New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And become prey? I have no interest in using force, but where I live some do and I like being able to call 911. It saves me from having to use force to protect myself. Maybe Pinkerton's are cheaper?
I have digested your definition of State in context of the ACA and spit it out as meaningless drivel.
Yes, the State has a compelling interest in the preservation of a healthy population. It benefits that entire population. Hospitals cannot refuse to give care, even if the patient cannot pay. The expenses are then distributed to other consumers, which are now compelled by the Hospital to pay for the care of the person who did not pay. This is not a local issue, it is a National problem which cannot be solved on a local level and falls under the responsibilities of the Federal government, and congress, in it's wisdom and compassion has passed a law that provides for an affordable health insurance system which covers everyone (EVERYONE) for a small tax.
But advocating choice you are denying that healthcare is age independent and you are in fact advocating survival by Darwinian Natural Selection. You know that State of reality which results in carcasses lying beside the roadside.
Yes. Where it concerns National responsibilities to provide services (interstate commerce, national defense, universal health care) of course, don't you?
a) nope.
But your question should be, "do you think people should be forced to work for less than a living wage and public assistance is required to make up the difference?
b)nope.
c)yes. Providing they meet and are certified for public health issues.
d)yes. Providing they can show competency and obtain commercial insurance. Kinda, like getting you drivers license to drive on public roads.
e) nope.
If he was a certified vet and gave pro bono advise, I hope so too.
However, there may cases where animal health cases may affect human health and the incident must be duly recorded for the record.
Pro Bono is routinely done by lawyers also, free advise as to course of action in a given legal situation, but there is usually an entry of initial contact.
Why on earth should I want to use force against someone, on the contrary, I wish everyone good health and happiness.
That is a false conclusion. The State is an evolving institution and allows for regular periodic adjustments by the free vote of the citizenry.
In context of this discussion, Federated State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state
Last edited:
It's not 'my' definition. It's the legal definition that the US Government uses to define itself. Oh, and that 'meaningless drivel' is called Philosophy of Law and Politics. The definition was from Princeton University - they're ranked 6th in the world. Nothing I have said is 'my' anything - this is common conclusions to be found in any course in basic philosophy.
Anyway, I can look up a linked definition, I'm asking you how you would specifically define the State.
a)Do you think people should be free to work for less than minimum wage?
No
Really? So, no wait staff are allowed to take below wage minimum wages and work on tips? No babysitters can work at $25 for the night? No graduate students doing their PhD's in the lab for 40-60 hours a week (god knows they'd never be paid minimum wage - so no more medical research either I take it)? No volunteering for the hospital and being paid only by a free lunch.
OK, suppose someone owns a factory and is paying people $1 an hour. How do you propose stopping this from occuring? Seriously, how do you propose stopping people from voluntarily being paid less than minimum wage?
b)Do you think people should be free to practice law without State qualifications but only on free market forces?
No.
OK, suppose someone owns a legal firm but is not State certified - how do you propose preventing them from offering legal services?
I do recall you said "I don't want to use force against anyone". OK then, how do you stop a successful law firm being run by a NON State qualified person offering legal advise? Seriously, how are you going to have them stopped?
c)Do you think people should be free to open restaurants and sell liquor without State licences?
Yes
You think alcoholism is a good thing???
d)Do you think people should be free to act as taxis without licences?
Yes
Wow, that's interesting - so you don't worry about serial killers pretending to be a taxi and picking up defenceless women at night time? What? You don't care about women's safety???
e)Do you think people should be free to obtain medical goods and services from someone who is not State certified - so long as fraud is not involved (IOWs, they don't pretend to be).
No
That's also interesting - because, while you can go to an DO in the USA, they're not allowed to practice in say England. So, you could be a trained DO, the best surgeon in the world, and as soon as you cross the magical line, what you do to save lives - will have you thrown into prison. Just another one of those inconsistencies that arise out of paradoxical illogical systems.
So, again, how do you define the word "State"? Not federated state. Not sovereign state. Just the word "State". I don't mind if you want to define federation or sovereign separately. But these are two words, not a single word. How are you defining State when you read that word? I'm fairly certain you're using the wrong definition.
