Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[TakeAStepBack]

There would be no public assistance in a classical liberalism built society. So competition wins the day.

 

[occupied]

There would be no public assistance in a classical liberalism built society. So competition wins the day.

Yeah and disease and starvation would keep the population down so it's a win-win for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . because it has sought freedom and protection of the dangers and evils of bad men and bad women.

There aren't a lot of libertarians because "The contemporary world has gone astray, in sum, because it has sought freedoms from the dangers and risks of liberty."

 

[dblack]

There aren't a lot of libertarians because "The contemporary world has gone astray, in sum, because it has sought freedoms from the dangers and risks of liberty."

Exactly. Fear rules the day. Dragons at the gate.

 

[Rocko]

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

Ask any Enron employee.


I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.


.

Technically this argument makes sense. But if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was barreling towards you, are you going to just stand there and let it kill you?

How does a sane rational person sit and literally watch their money evaporate in front of them knowing full well that it's about to happen?

Do we ban corporate executives, board members, officers, etc, from owning stock in their company to prevent this from ever even being a situation? Because it stands to reason that those people are going to have significant information before the retail market does.

Executives, board members, officers are all insiders and have to register as such. They're not allowed to buy and sell stock whenever they please.

 

[Contumacious]

You are so pitifully pathetic.

The gangsta form is the boss dictating to the workers who accept or leave. The Union is one answer to Gangster Boss Capitalism.

The other is democratic regulation of business and banking as we have today.

That is never going to change.

That will change when it dawns on the producers that voting is NOT the answer. That the Smith and Wesson 500 IS the answer.

.

Oh come on Rambo, most people are smarter than that.

Fortunately.

.

You do have a point there.

Obama's soak the rich tax scam will be passed on to the middle class. Doctors will increase their fees , insurance companies will increase their premiums. Those that can, will relocate to Switzerland, New Zealand and other venues which respect private properties.

.

Just as they did after the sixteenth amendment was adopted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Party Leader Contumacious is in Ludicrous Land.

 

[Paulie]

Meaningless, if many employers were not in a race to the bottom on employee compensation we would not have laws to indicate where the bottom should be. We have all these laws you hate because we as Americans used to find plutocracy rather distasteful and a drag on general prosperity. I guess now the libertarian position is that poor working people are there to used and discarded at will.

You make the minimum wage argument way too complicated. What we don't like is when an employer is forced to pay someone more than they're worth. It takes zero skill to wash dishes. Any retard can do it. It's probably not worth $8 an hour but the government says it has to be.

Some high school kid sitting on his ass behind a cash register all day barely cracking a smile, just working for weed money, is probably not worth $8 an hour either.

Fuck, you'll still find a lot of construction trades that are barely even paying that. So why should a clerk who does hardly any work at all get that much?

You make it sound like everyone who does a shit job deserves even shittier wages, I got news for you, in purchasing power the peak of minimum wage was 1968, been in decline ever since. America has seen a stagnation in working class wages for decades, how low do you think wages for dish washers and ass wipers need to be before you are satisfied that their lives are enough of a poverty stricken hell? How do you expect a minimum wage earner to feel about working for living when some jackass such as yourself says that the pittance they manage to bring home is far more than they are worth? Might as well just quit and get on public assistance with that kind of encouragement.

I got news for YOU. The reason purchasing power is declining isn't because people aren't being paid enough...it's because the Federal Reserve is destroying the USD value by creating so fucking much of them.

 

[Paulie]

Ask any Enron employee.


I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.


.

Technically this argument makes sense. But if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was barreling towards you, are you going to just stand there and let it kill you?

How does a sane rational person sit and literally watch their money evaporate in front of them knowing full well that it's about to happen?

Do we ban corporate executives, board members, officers, etc, from owning stock in their company to prevent this from ever even being a situation? Because it stands to reason that those people are going to have significant information before the retail market does.

Executives, board members, officers are all insiders and have to register as such. They're not allowed to buy and sell stock whenever they please.

Apparently they are though right? Otherwise why are we even discussing insider trading?

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

I guess people just haven't yet caught onto the Ron Paul pro abortion (states rights of course), pro sodomy, pro drug, pro prostitution, "if it feels good do it" mentality.

