Page 6 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

13 Oct 2013, 3:06 pm

Libertarians want the poor to starve to death.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Oct 2013, 3:09 pm

Max000 wrote:
You are living in an alternative universe. The only earnings being redistributed in this one, are from the poor and middle class to the rich. Thanks to the libertarians and conservatives.


That's funny, I thought the government was in the respective hands of Democrats and Republicans during that period, both of whom practice crony capitalism and expand the size of the state.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Oct 2013, 3:12 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Libertarians want the poor to starve to death.


No, we don't, but this libertarian would certainly like to see less no content posts.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Oct 2013, 3:21 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Libertarians have a point when it comes to:

- Size of government (less is better)
- Free Trade (more is better)
- Free Investment (more is better)
- Free labour (more is better)

Libertarians have a problem when it comes to:

- Health care (due to information asymmetry)
- Environmental protection (due to collective action problems)


Depends on the libertarian, as we're not particularly homogenous. I'm kind of unusual in that I support a lot of social safety systems such as health care on efficiency grounds, that it's cheaper to provide preventative care than to pick up the pieces when someone allows something serious to go untreated, I just want to see it done in such a way that it minimizes the creation of a new bureaucracy with it's own built in and ever growing constituency.

Environmental stuff is tougher, I mean the EPA is off it's rocker with some regulations, the ones that actually cost billions of dollars per life saved and such, but where to draw the line is a question I don't have an answer to. Of course, I'm personally just not that up on environmental issues, it's not that I don't care about them, I just don't find them interesting enough to really dig into the subject. I'm sure CATO or someone has actually done the research and has a viable system stashed away in their papers somewhere, I'm just not up on it myself.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Oct 2013, 3:37 pm

Max000 wrote:
BS, only liberals believe in true freedom.


Liberals don't believe in freedom, they believe they know what's best for other people and set out to impose it on them; you do a pretty good job of demonstrating this yourself.

Max000 wrote:
If a large multinational company decides to move their factory from a small American town to China to take advantage of cheap Chinese prison labor, putting 10,000 Americans out of work, and forcing the people to relocate from the town they were born in, to cities to take lower paying jobs, then those people's freedom to live where they want was infringed upon.


No, it wasn't. People can live wherever they want, they don't get to live wherever they want and force other people to support them in doing so. If I move to the middle of a desert and then demand that the government drill me a well, run power lines out to me, and pave a road to my doorstep at public expense and they say no, has the government just infringed upon my freedom to liver where I choose? According to you, they have.

Also, you don't understand off-shoring in terms of efficiency, that using a cheaper labor pool is functionally identical to inventing a more efficient widget that allows a job to be done with less labor. Would you have outlawed the car because it put blacksmiths out of business? How about the robot, because it put auto factory workers out of jobs? CNC equipment that displaced machinists? This is econ 101 stuff here, increasing efficiency is always going to create economic disruption, and some people are going to have the bad luck to be in careers that suddenly become obsolete, it's inexorable. The best you can do is offer retraining and job placement programs, the alternative is stiffing the entire economy and suppressing innovation in the name of keeping people busy.

Max000 wrote:
Those people might as well have been forced out of their homes at gun point, by armed government troops. Because the results are the same.


No, they're not, for the reasons explained above.

Max000 wrote:
Liberals support freedom. Libertarians and conservatives support poor people being slaves to the rich.


Yes, that's why some of our biggest causes are ending the drug war, which grossly affects the poor, eminent domain abuse, i.e. corporations colluding with the government to steal people's property, and crony capitalism, large corporations deriving an unfair advantage from their relationship with the state. All very Scrooge McDuck of us...
I'll spare you the wall of rolling eyes.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


redriverronin
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 267

13 Oct 2013, 4:09 pm

Max000 wrote:
redriverronin wrote:
Max000 wrote:
lost561 wrote:
If you're against libertarianism than you are against freedom. It's as simple as that.


It's not that simple. You obviously didn't read the article before you posted, or at least not reason #2.

"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."

People against libertarianism, have a much broader view of freedom, then the libertarian's limited concept of it. Us non-libitsrians support freedom for everybody, not just for the rich and powerful.