As for State forced Healthcare, don't worry, you're going to get State healthcare. Actually, you're going to get a whole lot more State. Lot's of State coming. Much more State. So don't you worry about the Michael's of the world. We maybe make up 0.1% of the voting population. At most. Probably 0.00001%. Plus, given we're peaceful, we pretty much just try to have a little to do with the State or it's politicians as is possible. This doesn't mean one should be ignorant of what these ideas mean and what the social structures are. When Public Healthcare is as horrid as Public Housing and as useless as Public Schooling - then you shouldn't be confused. It should make perfectly good sense to you. As life in the USA becomes poorer, and the State becomes larger - this, again, should make sense to you. As your freedom of privacy is lost - and you're stuck with crap healthcare, again, you should be perfectly aware this is what you voted for and supported. Because, this is exactly what is going to happen.
Oh, I had one other question. Do you understand what the role of profit in a capitalistic society is? Do you know what the word value means? Because, if those words don't mean something specific, then most of what I say isn't going to mean anything either. I WANT people to have cheap high quality healthcare. I understand that this comes FROM a free market. People do not build hospitals to turn people away. And when there's competition - the fight for customers is fierce.
A friend of mine, actually a Professor, at a University in AU left for the USA a few years ago. See, he and his wife had moved to AU 15 years ago.He started a world renowned business and was and is successful. Want to know why they left AU? Because 20 years ago his wife was diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer in Canada (they're Canadian). The AU government wouldn't give her a visa to stay. She had to leave - she was considered a liability on the healthcare system. So, they moved to Florida where he works now.
However things worked in the USA - they're going to change, we will be less free, and we will be poorer and a colder uncaring people - this is inevitable. We will lose our civil liberties and we will lose our person privacy. This is happening now and will continue to happen.
Baked in the Cake.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, I am eager to see if you can find a verbatim definition, and its justification.
My answer was based on my modification of your question.
They don't, management is required to insure a paycheck equal to minimum wage.
They are not hourly wage earners. They are independent contractors.
They earn credits with financial value. In any case they are not employees
Not if you are employed by that hospital. You can volunteer in another hospital, but then you are not employed.
Setting a minimum wage standard.
Without certification they have no legal standing other than in an advisory position.
First, Alcoholism is not a drug, it is an addiction to a drug, a physical and mental health issue. Alcohol itself is very much regulated, unlike fire arms. There is a Federal department charged with its oversight. Congress determines its enforcement duties (the laws)
Rubbish, you are conveniently ignoring my added conditions.
It is you who advocates an unregulated contract between a serial killer pretending to be a taxi, without Certification and the defenseless woman, not I.
DO's obtain medical licenses just like MD's do, and can practice medicine, prescribe medication, admit patients to hospitals etc, just like MD's. The main difference is that DO's tend not to be as strongly competetive in terms of being able to obtain graduate medical education. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061022135401AAR1Lnt
How do you define Being?
Michael, what you are saying makes perfect sense to me. But IMO you are blaming the wrong people. Government employees are wage earners and pay taxes just like everyone else. Your objection is that the employer is the non profit government. Don't blame the machine, blame the operators, the House of Representatives and vote for the person that best reflects your philosophy. Regulation of anything that is large is always complex. But unregulation or self regulation inevitably creates chaos and is definitively not the answer.
We just need good, reasonable, and practical people representing us in congress. That is where the magic of the United States lies as a State. It's Constitution which defines the character and values of the citizenry and validates its existence as a State .
Stay in context, please.
Last edited:
LOL, you just don't like the normal word definitions because if used correctly, you cannot mislead and obfuscate in order to evangelize your ideological theology.
Michael likes to fly the populist banner and pretend to speak for the little guy while at the same time arguing for policies which will screw the little guy and unfairly advantage the guys he likes to complain about. It’s hypocritical, deceptive, and/or ignorance.
The problems Michael legitimately cites with our current system are rooted in the corruption of our political system. And the solution lies in fixing our political system as you alluded to, and not surrendering to corruption as Michael advocates.
Michael and his fellow Libertarians argue greed is good. It’s Adam Smith’s magical invisible hand of capitalism which can solve world hunger and anything else that plagues mankind. More greed = more good in Michael’s world. If government would just get out of the way, the greedy and the powerful could run amuck, they would not be constrained by government, by statists, and all would be solved and all would be happy. In Michael’s world greed works. So it is difficult for Michael to condemn current corruption and greed in our political system. To do so, would be antithetical to Michael’s core libertarian beliefs.
I have had this discussion many times before with Michael.
