How to understand Libertarianism

[L.A.P.]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geekinthewoods.net/wp-content/uploads/the_24_types_of_libertarians.png&imgrefurl=http://geekinthewoods.net/&usg=__EglJIBY_7D1-nbkVDx_YZKzrmSc=&h=938&w=625&sz=445&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&tbnid=lMZSN7zcngPlLM:&tbnh=168&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlibertarians%2Bcomic%26um%3D1%26hl%3D en%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D663% 26tbs%3Disch:10%2C726&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=260&vpy=78&dur=657&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=94&ty=150&ei=srGeTLDqJ8H38Aa03fT0DQ&oei=gbGeTKiKOoP_8AaDk_CBDQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:29&biw=1280&bih=663

[anticap]

I've seen it, but it's a good one. :)

[Dean]

All the ones on economics are neat: http://www.leftycartoons.com/category/economics/

[Revolutionair]

I don't understand this.
Libertarianism IS NOT minarchism or constitutionalism or what ever.
Why do people keep calling the people who are probably the closest to fascism today libertarians?

[anticap]

I don't understand this.
Libertarianism IS NOT minarchism or constitutionalism or what ever.
Why do people keep calling the people who are probably the closest to fascism today libertarians?

The cartoon uses the US-American sense of the word, which is the exact opposite of its original meaning (and its continued meaning throughout most of the rest of the world).

[Lt. Ferret]

I don't understand this.
Libertarianism IS NOT minarchism or constitutionalism or what ever.
Why do people keep calling the people who are probably the closest to fascism today libertarians?


lolwut? my wife is a minarchist. she identifies closest to a libertarian. shes not a fascist, she hates the state.

[Revolution starts with U]

He's saying do some research on the history of the word 'libertarian." It has only recently become a term the right wing hijacked.

[RGacky3]

She hates the state thats accountable to the people, i.e. that you vote for, but corporations who you don't vote for, and who can very well BECAUSE state like entities, she's got no problem with.

What she really hates is democracy.

[Lt. Ferret]

She hates the state thats accountable to the people, i.e. that you vote for, but corporations who you don't vote for, and who can very well BECAUSE state like entities, she's got no problem with.

What she really hates is democracy.


you vote with your money. lrn2morality.

[Apoi_Viitor]

you vote with your money. lrn2morality.

How do poor people vote then?

[anticap]

How do poor people vote then?

Whoops! He really stepped in it there.

[Lt. Ferret]

poor people still have influence, and the more poor there are, the more influence they have as a group economically.

[Bud Struggle]

How do poor people vote then?

Any way they choose. If they choose to not educate themselves on the issues--that is their choice. If they choose to believe what government or politicians tell them--that is their choice.

If you or anyone else feels that the Proletariat of the USA is making "bad choices" for themselves--and "you" should take their power of choice away from them and give them what they truly want--because are too dumb to know what they really want. Well, that's your position.

[#FF0000]

clearly if everyone made good decisions then there would never be poverty because that is the only reason there are poor in the first place heh

[RGacky3]

poor people still have influence, and the more poor there are, the more influence they have as a group economically.

The top 1% controls more wealth than teh bottom 95%, you do realize that don't you, and most of hte bottom 95% is spending most if not all their wealth on bills and groceries. So, no your full of it.

But again, voting with your money? THe way Capitalism works thats an ologarchy.


Any way they choose. If they choose to not educate themselves on the issues--that is their choice. If they choose to believe what government or politicians tell them--that is their choice.

If you or anyone else feels that the Proletariat of the USA is making "bad choices" for themselves--and "you" should take their power of choice away from them and give them what they truly want--because are too dumb to know what they really want. Well, that's your position.

You don't vote for corporations (well you can with your dollar, but you need a buttload of dollars), so it does'nt matter who they vote for (as Obama has proven once again).

