livestock, they're not happy allowing other people to enjoy what they've earned. They're just as comfortable in their ghettos and single wide trailers as they would be in a mansion, yet since they're unwilling to achieve that standard it's easier to be envious of those who have and support the democrooks who promise to punish them.

Some bed wetters are wealthy of course, yet feel guilty for being successful, or simply inheriting that wealth. For whatever reason they also feel compelled to steal from others through force of government to alieviate their guilt. Then of course you have the sociopaths who know damn well liberalism is a complete sham. They know the senators and officials they've purchased will protect their own wealth, while making it more difficult for others to achieve the same or keep what they have.

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it is based on jealousy, envy and hatred. It's a philosiphy only those of little intelligence, or very poor character can embrace.

Libertarianism on the otherhand takes into account human nature. Mankind did not suddenly appear in a world with laws and authority. Through the ages people have lived in a state of complete anarchy for long periods of time. They developed laws to protect each other from predatory people, and authority to enforce the laws and act as official quarantors of public trust. It allowed people to title lands and wealth, focus resources on building infrastructre, and raise armies to protect their tribe, city, state or nation.

These governments have always grown too big, suppressed and tyrannized their people, or failed to stand up to outside agression and fallen. Once again leaving behind a state of anarchy. Eventually the people pick up the pieces and drive on.

Only once in human history (that I'm aware of) have a people overthrown tyranny and established a government system that attempted to suppress itself rather than the people. It worked for quite a while, and even today we enjoy more liberty than most any other nation. Our system was based on liberty and flourished. Within 200 years we became and industrial and economic jaugernaut in spite of incredible wars and civil strife.

Libertarianism even allows pathetic bed wetters to exist, but they would have to fend for themselves. Had we adhered more to our government's constitutional limits we wouldn't have lard assed oxygen thieves with EBT cards loading up shopping carts with snacks, going home in any sort of vehicle let alone an SUV, to sit on their fat asses to watch Judge Judy on Cable TV, talk shit on their obozophones, all paid for with the fruits of other people's endeavors.

That's why I support the Tea Party. They're the largest movement that embraces the most appealing ideas of libertarianism, and they're also the focus of virulent hatred from the bed wetters and statist moonbats who for whatever reason claim to belong to the GOP.

Excellent OP!!

The American Leftist are spoiled brats and stupid too. They don't even notice their great ideas failing in Europe.

 

[editec]

Political Philosphies that work, "progressivism" doesn't.

Indeed in order for Marxism to work...

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it...

You are a very confused individual.

 

[Pete7469]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now. Wouldn't the powerful just take advantage of the "bedwetters", leaving them in a worse position than they're in now, leading to increases in criminality and armed revolt?

BTW, the powerful are taking advantage of them already. They're kept in poverty and promised more bennies if the vote democrook. It's slavery without a work requirement.

I don't know how you can oppress them worse.

 

[Pete7469]

Political Philosphies that work, "progressivism" doesn't.

Indeed in order for Marxism to work...

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it...

You are a very confused individual.

Wow GREAT REBUTTAL!!! I shall endeavor to change my way of thinking to achieve your state of enlightenment...

There, now I see things from your point of view.

It's painful to be that stupid though, I think I'll return to reality.

Thanks

 

[Dragonlady]

Indeed in order for Marxism to work, human nature would either have to change or the people would have to be lobotomized. There's no way too effectively suppress the instinct to achieve a higher standard of live, pursue leisure and luxury, or the will most of us have to be independent and keep as much of what we work for as possible. Only ants can make marxism work.

And for free-market economics to work, people have to vote against their best interests since an unfettered free-market is skewed to favour the wealthy, raising prices on essential goods, suppressing wages for low income workers and hollowing out the middle class, while the rich get richer, and there are no social programs to ease the pain of the increased prices and reduced wages. Last but not least, markets are extremely volatile, leading to periods of expansion and recession, which further erods the middle class and inflicts pain on the poor. Unless you're one of the wealthy to benefit, why would anyone vote for such policies?

The unfettered free-market doesn't work any better than communism. Both are extreme forms of economics. What works is a mix of free-market capitalism, combined with a social safety net to offset the volatility and swings of capitalism.