No one is arguing 'greed is good' - this is meaningless word-salad. What does 'greed' mean? Is a school teacher 'greedy' for wanting paid to teach? Is a coffee shop owner 'greedy' for wanting to sell as many cups of coffee as is possible per day? Is the coffee barista 'greedy' for wanting to make as much per labor-hour as is possible? Is the coffee barista 'greedy' when they quit their job and take a job for more pay?
What does 'good' mean to you? Classically good and bad are moral descriptors.
How is 'greed' good?
How is 'greed' bad?
In short - this little sentence is yet ANOTHER example of how to think unsoundly - which leads to unsound conclusions. AND worse still - when you don't like the conclusion, you don't accept it and deal with it, but instead you stick your head up your arse and start spouting more word-salad nonsense like 'greed is good' or 'for the social contract' or 'for the country' or 'for the Goddess' or 'for Islam' or 'for uncle Sam' or 'I'm an American hear me roar - U.S.A... U..S..A..... You-Ess-Aye.
This is what people do - but not what should be done. What should happen is you should follow a sound argument based on truth statements to deduce a sound conclusion.
With this in mind: to suggest 'Libertarians' think 'greed is good' is called a staw man. Your "reasoning" is fallacious because you're attacking a distorted version of the so-called 'Libertarian-position' - BUT get this Joe, this does not constitute a logical sound 'attack' on the position itself. Libertarians argue for the application of the non-aggression axiom in society. That's it Joe. If you don't like it - then make a sound argument.
So - go on and try to do so, you certainly haven't yet. AND here's the fact, our entire society is built on the application of force - which is why the US Constitution was specifically written to LIMIT government. To PREVENT the State from effecting us. Everything in the US Constitutions is there to protect us FROM government. But, it didn't work - thanks to the 16th amendment the State even places a transaction tax on workers! How insane is that? Together with taking over the money supply and making it fiat - we've completely lost control over the State. There is nothing it doesn't effect. Even idiotic things like 'marriage' - which are totally personal and should have no connection to the State - are regulated by the State. Everything is covered in State. You can't wipe your arse without sitting on a State sanctioned toilet wiping your arse with State approved paper.
Thus, when one actually applies the NAP to our society - the entire system begins to fall apart. This upsets people because so much of our lives have come to depend on the use of force against innocent people. The very fact you need to FORCE people to do something, should suggest to you - it's NOT in society's best interest. But people don't want to see what's right in front of their face because they're totally normalized to the violence to pervades all aspects of their lives. That cognitive dissonance felt when one reads how government actually defines itself as a State (which is clearly spelt out on the Princeton University link) is because you don't want to face up to reality.
Well tough. There are no Gods looking out for you and the State's special role in society is the application of force against innocent people - Deal with it.
joepistole
Makes you wonder where he's been the last thirty years, because that's exactly how the rich Anarchist Libertarians wrecked our economy. Then they arranged to get bailed out for doing it. Since 1980 the richest 1% made 300% gains while the middle class went nowhere, many are now falling into poverty. It would have been even worse if Bush had been able to invest Social Security funds in the Stock Market like he wanted to do. Today, every Walmart costs the tax payers a million dollars a year because they don't pay their workers enough to survive. That is a direct government subsidy for Walmart's profits. And the Waltons are one of the three richest families on Earth. Walmart's CEO was paid over 20 million last year, the average wage is less than $9.00 for their 1.4 million wage slaves. Henry Ford started paying his workers enough to be able to buy a car. He understood that you can't get rich selling cars if no one has enough money to buy one, the Walton's have an older paradigm in mind. One they've already put into practice in Malaysia and other sweat shop countries worldwide.
Grumpy
Makes you wonder where he's been the last thirty years, because that's exactly how the rich Anarchist Libertarians wrecked our economy. Then they arranged to get bailed out for doing it. Since 1980 the richest 1% made 300% gains while the middle class went nowhere, many are now falling into poverty. It would have been even worse if Bush had been able to invest Social Security funds in the Stock Market like he wanted to do. Today, every Walmart costs the tax payers a million dollars a year because they don't pay their workers enough to survive. That is a direct government subsidy for Walmart's profits. And the Waltons are one of the three richest families on Earth. Walmart's CEO was paid over 20 million last year, the average wage is less than $9.00 for their 1.4 million wage slaves. Henry Ford started paying his workers enough to be able to buy a car. He understood that you can't get rich selling cars if no one has enough money to buy one, the Walton's have an older paradigm in mind. One they've already put into practice in Malaysia and other sweat shop countries worldwide.