So what is your view of freedom? Libertarianism does want free markets but not just for the rich for normal people who don't have thousands of lawyers to make everything they do legal. Liberal and conservative views on freedom have destroyed this country for many people. At the very least half of what libertarians want to achieve would benefit a very large portion of the poor community not only economically but socially also. Liberal and conservative goals have left us all socially and economically wanting on many levels for a very long time now. Every one no matter who they are supports the rich and powerful believing otherwise is ignorant at best and dangerous at worst hope you can understand that.


BS, only liberals believe in true freedom. If a large multinational company decides to move their factory from a small American town to China to take advantage of cheap Chinese prison labor, putting 10,000 Americans out of work, and forcing the people to relocate from the town they were born in, to cities to take lower paying jobs, then those people's freedom to live where they want was infringed upon.


Like I said believing that there is one group of people that only do good is not helpful for anyone only ignorant and dangerous. You seem to be under some false belief that liberals don't help out the rich and ship jobs over seas. Under the leadership of the new liberal president and his people the Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed into agreement. What is it for it is there to make it more profitable and easier to ship jobs over seas. But according to you liberals never do this why you could believe such none sense is beyond me.

Those people might as well have been forced out of their homes at gun point, by armed government troops. Because the results are the same.[/quote]

Yes and liberals help to do this you cant show me prof of anything different because it dosent exist you are under the false assumption that they want to help people. When all that they have really done is say that they did and then do the exact opposite and hurt the people they said they would help.

Liberals support freedom. Libertarians and conservatives support poor people being slaves to the rich.[/quote]

Liberals don't support freedom conservatives don't support freed libertarians don't support freedom they support rich people. The libertarians are the only party though that seems to want to make changes that will help make jobs and free up the justice system by doing away with government bureaucracy and hypocrisy. Something that liberals and conservatives seem to not understand just as you don't seem to understand.



redriverronin
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 267

13 Oct 2013, 4:18 pm

Max000 wrote:
lost561 wrote:
That's a bold statement to say that only liberals are for freedom when they believe it's ok to take what one man has earned and distribute it to another.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :roll:

You are living in an alternative universe. The only earnings being redistributed in this one, are from the poor and middle class to the rich. Thanks to the libertarians and conservatives.

Image


WOW!! !! ! Whats it like living in your world :roll:



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Oct 2013, 7:44 pm

lost561 wrote:
Whether you are conservative or liberal it is about buying votes to stay in office. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans are.

Yes, and this is even worse now thanks to the very libertarian 'Citizens United' decision by SCOTUS.
Quote:
By having a flat tax, you avoid all of these sleezebag politicians doing things to buy them votes.

How can you be an economics major and think that this is true? Do you really think that all, or even a majority, of lobbying is done over simple taxation?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Oct 2013, 7:58 pm

Magneto wrote:
You seem to be thinking of one strain of one variety of libertarianism, which hardly anyone believes in...?

In a free market, you'd be able to drop out and homestead some unused land. Well, as long as it's a free market, not a Rothbardian system that believes living on a bit of land for a time gives you eternal ownership of it. Or you could trade for food from someone who's done that, whilst building your own house on other unused land, but then that would be a market transaction...

But seriously, why would you be stopped from smallholding?

Because you'd be trespassing on the King's... oops, I mean the Native Americans'... oops, I mean the People's Hunting Grounds. Land that is committed to one purpose cannot be used for another, and its use for other purposes is sometimes impaired far, far into the future. In various places in California and the West, there are areas with acres and acres of gravel tailings piled up along former stream beds, where hydraulic gold mining was done on public lands on a massive scale. This type of mining was stopped a century ago, but there's still nothing growing on those tailings and no use that land can be put to.
Image
Homesteading isn't this harmful or this long-lasting in its consequences, but it's still removing public land from public use. It is preventing any individual who wants to hunt, fish, or camp on that property, from being able to do so, as long as that homesteader is there. If said homesteader is, for a Humboldt County example, a paranoid pot grower who runs enormous diesel generators 24-7 (which leaks diesel and solvents into local watersheds (edit: and disturb the other neighbors, who may have legitimately moved into the area for a peaceful, quiet rural lifestyle, with noise that can be heard for miles away)), shoots at anyone who trespasses on "his" property, uses huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides, and deliberately poisons and tortures endangered species... weellll, at least it was public land, right? And, no, <=that isn't an isolated example. It's rampant in the Emerald triangle.



lost561
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 759
Location: Lost..