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it is based on jealousy, envy and hatred. It's a philosiphy only those of little intelligence, or very poor character can embrace.

Lies that Fox News et al tell you. Nobody is jealous or envious of the rich. What liberals are pissed about is the lack of a fair playing field. The US economic system is now tilted so that all wealth flows to the top 20% and the remaining 80% are seeing all of their hard work and efforts being hoovered to the top. Middle class American's have lost 1/3 of their wealth since Reagan took office. It migrated upward.

But keep on believing that the poor and the indigent are the problem. That's what Fox and Rush want you to believe. So the corporations and the wealthy can take the rest of what you have, while you continue to blame the "takers". The real takers, are the top 20%.

Libertarianism on the otherhand takes into account human nature. Mankind did not suddenly appear in a world with laws and authority. Through the ages people have lived in a state of complete anarchy for long periods of time. They developed laws to protect each other from predatory people, and authority to enforce the laws and act as official quarantors of public trust. It allowed people to title lands and wealth, focus resources on building infrastructre, and raise armies to protect their tribe, city, state or nation.

These governments have always grown too big, suppressed and tyrannized their people, or failed to stand up to outside agression and fallen. Once again leaving behind a state of anarchy. Eventually the people pick up the pieces and drive on.

That may have been true up until it became possible to move armies around the world in days. In today's world, power vaccuums are filled immediately, and that usually means that the USA, in the guise of the IMF and the World Bank, swoops in and sells off everything they can get their hands on to large American corporations, picks the country clean, and leaves a mess (see Iraq).

That's why I support the Tea Party. They're the largest movement that embraces the most appealing ideas of libertarianism, and they're also the focus of virulent hatred from the bed wetters and statist moonbats who for whatever reason claim to belong to the GOP.[/COLOR]

Libertarism does NOT take human nature into consideration because it assumes that individuals and corporations will always do the right thing. That they won't be greedy and try to backstab and undercut others, that they won't pollute, that they won't take advantage of power positions to inflict low wages and poor working conditions on their employees. Libertarism is as naive as communism in ignoring human nature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any Emigre from Soviet Communism will tell you that American Progressives are the planet's Biggest Idiots for demanding implementation of a system with a 100% Fail Rate, a system so bad they have to build walls to keep people from fleeing

 

[Black_Label]

Any Emigre from Soviet Communism will tell you that American Progressives are the planet's Biggest Idiots for demanding implementation of a system with a 100% Fail Rate, a system so bad they have to build walls to keep people from fleeing

Communist China is doing very well all because of right wing greed. The GOP is single handedly causing the return of the communism.

 

[konradv]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now. Wouldn't the powerful just take advantage of the "bedwetters", leaving them in a worse position than they're in now, leading to increases in criminality and armed revolt?

No, because the judiciary could be used to prevent the powerful from dominating people unfairly.

You can't take "advantage" of bed wetters. They're parasites who produce nothing of value. I don't care if they starve to death. If you're unwilling to work in a system that allows you to earn enough for a basic standard of living you do not deserve to live, least of all be subsidized by the people who do work.

They can resort to criminal endeavors if they like, but their victims can also shoot them.

'Bedwetters' is your word. How am I supposed to know who you're talking about? What of the the weak being taken advantage of by the strong? How would they get justice in the courts under a libertarian system? Who pays?

You talk about working in a system that allows you a basic standard of living. Are you considering minimum wage laws? That doesn't sound very libertarian. If not, what's to keep employers from taking advantage of those with few options? This is where my contention about a basic change in human nature comes in, because there are those who, if they can take advantage, will take advantage, creating a system that makes it hard for those on the bottom to escape.

 

[Pete7469]

And for free-market economics to work, people have to vote against their best interests since an unfettered free-market is skewed to favour the wealthy, raising prices on essential goods, suppressing wages for low income workers and hollowing out the middle class, while the rich get richer, and there are no social programs to ease the pain of the increased prices and reduced wages. Last but not least, markets are extremely volatile, leading to periods of expansion and recession, which further erods the middle class and inflicts pain on the poor. Unless you're one of the wealthy to benefit, why would anyone vote for such policies?