 

[Paulie]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

I guess people just haven't yet caught onto the Ron Paul pro abortion (states rights of course), pro sodomy, pro drug, pro prostitution, "if it feels good do it" mentality.

It's probably got a lot to do with the fact that the constitution doesn't authorize the federal legislation of any of those.

 

[Rocko]

Technically this argument makes sense. But if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was barreling towards you, are you going to just stand there and let it kill you?

How does a sane rational person sit and literally watch their money evaporate in front of them knowing full well that it's about to happen?

Do we ban corporate executives, board members, officers, etc, from owning stock in their company to prevent this from ever even being a situation? Because it stands to reason that those people are going to have significant information before the retail market does.

Executives, board members, officers are all insiders and have to register as such. They're not allowed to buy and sell stock whenever they please.

Apparently they are though right? Otherwise why are we even discussing insider trading?

The shares insiders own in their company are restricted. I'm sure there are insiders that have fictitious accounts in places like the Cayman Islands, where they trade their company's shares, but those people are risking jail.

 

[Paulie]

Executives, board members, officers are all insiders and have to register as such. They're not allowed to buy and sell stock whenever they please.

Apparently they are though right? Otherwise why are we even discussing insider trading?

The shares insiders own in their company are restricted. I'm sure there are insiders that have fictitious accounts in places like the Cayman Islands, where they trade their company's shares, but those people are risking jail.

Yeah I mean Martha Stewart didn't sell any of her shares of Imclone.

And the executives and their families didn't all sell off ahead of the FDA decision.

It's the friends and family part where you easily get over on the law. So what if your shares are restricted anyway? You get everyone else to buy shares and trade them on your info. Work the numbers right and you could literally account for every dollar of your restricted shares in other accounts and not even have to worry about the hit you would take on yours.

 

[Rocko]

Apparently they are though right? Otherwise why are we even discussing insider trading?

The shares insiders own in their company are restricted. I'm sure there are insiders that have fictitious accounts in places like the Cayman Islands, where they trade their company's shares, but those people are risking jail.

Yeah I mean Martha Stewart didn't sell any of her shares of Imclone.

And the executives and their families didn't all sell off ahead of the FDA decision.

It's the friends and family part where you easily get over on the law. So what if your shares are restricted anyway? You get everyone else to buy shares and trade them on your info.

That's true. It's tough to police. It is morally reprehensible, but people will always trade on inside information in the market.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

I guess people just haven't yet caught onto the Ron Paul pro abortion (states rights of course), pro sodomy, pro drug, pro prostitution, "if it feels good do it" mentality.

It's probably got a lot to do with the fact that the constitution doesn't authorize the federal legislation of any of those.

Are you talking about the same Constitution that was "made ONLY for a moral and religious people"?
WallBuilders - Historical Writings - Importance of Morality and Religion in Government

(I know, I know, David Barton is a "right wing fraud", or so I've been told by many a God-hating atheist).

 

[Paulie]

The shares insiders own in their company are restricted. I'm sure there are insiders that have fictitious accounts in places like the Cayman Islands, where they trade their company's shares, but those people are risking jail.

Yeah I mean Martha Stewart didn't sell any of her shares of Imclone.

And the executives and their families didn't all sell off ahead of the FDA decision.

It's the friends and family part where you easily get over on the law. So what if your shares are restricted anyway? You get everyone else to buy shares and trade them on your info.

That's true. It's tough to police. It is morally reprehensible, but people will always trade on inside information in the market.

You would too. You wouldn't stand on the tracks and let the train hit you.

 

[beagle9]

Ask any Enron employee.


I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.

Technically this argument makes sense. But if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was barreling towards you, are you going to just stand there and let it kill you?

How does a sane rational person sit and literally watch their money evaporate in front of them knowing full well that it's about to happen?

Do we ban corporate executives, board members, officers, etc, from owning stock in their company to prevent this from ever even being a situation? Because it stands to reason that those people are going to have significant information before the retail market does.

Isn't capitalism all about taking risks? There are two solutions: over the long term they should be diversified, so something like that doesn't wipe them out and in the short term, they should work harder to keep the company from going under. If you allow insider trading to occur, you can't talk about the "Invisible Hand" of the market anymore. It'd be more like a "Hidden Hand".

