Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why is there so much liberal hate?

Page 32 of 49 [ 776 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ... 49  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

14 Jul 2012, 12:44 am

bizboy1 wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Declension wrote:
nominalist wrote:
What I mean is that the common Autistic sensation of social disconnectedness (which I have experienced at various times in my life) could incline some people toward libertarianism (and even atheism or agnosticism).


Yes, but the even more common autistic sensation of not-having-a-job would presumably guard against the Atlas Shrugged complex seen in many libertarians.


Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.



That's because you're living off of someone ELSE'S dime and don't have to figure out how to survive financially on your own.


lol. And I'm guessing you forgot your first 18 years of living off your parents too? I don't see where you're going.


You are taking other people's money for yourself - as an adult.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

14 Jul 2012, 12:47 am

bizboy1 wrote:
Really. I was under the impression that capitalism elevated people out of poverty. Any evidence to back up your claim?


Yes. Because in many Third World countries, for instance, there is considerable wealth (generated by corporations), but it is not distributed to most of the population.

It is similar in the U.S. and in other Western countries. As many Occupy Movement supporters have pointed out, the top 1% made money in 2008, even as the rest of the Western world was in a recession.

Wealth does not usually "trickle down."


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

14 Jul 2012, 12:50 am

edgewaters wrote:
nominalist wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.


That assumes that there is such a thing as "other people's money." Monetary systems are arbitrary or conventional arrangements. There is nothing innate about private property.


Property in modern capitalist society ultimately derives from the state, which apportions, titles and legitimizes the right to land and all resources upon it. This is why people in the developing world who have lived in the same shanty village for centuries or possibly even millenia, get evicted with no compensation when a mining company comes along. Their right to property isn't recognized because they have no deed or title from the state, which is what ultimately defines our conception of private property.

Some like to use the "natural" argument, but hunter-gatherer groups simply did not recognize private property - they generally only recognized usufructory right, which is all but entirely rejected as legitimate in the private property system (except for a few legal oddities that are holdovers from the feudal era in some legal systems, like squatter's right, salvage rights on the sea, etc).


What??? I had you until "get evicted with no compensation when a mining company comes along." Your second sentence doesn't really make sense.


_________________
INTJ


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jul 2012, 12:52 am

nominalist wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Really. I was under the impression that capitalism elevated people out of poverty. Any evidence to back up your claim?


Yes. Because in many Third World countries, for instance, there is considerable wealth (generated by corporations), but it is not distributed to most of the population.

It is similar in the U.S. and in other Western countries. As many Occupy Movement supporters have pointed out, the top 1% made money in 2008, even as the rest of the Western world was in a recession.

Wealth does not usually "trickle down."


George W's old man had rightfully called supply side economics "voodoo economics." But that was when he was still Ronny's opponent, before he became his running mate and had to parrot everything Ronny said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

14 Jul 2012, 12:53 am

bizboy1 wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
nominalist wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.


That assumes that there is such a thing as "other people's money." Monetary systems are arbitrary or conventional arrangements. There is nothing innate about private property.


Property in modern capitalist society ultimately derives from the state, which apportions, titles and legitimizes the right to land and all resources upon it. This is why people in the developing world who have lived in the same shanty village for centuries or possibly even millenia, get evicted with no compensation when a mining company comes along. Their right to property isn't recognized because they have no deed or title from the state, which is what ultimately defines our conception of private property.

Some like to use the "natural" argument, but hunter-gatherer groups simply did not recognize private property - they generally only recognized usufructory right, which is all but entirely rejected as legitimate in the private property system (except for a few legal oddities that are holdovers from the feudal era in some legal systems, like squatter's right, salvage rights on the sea, etc).


What??? I had you until "get evicted with no compensation when a mining company comes along." Your second sentence doesn't really make sense.
Unless you are feigning ignorance I don't see your confusion. (I mean it is clear to me)


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

14 Jul 2012, 12:55 am

nominalist wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Really. I was under the impression that capitalism elevated people out of poverty. Any evidence to back up your claim?


Yes. Because in many Third World countries, for instance, there is considerable wealth (generated by corporations), but it is not distributed to most of the population.

It is similar in the U.S. and in other Western countries. As many Occupy Movement supporters have pointed out, the top 1% made money in 2008, even as the rest of the Western world was in a recession.

Wealth does not usually "trickle down."


I don't follow. So what you're saying is that because corporations don't redistribute their profits to other entities it somehow creates poverty? I don't buy that. It's no coincidence that the poor, rural communities in China are flocking towards the evil capitalists jobs in the city. Sure the working conditions and wages are terrible by our standards, but what were they doing before that? Were they better off? I don't think so. Allowing businesses to keep their profits creates further jobs by incentives to invest. The idea that the rich are just hording their money and creating poverty is largely a myth.


_________________
INTJ


bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

14 Jul 2012, 1:00 am

edgewaters wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Declension wrote:
nominalist wrote:
What I mean is that the common Autistic sensation of social disconnectedness (which I have experienced at various times in my life) could incline some people toward libertarianism (and even atheism or agnosticism).


Yes, but the even more common autistic sensation of not-having-a-job would presumably guard against the Atlas Shrugged complex seen in many libertarians.


Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.



That's because you're living off of someone ELSE'S dime and don't have to figure out how to survive financially on your own.


lol. And I'm guessing you forgot your first 18 years of living off your parents too? I don't see where you're going.


You are taking other people's money for yourself - as an adult.


It would be more correct to say I'm utilizing other people's resources as I don't actually take money from my parents. I do occupy a room at their house and sometimes share food with them. To make the claim that I can't survive financially on my own is showing on your part that you are desperate. Your conclusion that we must have a welfare state because I'm living with my mom and dad for a year doesn't impress me.


