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

[konradv]

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.

How does one determine if a function is necessary? One person's encroachment may be another's sharp business practice. Once something is determined to be an encroachment, doesn't it become a function of government to make sure it doesn't happen again? If you agree, I don't see our positions as being much different.

 

[Pete7469]

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 is no barrier to education in this country, there are no barriers to opportunity, and not alot in the way of social mobility except government. In fact there are so many opportunities here that millions of people from south of the border have risked everything they've saved, stolen or inherited just for the chance to risk their lives following human trafficers through miles of desert just to come here and scrub our toilets.

Please don't tell me there is a lack of opportunity here. If it wasn't for the fact that people here have the option of a standard of living equal too or better than an underpaid janitor or vegetable picker by simply collecting a welfare check we wouldn't have a problem with illegal migrants.

I've been to countries where the quality of things like education and healthcare are based on what you can afford. Too be honest I prefer it that way. If you have a job you should have better choices than the basic crap government/charity provides.

Now as the generous society we are, for those people who through no fault of their own can not provide a decent standard of living we do help them. There would be a lot more resources to help those people if not for the slothful parasites who in my oppinion consist of the majority of welfare recipients in this country.

If our welfare system was privately operated it would have to be efficient. Those who "game" the system would have to attempt to fool someone who's job it is not to be fooled. With our current government system welfare agents make the same pay regardless if they give away money to oxygen thieves, or deny assistance to the truly deserving.

Like I said, there is no PERFECT system, but I prefer a system that defaults to an individual's freedom, than a system that empowers the state.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

You crammed a dictionary up there? I hope it was pocket sized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Capitalism on its own doesn't work, that's why every civilized nation has adopted some degree of socialism to patch the holes in capitalism.

 

[Dragonlady]

No absolute system works. Communism, unfettered capitalism, liberterianism - all are deeply flawed and none will work on their own without a dictatorship to totally suppress public opposition.

The US has been successful to this point, precisely because it's a mixed economy. Until Reagan came to power, it was a Keynesian system. Keynes advised Roosevelt when setting up the New Deal.

Libertarians assume everyone will do the right thing. That no one ever cheats, treats others badly, or pollutes their neighbour's well because that would be wrong. That's just as naive as communism. Lawyers and lawsuits are expensive. How do people without resources take someone to court? Lawyers are expensive, as is the entire legal process. Without laws and regulations, the wealthy will do whatever they want, and there are no laws to stop them.

Successive US Presidents, in thrall to Milton Freedman, have put the US on a ruinous path to the point where infrastructure is crumbling, US education rankings are dropping like a stone, as the quality of life index. And then there's the total meltdown of the US economy which is the result of the destabilizing effect of free-market capitalism.

Successful economies, those who aren't in the mess the US is in right now, are a mix of capitalism, and social programs. But you asshats are have been brainwashed by thirty years of Republican lies that social programs are evil and communistic because that's what Freedman told them.

Republicans have used the poor as whipping boys for their neo-con ideas and you parrott them back, even though Friedman's ideas are now being questioned in light of the total meltdown of the US economy, the massive transfer of wealth to the top 20%, and the stagnation of wages while profits are at their highest levels in history.

 

[rdean]

This is one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" threads.

It's making up bullshit and then chastising your target for the bullshit you made up even though it's not true. Then end it with, "You won't even defend yourself so what I completely made up must be true".