13 Oct 2013, 9:23 pm

LKL wrote:
Yes, and this is even worse now thanks to the very libertarian 'Citizens United' decision by SCOTUS.


I'm willing to entertain that idea. Please provide sources that can convince me, otherwise this is just another opinion.

LKL wrote:
How can you be an economics major and think that this is true? Do you really think that all, or even a majority, of lobbying is done over simple taxation?


I never said all lobbying is done over taxation. But our tax code is thousands of pages long. There are too many loopholes in favor of people that have connections to people in office. Do you not agree?

Lobbying is done over many reasons but tell me how a flat tax would hurt this country? Remember, there are tax returns. Poor people get most of their taxes back. Rich people don't.

Lobbying is done for anybody who has their own agenda, whether it's good or bad is for you to be the judge. But a flat tax would not hurt this country.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Oct 2013, 10:14 pm

lost561 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Yes, and this is even worse now thanks to the very libertarian 'Citizens United' decision by SCOTUS.


I'm willing to entertain that idea. Please provide sources that can convince me, otherwise this is just another opinion.

"sources that can convince you"?
*snort*
Ad-hominem before the argument is even made. Tell me, what sources will you accept? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Heritage Foundation? Anyone else?

Quote:
I never said all lobbying is done over taxation.

You said changing the tax system would end the influence of money in politics.
Quote:
But our tax code is thousands of pages long. There are too many loopholes in favor of people that have connections to people in office. Do you not agree?

I do agree with that.

Quote:
...tell me how a flat tax would hurt this country? Remember, there are tax returns. Poor people get most of their taxes back. Rich people don't.

Who gets most of their tax return back currently has nothing to do with a flat tax... unless you're implying that poor people will continue to get most of their taxes back after the imposition of a flat tax? In which case, it wouldn't be a flat tax.

Quote:
Lobbying is done for anybody who has their own agenda, whether it's good or bad is for you to be the judge. But a flat tax would not hurt this country.

yes, it would be.
A flat tax is a de facto regressive tax,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburm ... -is-a-vat/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... ss-warfare

...and de facto increases economic inequality in a country.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... sive-taxes
http://www.epi.org/publication/rising-i ... ng-market/

Extreme economic inequality is causally associated with a whole host of social ills.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... r-society/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
http://www.economist.com/node/21564414
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... 308-115926

Therefore a flat tax, which will exacerbate the already extreme economic inequality that we have in the US, will cause social ills. Social ills hurt a country. Therefore, a flat tax will hurt this country.

Note:
A flat tax which was applied to ALL income, including bonuses, presents, corporate profits, offshore holdings, and especially capital gains, would actually be better (more progressive, if not progressive in an absolute sense) than the current income tax which is actually quite regressive. I would support such a tax program on a strictly pragmatic level, especially if it had a floor (ie, no taxation up to 3x the poverty level, for example), maintained the EIC, and allowed for basic social-good deductions like education costs.



lost561
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 759
Location: Lost..

13 Oct 2013, 11:48 pm

LKL wrote:


"sources that can convince you"?
*snort*
Ad-hominem before the argument is even made. Tell me, what sources will you accept? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Heritage Foundation? Anyone else?



You obviously have an agenda if you are trying to associate Rush Limbaugh as being a prominent representative of libertarian politics to people reading this debate. He is a terrible example of a radical conservative. He is the farthest thing from libertarian.

Tell me are news networks like CNN any better than Fox News? Somebody your age should know that all news networks have their own biases to political parties. Fox News just happens to be the only the republican one.

And by the way heritage foundation is good reading for fiscally conservative minded people. I'm just going out on a limb and guessing that you want more government control over everything from your passionate response.

LKL wrote:
You said changing the tax system would end the influence of money in politics.