_________________
INTJ


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

14 Jul 2012, 1:04 am

bizboy1 wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Declension wrote:
nominalist wrote:
What I mean is that the common Autistic sensation of social disconnectedness (which I have experienced at various times in my life) could incline some people toward libertarianism (and even atheism or agnosticism).


Yes, but the even more common autistic sensation of not-having-a-job would presumably guard against the Atlas Shrugged complex seen in many libertarians.


Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.



That's because you're living off of someone ELSE'S dime and don't have to figure out how to survive financially on your own.


lol. And I'm guessing you forgot your first 18 years of living off your parents too? I don't see where you're going.


You are taking other people's money for yourself - as an adult.


It would be more correct to say I'm utilizing other people's resources as I don't actually take money from my parents. I do occupy a room at their house and sometimes share food with them. To make the claim that I can't survive financially on my own is showing on your part that you are desperate. Your conclusion that we must have a welfare state because I'm living with my mom and dad for a year doesn't impress me.
Do you do your own laundry? If yes do you use your own detergent? Do you pay your part of the electricity bill? Do you pay your part of the water bill? Having them pay for you does not seem that different than taking their money.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jul 2012, 1:04 am

bizboy1 wrote:
nominalist wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Really. I was under the impression that capitalism elevated people out of poverty. Any evidence to back up your claim?


Yes. Because in many Third World countries, for instance, there is considerable wealth (generated by corporations), but it is not distributed to most of the population.

It is similar in the U.S. and in other Western countries. As many Occupy Movement supporters have pointed out, the top 1% made money in 2008, even as the rest of the Western world was in a recession.

Wealth does not usually "trickle down."


I don't follow. So what you're saying is that because corporations don't redistribute their profits to other entities it somehow creates poverty? I don't buy that. It's no coincidence that the poor, rural communities in China are flocking towards the evil capitalists jobs in the city. Sure the working conditions and wages are terrible by our standards, but what were they doing before that? Were they better off? I don't think so. Allowing businesses to keep their profits creates further jobs by incentives to invest. The idea that the rich are just hording their money and creating poverty is largely a myth.


That's how capitalism theoretically is supposed to work - and it can, when organized labor and government legislation forces big business to relinquish their grip on profits so that it can be shared with the people working the floor making products who actually earn the money.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

14 Jul 2012, 1:05 am

bizboy1 wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
You are taking other people's money for yourself - as an adult.


It would be more correct to say I'm utilizing other people's resources


:lol:

Quote:
To make the claim that I can't survive financially on my own is showing on your part that you are desperate.


I never claimed you can't. I claimed you don't.

If you want to be self-consistent, you should move out right now and support yourself, in accord with the beliefs you espouse. Talk is cheap.



Last edited by edgewaters on 14 Jul 2012, 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

14 Jul 2012, 1:08 am

Delphiki wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Declension wrote:
nominalist wrote:
What I mean is that the common Autistic sensation of social disconnectedness (which I have experienced at various times in my life) could incline some people toward libertarianism (and even atheism or agnosticism).


Yes, but the even more common autistic sensation of not-having-a-job would presumably guard against the Atlas Shrugged complex seen in many libertarians.


Not really. I don't have a job and I don't think it's right to take other people's money for myself.



That's because you're living off of someone ELSE'S dime and don't have to figure out how to survive financially on your own.


lol. And I'm guessing you forgot your first 18 years of living off your parents too? I don't see where you're going.


You are taking other people's money for yourself - as an adult.


It would be more correct to say I'm utilizing other people's resources as I don't actually take money from my parents. I do occupy a room at their house and sometimes share food with them. To make the claim that I can't survive financially on my own is showing on your part that you are desperate. Your conclusion that we must have a welfare state because I'm living with my mom and dad for a year doesn't impress me.
Do you do your own laundry? If yes do you use your own detergent? Do you pay your part of the electricity bill? Do you pay your part of the water bill? Having them pay for you does not seem that different than taking their money.


Yes because me living with my parents gives reason to have a nanny state. I disagree. My parent's volunteer their resources, they are not forced. They can kick me out anytime.


_________________
INTJ


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

14 Jul 2012, 1:10 am

You are "using their resources" but denounce using welfare. :huh:


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jul 2012, 1:13 am

Delphiki wrote:
You are "using their resources" but denounce using welfare. :huh:


And what's wrong with seeking - and getting - help when you need it? Even when it's coming from the government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Last edited by Kraichgauer on 14 Jul 2012, 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

14 Jul 2012, 1:13 am

bizboy1 wrote:
Yes because me living with my parents gives reason to have a nanny state. I disagree. My parent's volunteer their resources, they are not forced. They can kick me out anytime.


The point is, you have absolutely no experience at all in being responsible for yourself, yet you feel you have the right to criticize others who are far more independant than you, for not being as independant as you think they should be. You've got people who are doing everything but wiping your butt for you, and you're an adult.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

14 Jul 2012, 1:15 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
You are "using their resources" but denounce using welfare. :huh:


And what's wrong with seeking - and getting - help when you need it? Even when it's coming from the government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I never said there is anything wrong with doing that. But he did, even though he is still leeching off of someone else. A smaller group of tax payers :lol:


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

14 Jul 2012, 1:17 am

edgewaters wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Yes because me living with my parents gives reason to have a nanny state. I disagree. My parent's volunteer their resources, they are not forced. They can kick me out anytime.


The point is, you have absolutely no experience at all in being responsible for yourself, yet you feel you have the right to criticize others who are far more independant than you, for not being as independant as you think they should be. You've got people who are doing everything but wiping your butt for you, and you're an adult.
Best answer to this discussion so far!


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.