Grumpy
Take it up with Princeton University.
Gewaltmonopol des Staates
Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force
The definition of the state (1919) expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation and which has been predominant in Philosophy of Law and Political Philosophy in the twentieth century. It defines a single entity, the State , exercising authority on violence over a given territory (as territory was also deemed by Weber to be a characteristic of state). Importantly, such a monopoly [on violence] must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the state's use of violence.
Only the State can initiate force against innocent people.
The State is legally obligated to initiate force against innocent people.
Examples:
15 Schoolgirls Die As Religious Police Force Them Back Into Blaze
Innocent man given forcible 14-hour anal cavity search, X-rays, colonoscopy after rolling through a stop sign
Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On [Freedom of the] Press
ACLU Drones Lawsuit Slams Obama For Asserting Right To Kill Americans Without Oversight
How Big Is The Penalty If You Don't [pay for State-mandated State-]Health Insurance?
LOL - Anarchist Libertarians wrecked 'our' economy.....HAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!
You may want to (a) refrain from skimping on those pills your doctor gave you and (b) look up what the squiggles mean before attempting to string them into a nonsensical word-salad.
Gary Johnson runs most successful Libertarian campaign in party’s history - received only [a little under] 1 percent of the national vote.
The fact is the Local, State and Federal Governments are populated with Left and Right winged members of the Authoritarian Party. You know - people like you and pretty much everyone else around here. People who don't support individual freedom and liberty, the founding principles of the country, but instead support using the State to get what you can't through free voluntary trade. What? You don't like the outcome of Progressive Fascism? Well too bad - take a good look at Detroit, this is your city in the next 15-25 years.
You cried and whined and kicked and fussed you wanted it so badly - good, you got it. Now be a nice little baby and suck on it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Michael, you keep equating the concept of greed with the price of a cup of coffee. The Nation's economy does not lie in a 3 dollar cup of coffee.
It lies in the 72 billion dollar scam by Enron. A private corporation.
http://finance.laws.com/enron-scandal-summary
It lies in the 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme by Bernie Madoff. A private corporation.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html
It lies in the 4.74 billion dollar cost of Congressional pay and benefits they voted to themselves.
http://www.examiner.com/article/how...s-cost-taxpayers?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next
It lies in the 4 trillion dollar cost of unnecessary wars. LOBBIED by the Neo-Cons with private investment in the oil and military industry.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68022/james-wright/bearing-the-cost-of-war
It lies in the 14 trillion Financial debacle caused by private financial institutions (DUE to lack of Federal Regulation and oversight).
http://www.bing.com/search?q=cost+o...=-1&sk=&cvid=919717ee6f1d426ea755016a59a09be1
There is plenty wrong with infiltration of greed into the Body Politic. But it not caused by the State or its fundamental principles.
It's the people WE put in charge due to our worship of greed.
It lies in the 72 billion dollar scam by Enron. A private corporation.
http://finance.laws.com/enron-scandal-summary
It lies in the 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme by Bernie Madoff. A private corporation.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html
It lies in the 4.74 billion dollar cost of Congressional pay and benefits they voted to themselves.
http://www.examiner.com/article/how...s-cost-taxpayers?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next
It lies in the 4 trillion dollar cost of unnecessary wars. LOBBIED by the Neo-Cons with private investment in the oil and military industry.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68022/james-wright/bearing-the-cost-of-war
It lies in the 14 trillion Financial debacle caused by private financial institutions (DUE to lack of Federal Regulation and oversight).
http://www.bing.com/search?q=cost+o...=-1&sk=&cvid=919717ee6f1d426ea755016a59a09be1
There is plenty wrong with infiltration of greed into the Body Politic. But it not caused by the State or its fundamental principles.
It's the people WE put in charge due to our worship of greed.
That's where the system fails, the failure lies in the lack of "due diligence" by our representatives.
Employee's of Walmart are 'Associates'. Many employees of places like the pharmaceutical company I used to work at are actually employees of ManPower. It happened over a weekend. One week they worked for us, the next they worked for ManPower - where they could be fired quite easily. There's plenty of ways to define a worker and plenty of ways to devise a means to get people to do work as 'independent' contractors. There's literally next to no way to ensure a living wage is paid when everyone is trained for 12 years to be a cog. There's simply too many cogs. Most Public School teachers were scrapped off the bottom of the class-list and have next to no experience working in the free-market outside of wait-staff where they probably resented the work and 99.99999% would have zero experience creating value through an actual business. Thus, they simply don't have the skills, knowledge or experience to provide a beneficial education. But they do one thing - they train people NOT to think independently, NOT to challenge the statuesque but to be good little cogs that can sit in a seat all day long and raise their hand when they need to pee - probably useful for a life of incarceration. They also do a good job of teaching children to love the Public Sector - which is natural, they themselves work for the Public sector, they NEED children and parents to think the Public sector is good. This they also seem capable of teaching.