Nope, thats your interpretation of what I said. Please quote those exact words ands how me where I said those exact words.

My exact words were:
Quote:
By having a flat tax, you avoid all of these sleezebag politicians doing things to buy them votes.



LKL wrote:
Who gets most of their tax return back currently has nothing to do with a flat tax... unless you're implying that poor people will continue to get most of their taxes back after the imposition of a flat tax? In which case, it wouldn't be a flat tax.


I am saying that poor people will get most of their money back from taxes.

But the tax code would still be classified as a flat tax. Not the tax brackets we have now, nor would it be a progressive tax. It would be a flat tax of 15% for everybody. (Before tax returns for the poor) but they still pay the original flat tax of 15%.

LKL wrote:

Ok.......
LKL wrote:


It doesn't matter. These poor people would get most of their money back just as they would whether they would pay a 10% tax. The only difference is that everybody In the country is paying equal dividends and there is no loopholes.

What's your proposal for tax brackets?

LKL wrote:
Extreme economic inequality is causally associated with a whole host of social ills.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... r-society/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
http://www.economist.com/node/21564414
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... 308-115926



Therefore a flat tax, which will exacerbate the already extreme economic inequality that we have in the US, will cause social ills. Social ills hurt a country. Therefore, a flat tax will hurt this country.


Again, the poor people would be getting most of their money back from taxes. So the argument that the flat tax causes income inequality only holds true if the government keeps all their money. Does it ever occur to you how many jobs would be created by a flat tax? I could post a bunch of optionated articles too, so in this case there would be less poor people and more revenue being generated by our government.

LKL wrote:
Note:
A flat tax which was applied to ALL income, including bonuses, presents, corporate profits, offshore holdings, and especially capital gains, would actually be better (more progressive, if not progressive in an absolute sense) than the current income tax which is actually quite regressive. I would support such a tax program on a strictly pragmatic level, especially if it had a floor (ie, no taxation up to 3x the poverty level, for example), maintained the EIC, and allowed for basic social-good deductions like education costs.


Yes I do agree with this statement.

The current policy for capital gains & offshore holdings in the United States is very regressive.

I'm all for growth and prosperity. Not growth of government employees.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

14 Oct 2013, 12:38 am

Magneto wrote:
You seem to be thinking of one strain of one variety of libertarianism, which hardly anyone believes in...?

The Libertarian Party has over 300,000 members, not to mention all the support Ron Paul had (he once ran for pres under the LP banner)/

Quote:
In a free market, you'd be able to drop out and homestead some unused land. Well, as long as it's a free market, not a Rothbardian system that believes living on a bit of land for a time gives you eternal ownership of it. Or you could trade for food from someone who's done that, whilst building your own house on other unused land, but then that would be a market transaction...

I have nothing against mutualism.

Quote:
But seriously, why would you be stopped from smallholding?

Property taxes certainly would. In order to pay the government every year, you have to earn money, which requires participating in the market.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2013, 1:03 am

lost561 wrote:
LKL wrote:
"sources that can convince you"?
*snort*
Ad-hominem before the argument is even made. Tell me, what sources will you accept? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Heritage Foundation? Anyone else?

You obviously have an agenda if you are trying to associate Rush Limbaugh as being a prominent representative of libertarian politics to people reading this debate. He is a terrible example of a radical conservative. He is the farthest thing from libertarian.

You said, 'sources I will accept,' not 'libertarian sources.' I assumed that you like Rush based on statements you've made here and elsewhere. Ok, though: Not Rush Limbaugh.
Quote:
Tell me are news networks like CNN any better than Fox News? Somebody your age should know that all news networks have their own biases to political parties. Fox News just happens to be the only the republican one.

Yes. CNN is better.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wa ... all-2012-5
So, by the way, is that a 'yes' or a 'no' on CNN and Fox News? And, while we're here, how about Business Insider - is that ok, or is it too liberal for you?
Quote:
And by the way heritage foundation is good reading for fiscally conservative minded people.