What WE are saying is the proletariat should not play the capitalists game, they shoud'nt vote with their dollars the way cpaitalists want (obviously they have all the dollars), they should vote with their labor, their numers, through strikes, union organizing, squatting, occupations, forclosure resistance, political voting even might help, revolution.

The workers have played the capitalists game, and look where it got them, When the workers fought and played their own game they got progress.

Thats what we are saying Bud, and honestly I think we are getting closer to that, more people are realizing you can't play by the capitalists rules, you make your own damn rules.


clearly if everyone made good decisions then there would never be poverty because that is the only reason there are poor in the first place heh

Clearly

[Revolutionair]

What he's trying to say is:
The more poor there are, the more influence they have.

If there is 1 poor person, he won't have influence. So the only way to help, is to make more people poor.

So in order to fight poverty, you need to have a lot of poor people.



What I meant with my statement is that the people who advertise themselves these days as libertarians, are in favor of huge private power. If the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth of a nation, then that top 1% owns the means to survive of 50% of the people.
Combine this with a government which spends a shitload of money on police to protect that private property, and you basically have a privatized version of the fascist state.

[Barry Lyndon]

There's nothing consistent about libertarianism except its goal-the preservation of capitalism.

[Havet]

Lame excuse for a thread. Could've posted it in Reactionary Chatter. There are no arguments, just satirical images.

Good jokes though

[Dean]

you vote with your money. lrn2morality.
A very explicit way to create a wildly unequal system of representation.

Also, fuck your small-minded, half-assed morality. You've clearly not even taken rudimentary steps to try to reasonably assess the moral value of different systems, repeating the childish notion that "theft is bad" without even considering that the history of all of society is based on theft.

[L.A.P.]

poor people still have influence, and the more poor there are, the more influence they have as a group economically.

Lt. Ferrett I have a question if you don't mind answering, are you even a Leftist? I see "Yellow Socialist" does that have something to do with the theory of "socialism" in fascism?

[Bud Struggle]

The top 1% controls more wealth than teh bottom 95%, you do realize that don't you, and most of hte bottom 95% is spending most if not all their wealth on bills and groceries. So, no your full of it. and if you think Corporations are all about what decisions and life is about--maybe you and bill Gates have more in common than you think. There's still a lot more to life and decisions and happiness and equality and fairness then you think.


You don't vote for corporations (well you can with your dollar, but you need a buttload of dollars), so it does'nt matter who they vote for (as Obama has proven once again).

What WE are saying is the proletariat should not play the capitalists game, they shoud'nt vote with their dollars the way cpaitalists want (obviously they have all the dollars), they should vote with their labor, their numers, through strikes, union organizing, squatting, occupations, forclosure resistance, political voting even might help, revolution. Except the worker has gotten his house and his TV and his way of living from playing the corporate game. His kids go to good schools, he has all the food he needs, he even goes out to a movie and dinner once in a while. When else in the history of the world did a worker get this standard of living? there are issues, to be sure. But workers in America have a good life.


Thats what we are saying Bud, and honestly I think we are getting closer to that, more people are realizing you can't play by the capitalists rules, you make your own damn rules. Of course you always make your own damn rules. I always did that. That is why I am who I am. But unfortunately for you--it is an individualist game. And that's the way of the world. You can trust yourself--the guy next to you, maybe not. It's a sad fact.

[#FF0000]

Lt. Ferrett I have a question if you don't mind answering, are you even a Leftist? I see "Yellow Socialist" does that have something to do with the theory of "socialism" in fascism?

Yellow socialism, as I understand, is more or less corporatism. Not necessarily fascist corporatism. More like the sort of corporatism some people accuse Adam Smith of.

[Revolution starts with U]

and if you think Corporations are all about what decisions and life is about--maybe you and bill Gates have more in common than you think. There's still a lot more to life and decisions and happiness and equality and fairness then you think.
Sorry, what? En englais, si vous plais?



