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

[Pete7469]

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!!!

"Progressivism" is only possible in an authortarian system. I don't seperate them. If you do that's your perspective.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Exactly how does this "safety net" provide an opportunity to advance when there are so many people using it as a hammock that the ropes that hold it off the ground are ready to break?

How could it work without some incentive to get out of the hammock? Go on welfare and see for yourself. If you start making any sort of money, they reduce the benefits. A smarter way would be to increase the benefit for a limited time to promote the person's ability to get further education and job skills.

That's not a libertarian philosophy I realize, but the system you're defending is a complete goat fuck.

 

[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!!!

"Progressivism" is only possible in an authortarian system. I don't seperate them. If you do that's your perspective.

My perspective is that libertarianism will devolve to authoritarianism because a certain number of the strong will take advantage of the weak, regardless of how hard they work. This will force many to seek protection at whatever cost, leading to a new feudalism. That's the NATURAL course of things. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by hoping I'll leave you some scraps. Thinking it will work out any other way is hippy-dippy.

 

[Publius1787]

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!!!

"Progressivism" is only possible in an authortarian system. I don't seperate them. If you do that's your perspective.

My perspective is that libertarianism will devolve to authoritarianism because a certain number of the strong will take advantage of the weak, regardless of how hard they work. This will force many to seek protection at whatever cost, leading to a new feudalism. That's the NATURAL course of things. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by hoping I'll leave you some scraps. Thinking it will work out any other way is hippy-dippy.

The above assumes that libertarians don't believe in government and the rule of law. It might as well be a quote from Marx’s critique of capitalism.

 

[konradv]

"Progressivism" is only possible in an authortarian system. I don't seperate them. If you do that's your perspective.

My perspective is that libertarianism will devolve to authoritarianism because a certain number of the strong will take advantage of the weak, regardless of how hard they work. This will force many to seek protection at whatever cost, leading to a new feudalism. That's the NATURAL course of things. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by hoping I'll leave you some scraps. Thinking it will work out any other way is hippy-dippy.

The above asssumes tha libertarians don't beleive in government and the rule of law.

Libertarians may. You're the one assuming that everyone will be a libertarian. Hence, my thesis that the philosophy fails without a basic shift in human nature.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Exactly how does this "safety net" provide an opportunity to advance when there are so many people using it as a hammock that the ropes that hold it off the ground are ready to break?

How could it work without some incentive to get out of the hammock? Go on welfare and see for yourself. If you start making any sort of money, they reduce the benefits. A smarter way would be to increase the benefit for a limited time to promote the person's ability to get further education and job skills.

That's not a libertarian philosophy I realize, but the system you're defending is a complete goat fuck.

Here is the saftey hammok. When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State | Zero Hedge

 

[Publius1787]

My perspective is that libertarianism will devolve to authoritarianism because a certain number of the strong will take advantage of the weak, regardless of how hard they work. This will force many to seek protection at whatever cost, leading to a new feudalism. That's the NATURAL course of things. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by hoping I'll leave you some scraps. Thinking it will work out any other way is hippy-dippy.

The above asssumes tha libertarians don't beleive in government and the rule of law.

Libertarians may. You're the one assuming that everyone will be a libertarian. Hence, my thesis that the philosophy fails without a basic shift in human nature.

Yes, the same human nature that every person of every political bent uses to critique the politics of others. When it comes to ones own political philosophy its all roses. With everyone else it's all Thomas Hobbes. The same argument you used can be used against every political philosophy known to man. Why are you against the principle of self ownership and the no harm principle? Whereas, any thing not grounded in one or the other leads to control, loss of liberty, and tyranny.

 

[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

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

Capitalism defeats Communism 100% of the time.

Sucks to be you

 

[Pete7469]

Capitalism defeats Communism 100% of the time.

Sucks to be you

Please don't quote that blithering idiot, his stupidity is painful to read.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

China has abandoned the rule of law. They incentivized companies to come over by not applying communism to foreigners. They likewise forbid their people to invest in outside markets. The rules and regulations that do not apply to foreign companies do apply to the Chinese people as a whole. It is a part of a long run strategy to make China more attractive to U.S. companies, and thus, hurt other capitalist economies. So as long as we regulate and tax the hell out of our industry we are playing in to their game. Indeed, our abandonment of capitalism is exactly why China is growing in economic power. American progressivism is building China brick by brick. Yet you use China as a model of right wing greed? The only reason you call it greed is because when our industries are hit by progressive policies they opt for the freedom to choose another location robbing you of your progressive utopia of poverty, economic stagnation, and authoritarianism. What would you have them do? Force them to stay? Indeed, progressivism cannot exist so as long as freedom exists. You would become communist China to prevent freedom and adnvance progressivism while ignoring why China is attractive to U.S. companies. American Progressivism is why China is attractive to U.S. companies.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

You have both the right to fail and prosper. If you fail you do not have the right to the success of ohers.