You're just regurgitating leftist drivel without doing any independent thinking, I do pity you of course since I have to understand you're handicapped that way. I'll try and make this simple enough for you to understand, but you'll have to try REALLY HARD to think critically here;

It is in YOUR best interest to be able to demand higher wages if you perform better than others. It is in YOUR best interest to demand higher prices for higher quality service. It is in your best interest not to have some buearucrat arbitrarily force you to meet regulations arbitrarily drawn up by some other buearucrat to favor a corporation that lobbied for it. That's how free-markets actually work. What we have now IS NOT a free market, and that's one of the reasons poverty has not been reduced in spite of untold trillions of dollars wasted in "The War on Poverty".

"Social Programs" have failed, MISERABLY. The reason they've failed is because they were designed to for one thing, but the other reason is because you can not reward or subsidize sloth, and expect to end up with less of it. If instead we gave beneficiaries of welfare incentives to enhance their standards of living we might be on to something. It would require effort on behalf of the recipient though.

The unfettered free-market doesn't work any better than communism. Both are extreme forms of economics. What works is a mix of free-market capitalism, combined with a social safety net to offset the volatility and swings of capitalism.

It works remarkably better than communism, or there would be communist countries spouting up all over the world. Instead they only still exist because of their brutal suppression of dissent. What you're arguing for is Fascism I suppose. It was refered to as "The Third Way" by "progressives" in the 1920's. Free markets contributed to a single nation conquering the entire world economically in less than 200 years, and we're only in decline because we've adopted so many fascist ideas.



Lies that Fox News et al tell you. Nobody is jealous or envious of the rich. What liberals are pissed about is the lack of a fair playing field. The US economic system is now tilted so that all wealth flows to the top 20% and the remaining 80% are seeing all of their hard work and efforts being hoovered to the top. Middle class American's have lost 1/3 of their wealth since Reagan took office. It migrated upward.

But keep on believing that the poor and the indigent are the problem. That's what Fox and Rush want you to believe. So the corporations and the wealthy can take the rest of what you have, while you continue to blame the "takers". The real takers, are the top 20%.

What is it with you bed wetters and the few voices that contradict your programming? You can't even attempt to marginalize them without resorting to absolute bullshit. The entire occutard movement was little more than a display of hatred towards the wealthy, as well as an illustration of self righteous demands for other people's money. I see "poor" people all the time, they're disgustingly obese in many cases. Go see some REAL POOR PEOPLE in the third world and get back to me about how our "poor" people are suffering because the "rich" don't want to buy everyone a 4000 Sq Ft House, lobster dinners every night and 2 Escalades.



That may have been true up until it became possible to move armies around the world in days. In today's world, power vaccuums are filled immediately, and that usually means that the USA, in the guise of the IMF and the World Bank, swoops in and sells off everything they can get their hands on to large American corporations, picks the country clean, and leaves a mess (see Iraq).

I was in Iraq, it was complete anarchy in all of the country for a good long while. Even after the government got established anarchy was prevalent in much of the country. We did the best we could to rebuild it, and then we left them to their own devices. They're still going through growing pains, but they're still a functioning nation. They're still better fed and enjoy more freedom than the people in any of the communist countries that still exist.



Libertarism does NOT take human nature into consideration because it assumes that individuals and corporations will always do the right thing. That they won't be greedy and try to backstab and undercut others, that they won't pollute, that they won't take advantage of power positions to inflict low wages and poor working conditions on their employees. Libertarism is as naive as communism in ignoring human nature.

Libertarianism IS HUMAN NATURE, to people who enjoy freedom and prosperity. When people or corporations do the wrong thing, they can be sued and beaten. Try doing that in an authortarian state where the corporations own the law makers. Free Markets aren't perfect, NOTHING WILL EVER BE PERFECT. Yet it is the best system because it's a natural system.

 

[konradv]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now. Wouldn't the powerful just take advantage of the "bedwetters", leaving them in a worse position than they're in now, leading to increases in criminality and armed revolt?