Except the worker has gotten his house and his TV and his way of living from playing the corporate game. His kids go to good schools, he has all the food he needs, he even goes out to a movie and dinner once in a while. When else in the history of the world did a worker get this standard of living? there are issues, to be sure. But workers in America have a good life.

This didn't come about due to free market capitalism, I can gaurantee you that. This came about through strikes, organized labor, boycotts, general people's movements. The capitalists didn't give these things to the american worker, he took them. And then he felt content, stopped demanding his rights, and opened up his rear cavity.


You can trust yourself. The guy next to you, maybe not

I know, which is exactly why we need socialism!

[Lt. Ferret]

Yellow socialism, as I understand, is more or less corporatism. Not necessarily fascist corporatism. More like the sort of corporatism some people accuse Adam Smith of.


its the most proto-beginning-before-anything-kind of corporatismm. i dont like corporatism per se. i dont like how fascism adopted it. though fascist corporatism is basically national syndicalism. i toyed around with syndicalism.

basically i consider myself to the left of social democracy, most revolutionary marxism has not hit the spot with me, and its record on the world stage is spoptty at best.

a type of social democracy syndicalism hybrid blablabla is where i found myself. yellow socialism is kind of an insult but i decided it was what i wanted to label myself.

[Lt. Ferret]

A very explicit way to create a wildly unequal system of representation.

Also, fuck your small-minded, half-assed morality. You've clearly not even taken rudimentary steps to try to reasonably assess the moral value of different systems, repeating the childish notion that "theft is bad" without even considering that the history of all of society is based on theft.


actually i was a devout marxist up until about a year or two ago. im 24, started dabbling in marxism at 15, so thats about 7 or 8 years of investigating it. i got a poli sci degree wtih a minor in history and sociology to try to figure this whole thing out.



marxism put into practice has not worked.

so sit around with your thumb up your ass and call me an imperialist for not wanting to live in north korea if you want, it sure doesn't bother me.


also the morality of "you produced more than me. give it to me or ill shoot you" doesn't sit with people who put in the extra hours.

[anticap]

im 23


im 24

Should we wish you a happy birthday, or are you having trouble keeping your story straight?

[Revolution starts with U]

My dad worked 12 hrs a day 6 days a week for years paying for our family. We were also still on food stamps sometimes and government assistance.
He still avidly supports social welfare systems, and they now pull in combined almost 100k. Perhaps it's not productiveness that causes you to not like welfare. :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

Beavis was once making fun of a kid. I think I can quote him and it fits in well with why many people are anti-welfare;
"It's MY football! I'm going back to MY house!" :D

[Lt. Ferret]

Should we wish you a happy birthday, or are you having trouble keeping your story straight?


birthday was september 19.

[RGacky3]

and if you think Corporations are all about what decisions and life is about--maybe you and bill Gates have more in common than you think. There's still a lot more to life and decisions and happiness and equality and fairness then you think.


Its a lot easier if you have food in your mouth and a roof over your head.

But thats not what I said, we are talking about economic power (which is also political power), in that sense, the poor have no economic power, while the rich have it all, we were talking about voting with your money.


Except the worker has gotten his house and his TV and his way of living from playing the corporate game. His kids go to good schools, he has all the food he needs, he even goes out to a movie and dinner once in a while. When else in the history of the world did a worker get this standard of living? there are issues, to be sure. But workers in America have a good life.

Look outside man, ask the American worker, ask them if they are happy with the status quo, ask them about the issues, you don't need to ask them, there are polls.


But unfortunately for you--it is an individualist game. And that's the way of the world. You can trust yourself--the guy next to you, maybe not. It's a sad fact.

Thats what Capitalists say, because when its an individualists game when it comes to economics, they'll always win, the ONLY time workers have won is when they got together and organized, so learn from history.