Well someone needs to tell this to Pelosi and crew, because didn't they make it where government officials could commit insider trading fraud legally ?

 

[beagle9]

You make the minimum wage argument way too complicated. What we don't like is when an employer is forced to pay someone more than they're worth. It takes zero skill to wash dishes. Any retard can do it. It's probably not worth $8 an hour but the government says it has to be.

Some high school kid sitting on his ass behind a cash register all day barely cracking a smile, just working for weed money, is probably not worth $8 an hour either.

Fuck, you'll still find a lot of construction trades that are barely even paying that. So why should a clerk who does hardly any work at all get that much?

You make it sound like everyone who does a shit job deserves even shittier wages, I got news for you, in purchasing power the peak of minimum wage was 1968, been in decline ever since. America has seen a stagnation in working class wages for decades, how low do you think wages for dish washers and ass wipers need to be before you are satisfied that their lives are enough of a poverty stricken hell? How do you expect a minimum wage earner to feel about working for living when some jackass such as yourself says that the pittance they manage to bring home is far more than they are worth? Might as well just quit and get on public assistance with that kind of encouragement.

I got news for YOU. The reason purchasing power is declining isn't because people aren't being paid enough...it's because the Federal Reserve is destroying the USD value by creating so fucking much of them.

Wouldn't it be that creating money or printing money as long as it has backing behind it (i.e. gold, land resources, mineral resources, oil, aggricultural resources, oceannic resources, technology resources, infrastructure in order to carry it all forward, quick mobility, human resources, a strong military and etc.), I ask then how is it such a problem when pushing money into the nations pocket books in order to stimulate it, as over see'ers of the bigger picture always at or near to the top, whom see's the bigger picture in it all, in order to make more money with it and/or to stimulate the economy when needed with it, just as long as it is backed up by the many things this nation has to offer for long term sustainability reasons, and long term stability reasons in which it has to back it up with or prove it for when doing so ?

 

[konradv]

Technically this argument makes sense. But if you were standing on railroad tracks and a train was barreling towards you, are you going to just stand there and let it kill you?

How does a sane rational person sit and literally watch their money evaporate in front of them knowing full well that it's about to happen?

Do we ban corporate executives, board members, officers, etc, from owning stock in their company to prevent this from ever even being a situation? Because it stands to reason that those people are going to have significant information before the retail market does.

Isn't capitalism all about taking risks? There are two solutions: over the long term they should be diversified, so something like that doesn't wipe them out and in the short term, they should work harder to keep the company from going under. If you allow insider trading to occur, you can't talk about the "Invisible Hand" of the market anymore. It'd be more like a "Hidden Hand".

Well someone needs to tell this to Pelosi and crew, because didn't they make it where government officials could commit insider trading fraud legally ?

You're behind the times! Pelosi & crew passed legislation to make the practice illegal and sent it to the president who signed it back in July. Don't you check your facts before you post?

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is fraudulent in that he tells the story he wants while ignoring the totality of evidence. That is why his publisher pulled back his last book. The Jefferson "Lies" - Harvard University Press Blog

Last week the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson opted to cease publication and distribution of The Jefferson Lies, by Christian historian David Barton. A Thomas Nelson statement cites a loss of confidence in the accuracy of materials employed by Barton in his attempt to prove that Jefferson was an evangelical Christian whose faith has been systematically written out of American history. But Barton is no stranger to factual inaccuracy, and he’s one of a cadre of evangelical leaders who have challenged secular knowledge and undermined academic consensus on issues from psychology to evolution to climate change to history.

I guess people just haven't yet caught onto the Ron Paul pro abortion (states rights of course), pro sodomy, pro drug, pro prostitution, "if it feels good do it" mentality.

It's probably got a lot to do with the fact that the constitution doesn't authorize the federal legislation of any of those.

Are you talking about the same Constitution that was "made ONLY for a moral and religious people"?
WallBuilders - Historical Writings - Importance of Morality and Religion in Government

(I know, I know, David Barton is a "right wing fraud", or so I've been told by many a God-hating atheist).