You made it clear that you would like to use the State to ensure a minimum wage is paid. OK, I said: Suppose a company has hired 100 people at $1 an hour. These people willingly accepted their job. What do you want to have happen to stop this from happening and to ensure the employees are paid a minimum wage?
Also, my point about DO's, was that they may be a wonderful surgeon in the USA - but they are not allowed to practice surgery in AU or England. You know, because they crossed the 'magic' line someone draw a hundred years ago. IMO - this is insane.
Did you know the original United States Declaration of Independence was going to read "life, liberty and property" Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property". I only mention this as it was understood then how important the idea of 'property' - beginning with one's own body, was. During some times in history, one's body was the property of the State. I find it interesting your body is no longer your property now. You may not smoke a common weed, you must pay tax on it's actions, who it marries is determined for you by the State, etc...
Anyway, that's an aside.
I have a question.
If we compare East and West Germany as well as North and South Korea we clearly see that, even though the cultures are identical - the socialist countries within a few generations became extremely poor (and in N. Korea's example resorted to cannibalism - which still happens). Do you think socialism didn't work because of structural problems - or because good, reasonable, and practical people just didn't manage to find a place in the socialistic governments?
Because, I think you'll find good, reasonable, and practical people were to be found - but it didn't matter. I actually knew some people who worked in the communist government - they were good hard working people. Quite intelligent, great work ethic, and to be honest - in many ways better than many of their Western counterparts. I'm curious as to what your explanation is for the differences in the economists between capitalistic countries and socialistic countries? Why were the socialistic countries devastatingly poor?
Ever been down to get your drivers licence renewed and you have to take a ticket and wait in line forever? It was estimated in Russia, the average time people spent waiting in line, added up to about 5 years by the end of a working life. About 2.5 hours a day standing in a line somewhere trying to get something.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Precisely, in the rest of the developed countries in the world, a balanced approach to economic freedoms and social protections seems to work quite well. The health/cost chart seems to indicate that very clearly . Why do base your financial freedoms argument on the price of coffee and you political argument on a madman at the helm of a pure dictatorship in No. Korea (cloaked in the name Socialism). Germany under Hitler's NAZI party (National Socialist Party) was a dictatorship.
Thus you are actually confirming that bad People can corrupt a good System. The definition of the concept of socialism has no negative connotations. Your revulsion to the word comes from the association to the extremes of Communism (actually a Libertarian concept) and non democratic Dictatorships.
You are not supporting your arguments with persuasive evidence of any adverse results of a practical balance between Economic Freedom (capitalism) and Social Security (socialism), while others have clearly demonstrated the beneficial impact of a well balanced mix with demonstrated statistical evidence.
The phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true. Fortunately, in the US only the People have absolute power to elect representatives to occupy positions of limited power. Let the people be diligent in who they elect to serve them and not be corrupted by the power granted them.
All of this is occurring here and now - in the State we live in. This is NOT happening in a free-market, with sound money, law and property rights. It's happening in a highly regulated, progressive, fascist State-led market. One that uses fiat currency. One that has so many laws, you wouldn't be able to get through a week without breaking a hand full of them. One that taxes the workers. Sure, they tax lots of other things. But they tax the god damn workers for working. That's insane. A state that violates your private property - even regulating what YOU and ADULT can do with your own body. This is insanity.
Did you know Germany and Singapore have no minimum wage? Have you ever read any history of the minimum wage?
And here we are, 50 years later and minimum wage did exactly what the people back then knew would happen - helped destroy the black community. State Force did this - not the free-market, the State did this to the black community, and KNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN! Yet look how JFK is revered. Insanity. Up is Down. Left is Right. Remember when everyone said it was 'unfair' on the Chinese - that they were working in 'slave-like' conditions (you'll still hear unions say this even today). Oh, those poor Chinese - they're being taken advantage of. Well, have you been to China? Many of their airports and cities are nicer than ours. And while I think, thanks to the State, they'll implode - they are most certainly NOT slaves. They LOVE their factory jobs. I'm pretty sure a lot of Americans would like one of those jobs, of course, that can't happen because we've priced ourselves out of the market. That little tiny bit of freedom completely changes their lives. The Chinese volunteer to work - and their society is becoming the most wealthy in the world. They worked for little in the past, but over time, they'll make more and more - and take more and more market share from Americans. They simply want it more and are willing to work for it.