BTW, the powerful are taking advantage of them already. They're kept in poverty and promised more bennies if the vote democrook. It's slavery without a work requirement.

I don't know how you can oppress them worse.

Being given an opportunity to advance is oppression? Tell us how that would work in a libertarian system, if there's no safety net? When you're at the bottom, you're at the mercy of anyone with the least bit of power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political Philosphies that work, "progressivism" doesn't.

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it...

You are a very confused individual.

Wow GREAT REBUTTAL!!! I shall endeavor to change my way of thinking to achieve your state of enlightenment...

There, now I see things from your point of view.

It's painful to be that stupid though, I think I'll return to reality.

Thanks

Most American progressives are not Marxists nor are they even close to being Marxist.

When you post something with that absurd a premise you should not think yourself so important to deserve any lengthy rebuttal.

 

[konradv]

Libertarianism IS HUMAN NATURE, to people who enjoy freedom and prosperity. When people or corporations do the wrong thing, they can be sued and beaten. Try doing that in an authortarian state where the corporations own the law makers. Free Markets aren't perfect, NOTHING WILL EVER BE PERFECT. Yet it is the best system because it's a natural system.

You've changed the goal posts. I thought you were going to tell us how libertarianism is better than progressivism, but now you want to sneak in comments about authoritarianism. FAIL!!!

 

[Pete7469]

'Bedwetters' is your word. How am I supposed to know who you're talking about? What of the the weak being taken advantage of by the strong? How would they get justice in the courts under a libertarian system? Who pays?


Sorry, "bed wetter" is my term for liberal. Perhaps not all liberals are bed wetters, but all bed wetters are liberals.

I digress...

In a libertarian system laws would be far easier to understand. A lay person should not have to hire a lawyer to get justice from a court after being stepped on by a stronger person. I'm not saying it's perfect, but people not only get stepped on now by corpoarations, but by the government too. Why have a system where this problem is worse?

You talk about working in a system that allows you a basic standard of living. Are you considering minimum wage laws? That doesn't sound very libertarian. If not, what's to keep employers from taking advantage of those with few options? This is where my contention about a basic change in human nature comes in, because there are those who, if they can take advantage, will take advantage, creating a system that makes it hard for those on the bottom to escape.

I'm not talking about a system "that allows a basic standard of living". I'm talking about a system that doesn't inhibit you from achieving ANY standard of living. I am completely opposed to a system that PROVIDES any standard of living. Before we adopted all this fascist idiocy where people suddenly have "rights" to food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education and obozophones we had a system where people fought for better wages through unions. Then they foolishly allowed the unions exclusive rights to collectively bargain on their behalf. This not only shut out a lot of people, but ended up destroying entire industries.

I'm not endorsing absolute libertarianism BTW, I'm merely arguing that we should be moving back toward a system where people increase their standard of living through their own merits.

There are a few things about libertarianism I disagree with.

I don't think a 6 year old should be able to walk into a store, buy a half ounce of coke, a bottle of vodka, and a Thompson Machine Gun. I don't think porn should be broadcast on TV. I don't think we can withdraw every soldier on foreign soil and I don't think we can erase our borders and let anyone come and go as they please.

Yet I would rather make sure I can buy a bottle of vodka and a Tommy Gun, maybe smoke a little ganj if I wanted too, buy a fuck flick on DVD and not worry about storm troopers rappeling out of a helicopter onto my roof and killing me.

I'm into a "happy medium" that skews in favor of liberty.

 

[Publius1787]

Political Philosphies that work, "progressivism" doesn't.

Indeed in order for Marxism to work...

Marxism, "progressivism", liberalism whatever they call it...

You are a very confused individual.

Just got through reading the Marx-Engels Reader. It it progressivism 101. I was amazed of the arguments Marx was making that are exactly the same as modern day progressivs. I encourage you to read Marx. The only difference you will find comes after certain stages. Indeed, Marx was of the view that America could come by socialism/communism naturally and without violent revolution over time. The Democrats are the fabians of our day.

Eugene V. Debs: Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality, but by the higher duty I owe to myself.

Obama: "It is that fundamental belief - I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper - that makes this country work.”