Oh, I agree: It does give a good view of that mindset.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201104060020
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105260010
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105160012
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... -and-wrong
http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/0 ... ted/141171
http://www.publiceye.org/welfare/Decade ... on-06.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... oure-poor/
So, based on the tone of your responses, I'm guessing that you'll accept The Heritage Foundation and maybe Fox News (if it agrees with you) as sources. Am I correct? And is there anyone else?
Quote:
I'm just going out on a limb and guessing that you want more government control over everything from your passionate response.

"Passionate"?
In what way did I demonstrate "passion"? Or was that an attempt to gaslight me, in addition to the straw-liberal?

Quote:
LKL wrote:
You said changing the tax system would end the influence of money in politics.

Nope, thats your interpretation of what I said. Please quote those exact words ands how me where I said those exact words.
My exact words were:
Quote:
By having a flat tax, you avoid all of these sleezebag politicians doing things to buy them votes.

Eyeahhh, thanks for quoting yourself for me. Tell me, is there a way to buy a vote without money?
Quote:
LKL wrote:
Who gets most of their tax return back currently has nothing to do with a flat tax... unless you're implying that poor people will continue to get most of their taxes back after the imposition of a flat tax? In which case, it wouldn't be a flat tax.

I am saying that poor people will get most of their money back from taxes.
But the tax code would still be classified as a flat tax. Not the tax brackets we have now, nor would it be a progressive tax. It would be a flat tax of 15% for everybody. (Before tax returns for the poor) but they still pay the original flat tax of 15%.

*snort* Uh... yeah. So if the poor people ultimately pay less, and the rich people ultimately pay more, how is that a flat tax again? Other than that's what it's officially called?
Basically, you're advocating for a flat tax, and then changing the definition of "flat tax" when you're challenged on it.
Quote:
What's your proposal for tax brackets?

If I had my druthers, I'd go back to what we had in the Eisenhower Administration.
Quote:
Does it ever occur to you how many jobs would be created by a flat tax?

evidence, please?
Quote:
I could post a bunch of optionated articles too, so in this case there would be less poor people and more revenue being generated by our government.

Factual relativism, you're really going there?
Quote:
I'm all for growth and prosperity. Not growth of government employees.

Well, then, you'll be happy to know that the number of federal employees has remained relatively stable for the last several decades, despite a growing US population:
The initial run-up was WW2; subsequent spikes are from census workers hired and then fired every 10 years.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/gr ... 9091000001
And guess who was president during that nice bulge in '85? Mr. 'The government is the problem' himself.
Beyond all that, why do you assume that 'growth and prosperity' and 'growth of government employees' are mutually exclusive?



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

14 Oct 2013, 5:23 am

Geekonychus wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/17/1055627/-Four-Reasons-to-Reject-Libertarianism

A great article and I agree with every point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an unabashedly hedonistic and aknowlege that humans are selfish creatures by nature (Ayn Rand is definetly right there) so there are some aspects of the libertarian philosophy I can get behind. My main issue is that the libertarian version of freedom is vaguely sociopathic.

Not to mention, I fail to understand how Aspies could survive in a libertarian "utopia." I can't see how a society structured around Social Darwinism is going to be any better for us........ Care to enlighten me?


A lot of libertarians I debate with on the Internet express hatred for people with Aspergers/Autism and those with mental disabilities, which is just one of the reasons I despise libertarianism. The irony is many libertarians do have AS or similar traits, though I would argue that the competitiveness of libertarian ideology is at odds with what most people with AS stand for.

I also don't think libertarianism is as objective/non-emotionally based as they claim. I think it's very emotional and reactionary - they get so indignant about having their tax dollars "stolen" from them and the "welfare leeches".

On the flip-side, I do like how most libertarians oppose capital punishment and war though. Most also condemn the concept of intellectual property which is pretty cool (no sympathy for the record companies from me!)



adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

15 Oct 2013, 4:36 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
A lot of libertarians I debate with on the Internet express hatred for people with Aspergers/Autism and those with mental disabilities...

Would you clarify this bit of anecdotal evidence, perhaps with some examples? I can't think of a single person I've met who has expressed hatred for people who are mentally disabled. I've met plenty who have made fun of them, but not who have expressed hatred. How have you seen this hatred manifested?