We don't need LESS freedom.
We need MORE freedom.
The solution is not going to magically lead to a 'Utopian' paradise, but it is relatively straight forward: sound money, private property, free-markets, and law. That's all we need. We do NOT need more State. We should never have to rely on force - this is oxymoron. If it's something we want - then the free-market will provide it. People sit around all day long trying to come up with ways to sell a service or good into the market and make a profit. Profit is GOOD - it signals, hey, over here, give us more of that! With a free-market competition drives down price and raises quality and innovation. Just the fact that you have to use force and not the free-market should give you pause for thought. Why is State force being used IF people want it??? It should be - hmmmm, maybe because they don't actually want it. Or, even worse, they only want it if someone else pays for it - like their kids, grandkids, and great grandkids (see: ObamaCare the Babyboomers best friend).
Anyway, we're not going to become freer. We will become less free, less prosperous, we've lost our right to privacy and we'll be losing many more rights as we move forward. I suggest peacefully parenting your children, raising them to think logically, to be able to understand what a sound argument is, and having as little to do with the State as is possible. For gods' sake, do not challenge it. Again, Libertarians are less than 1% of the voting population and couldn't do anything even if they did get into office. It's simply not the will of the people to live a moral 'public' life. They're too used to thinking of the State incorrectly. They only vote for the politician who promises them something. Plato made it clear in the Republic the outcome was exactly this - and it is. So, IMO, I suggest to try to orient towards your community if you still have one left. Yeah, we're in for a hell of an interesting time ahead. Let's see how the story unfolds.
You've said 'a balanced approach' - this doesn't explain anything though. I want to know why you think the socialistic counties economically collapsed - you can only compare West and East Germany if you'd like. I'm just asking your opinion.
What do you mean 'balanced'? For example, if I said: My child turned out well, I went with the balanced approach only hitting him half the week. He was much better than the kids who were hit all week long. Therefor the 'balanced' approach to discipline is the best. This is nonsensical. What the person is really saying is hitting kids a little less is better than hitting them more. What do you mean 'balanced' - not in euphemism, not in analogy - but the actual meaning. The actual economic rational. If you're not sure that's perfectly fine.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps you grew up as a ward of the State? I have given you plenty examples of my definition of the word State and its functions, but you refuse to consider them from your subjective viewpoint. OTOH, the only definition of State you have provided is "an organization that puts a gun in your face".
Don't try to get me into a game of semantics or a lecture on parenting. Stay on topic.
Michael
They didn't. In fact the Socialist countries are doing better, financially, than we are(at least on an average citizen basis). It was Communism that collapsed, not Socialism. Switzerland, a Socialist country, has the highest GDP/citizen ratio on the planet. You ought to visit sometime(the planet, not Switzerland, Anarchists don't do well there).
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Evidently not.
Grumpy
They didn't. In fact the Socialist countries are doing better, financially, than we are(at least on an average citizen basis). It was Communism that collapsed, not Socialism. Switzerland, a Socialist country, has the highest GDP/citizen ratio on the planet. You ought to visit sometime(the planet, not Switzerland, Anarchists don't do well there).
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Evidently not.
Grumpy
LOL, oh please Michael. “Greed is good” is word salad…really? I don’t think you are that dumb. But maybe I am wrong in that regard. If you don’t know what the word greed means, look it up in the dictionary. Since you entered this forum you have had trouble with words as they are defined in our dictionaries.
LOL, what you don’t like the truth Michael? No this is an example of your obfuscation.
No, unfortunately for you there is no straw man there. Libertarians are laissez faire advocates; laissez faire is based on the notion that collective individual greed produces efficient self-regulating markets. You have consistently advocated that notion over the years in your anti-government, anti-regulation tirades. Of course you don’t want to use the word greed. But the reality is greed is at the core of your ideology. Adam Smith often cited by Libertarians, in his famous tome, “The Wealth of Nations” Book 1, chapter 7, spent some time writing about collective greed and the invisible hand of the market.