 

[bripat9643]

You haven't proven that libertarianism would be any better than what we have now.

That's been proven 100 times over.

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?

The powerful already take advantage of the bedwetters. What do you think Obamacare is? Millions of people are getting fucked by that piece of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

libertarianism is the Austrian school of economics.

that is roundly considered the Short Bus school of economics.

Only by morons like you.

 

[konradv]

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.

You have both the right to fail and prosper. If you fail you do not have the right to the success of others.

What if there are barriers to prosperity such as lack of access to education, disability or illness? It's easy to put the blame on others, but you don't seem to take circumstance into account. What's to prevent someone from taking advantage and making sure others don't prosper? Libertarians seem to pay a lot of attention to those who game the current system, but don't seem to have any answers for those who would game a libertarian system. Simply saying libertarians wouldn't do that doesn't cut it, because neither would progressives or Marxists. It's those that would take advantage and skew a system that concern me.

 

[konradv]

The above asssumes tha libertarians don't beleive in government and the rule of law.

Libertarians may. You're the one assuming that everyone will be a libertarian. Hence, my thesis that the philosophy fails without a basic shift in human nature.

Yes, the same human nature that every person of every political bent uses to critique the politics of others. When it comes to ones own political philosophy its all roses. With everyone else it's all Thomas Hobbes. The same argument you used can be used against every political philosophy known to man. Why are you against the principle of self ownership and the no harm principle? Whereas, any thing not grounded in one or the other leads to control, loss of liberty, and tyranny.

It's SOUNDS like a great idea, but so did Marxism. I don't see how you can expect a "no harm" system to function in the light of human nature. Some will naturally try to dominate others and given a minarchist government that does little or anything for those on the bottom, how can there ever be any possibility of redress? I see more loss of liberty and tyranny in the system you espouse.

 

[Black_Label]

Capitalism defeats Communism 100% of the time.

Sucks to be you

Please don't quote that blithering idiot, his stupidity is painful to read.

Says the dumb fuck that thinks marxists, progressives and democrats are all the same thing

 

[editec]

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

The ONLY thing you need to see things from MY point of view, Lad, is a DICTIONARY.

Words have meanings.

Learn them.

 

[konradv]

Capitalism defeats Communism 100% of the time.

Sucks to be you

Please don't quote that blithering idiot, his stupidity is painful to read.

Says the dumb fuck that thinks marxists, progressives and democrats are all the same thing

Marxists and libertarians aren't the same thing, but they are the flip sides of the same coin. Both philosophies require a basic shift in human nature to work. Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without recognizable reward for extraordinary work, many will not bother to do anything extraordinary at all. Libertarians expect most dealings to be between individuals with little if any outside interference, forgetting that a certain proportion of the strong will naturally take advantage of the weak and do whatever they can to keep them there.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Communist China is not doing all that great. It has pockets of wealth caused by allowing free enterprise, but the majority of Chinese are no better off than they have ever been.

What the Chinese have proven is that free enterprise creates wealth for all those engaged in the process. They have also proven that government can create a criminal enterprise that far surpasses any other criminal enterprise.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You have both the right to fail and prosper. If you fail you do not have the right to the success of others.

What if there are barriers to prosperity such as lack of access to education, disability or illness? It's easy to put the blame on others, but you don't seem to take circumstance into account. What's to prevent someone from taking advantage and making sure others don't prosper? Libertarians seem to pay a lot of attention to those who game the current system, but don't seem to have any answers for those who would game a libertarian system. Simply saying libertarians wouldn't do that doesn't cut it, because neither would progressives or Marxists. It's those that would take advantage and skew a system that concern me.

There are always barriers to prosperity in any system. The goal is not to erect artificial barriers through government mismanagement. The free enterprise system has the least artificial barriers, and works at all levels of society.

In a free society, government has two main purposes. Protect the members of that society from outside forces, and protect the members from other members. We have armies and navies to ensure the first, and we have the legal system to ensure the second. Anything beyond that is an encroachment upon personal freedom, and should only be considered as a government function if that function is necessary, and if that function is beyond the ability of free enterprise to accomplish.

As part of its function of protecting members from other members, government rightfully protects members from the misuse of financial power. That is what leveling the playing field really means. It does not mean to handicap one member to assist another member to succeed.