Over the course of many years you have repeatedly turned a blind eye to corruption in our political system and of those who support your libertarian ideology. Here is an article that kind of sums it up.
“1. Libertarian values are repellent--Libertarianism celebrates greed and selfishness. Of course not all libertarians follow Ayn Rand in saying that openly, but that’s really what it’s all about. Am I being unfair? After all, libertarians sincerely believe in the wonders of free markets, and it just happens that greed and selfishness work well with free markets. So, you might argue, libertarians don’t necessarily have different values from you and me, just different beliefs about what works and what doesn’t. I don’t buy that. The plain fact is, libertarians by and large are simply not much bothered by social and economic inequality: their hearts bleed for the rich and successful, not for the underprivileged. I’m not saying that libertarians are actively hostile toward or contemptuous of the poor, only that they don’t much care about them. (There are some notable exceptions, proving the rule.) Of course, libertarians will and do argue that their ideas will benefit all strata of society, including the poor, but let’s be real: concern for the underdog is just not a libertarian priority. People are most often attracted to the left, rightly or wrongly, because of a sense of social justice--an appreciation of the unfairness of existing inequalities and an interest in helping the less fortunate. Do you really think that anybody ever became a libertarian motivated primarily by the conviction that that was the best way to help the underdog? Asked and answered.
2. Libertarianism is intellectually myopic--Libertarians cherish freedom above all, but their concept of freedom is constricted and myopic. They understand freedom almost exclusively in terms of freedom from government, not recognizing that unfettered capitalism--the libertarians’ beloved free market economy--can be as great a threat to freedom as government action. In a country like the United States, quite possibly more so. How many people do you know who have ever been forced to move from their home town by government? Surely, none (other than convicted criminals). Now, how many people do you know have been forced to move long distances in search of decent jobs? Chances are, you do know such people--living demonstrations of the power of markets to constrain individual behavior. Libertarians also refuse to recognize that poverty and hardship make people unfree, and that often, government action is necessary to mitigate the oppression inflicted by markets. Is a gravely ill person free if she lacks access to decent health care? According to libertarian Ron Paul she is free--to look for a charity to help her. Most other people wouldn’t find it hard to understand that the prospect of death imposes severe limits on freedom.
3. Libertarianism is utopian--An active state is a universal feature of advanced societies. The minimal government society that libertarians envision doesn’t exist anywhere in the industrial or post-industrial world, and never has, for good reason. Advanced capitalism simply doesn’t function without a fairly active, interventionist public sector. Now, that doesn’t mean that libertarians can never have any valid public policy ideas at all: libertarians are constantly proposing “market based solutions” to everything, so it’s inevitable that once in a while they get something right. Even more than once in a while, they will be right on their own narrow terms--they will come up with proposals that technically work more or less well while neglecting larger issues of equity and public good. But as a broad philosophy of governance, libertarianism cannot work. Almost no one these days believes in traditional orthodox socialism--public ownership of most means of production. Libertarianism is as distant from real world possibilities as traditional socialism, and should be taken no more seriously.
4. Libertarianism is politically hopeless--You might well agree with me on the three preceding points but still feel that libertarianism has to be reckoned with politically--hasn’t Ron Paul shown that his creed has real popular appeal? My short answer would be that Paul’s ability to garner the vote of 20% of Iowa and New Hampshire Republican Party enthusiasts says very close to nothing about libertarianism’s mass appeal. My longer answer is that libertarians can never achieve mass appeal because libertarians, unlike conservatives, are hobbled by their principled consistency. Libertarian and conservative economic programs basically serve the interests of a relatively small portion of the population. Conservatives understand that--they understand it in their bones even if not in their brains. That’s why conservatives have come to realize that they can only win elections by using wedge issues--anti-communism, racism, family values, anti-terrorism, etc. And they have been quite successful with wedge issues. Most of the wedges, though, are unattractive to libertarians, who really do believe in freedom. So, attacks on civil liberties or abortion or gay rights or calls for a garrison state to fight foreign enemies aren’t part of the libertarians’ political arsenal. (Paul, who opposes abortion rights, is a partial exception to this generalization.) Unwilling to resort to wedge issues, libertarians are left basically with an elitist economic program plus some sensible proposals, like ending the war on drugs, that just don’t do the job that wedge issues do for conservative Republicans. They don’t have a faux populist social agenda to distract people from their elitist economic agenda. Politically, that puts them close to nowhere.” - Tony Greco--Talking About Politics, Daily Kos, Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM PST