[Dean]

actually i was a devout marxist up until about a year or two ago. im 24, started dabbling in marxism at 15, so thats about 7 or 8 years of investigating it. i got a poli sci degree wtih a minor in history and sociology to try to figure this whole thing out.
About the same as me, (14-24) but I've been spending the better part of the last 5 years expanding my knowledge via investigative journalism:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
http://english.aljazeera.net/


marxism put into practice has not worked.
Well I'd just love to read about these real-world examples of Marx's DotP. What were they?


so sit around with your thumb up your ass and call me an imperialist for not wanting to live in north korea if you want, it sure doesn't bother me.
Always betraying your prejudice: N. Korea doesn't even consider itself Marxist anymore! As if biased accounts of one's own political structures were wroth anything in the first place.


also the morality of "you produced more than me. give it to me or ill shoot you" doesn't sit with people who put in the extra hours.
Capitalism does not provide wages and assets which mirror the respective production of the parties involved. In fact, that is what this is all about: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm#S2

(I assume, as a self-avowed "former Marxist" you'd be able to respond to the particular theories, rather than just provide vague moralisms about "putting in the extra hours")

[Lt. Ferret]

after 150 years of trying to iron out the discrepencies, and not being able to point to one regime that was communist, but being able to point out to several faux regimes that committed genocide and mass terror, you dont even really need to go point by point on a belief system that is either morally bankrupt or uselessly utopian.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nazi's and fasicists considered themselves capitalists, at least in practice. The major european capitalist powers have committed genocide across the world.
Don't act like it's just the USSR that did it. All plutocracy's are subject to this flaw.
Which is why we need socialism!!!! :laugh: Real, democratic socialism; a society run by the people as whole, rather than a few at the top.

[Dean]

after 150 years of trying to iron out the discrepencies, and not being able to point to one regime that was communist, but being able to point out to several faux regimes that committed genocide and mass terror, you dont even really need to go point by point on a belief system that is either morally bankrupt or uselessly utopian.
Decentralized worker management of the means of production is neither utopian nor morally bankrupt.

You apparently have no interest in actually responding to the criticisms of your ludicrous attacks. You have offered no moral analysis which supports your paradigm. You've offered no example of Marxism-in-practice, and at that no example where Marxism was to blame in any way, shape or form.

You're just being histrionic.

[Lt. Ferret]

china albania ussr romania bulgaria venezuela afghanistan cambodia vietnam laos north korea angola nicuaragua take your pick.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll grant you that if you grant that NAZI's and fascists, and slavery were an expression of capitalism in practice.

[Lt. Ferret]

slavery definitely, but nazis and fascists werent capitalists. they just told their capitalists if they played their little ball game, they wouldnt be messed with and the dirty unwashed masses wouldnt take control.

[Dean]

china albania ussr romania bulgaria venezuela afghanistan cambodia vietnam laos north korea angola nicuaragua take your pick.
Fine, I'll choose your closest example, Nicaragua.

Why did it fail?

[Revolution starts with U]

slavery definitely, but nazis and fascists werent capitalists. they just told their capitalists if they played their little ball game, they wouldnt be messed with and the dirty unwashed masses wouldnt take control.

Sounds like business as usual in capitalism.

[Lt. Ferret]

Fine, I'll choose your closest example, Nicaragua.

Why did it fail?


that was the best choice to choose. that one fell because reagans contra death squads started bombing hospitals and assassinating peasants and forced the sandinistas into a war footing they couldnt possibly win.

[Nolan]

china albania ussr romania bulgaria venezuela afghanistan cambodia vietnam laos north korea angola nicuaragua take your pick.

So you get to decide what represents Marxism?

Let me answer a few of these, and maybe I'll edit to include more or all of them:


venezuelaI'm puzzled why you'd think this is an example of socialism. The president was elected on a socialist platform, and he has reformed the country a lot, but the economy remains capitalist. And no, Chavez is not a dictator.


cambodiaPol Pot's communism has been over-exaggerated by the western media - in fact he probably only identified as such out of convenience. He did not make any policies that could be called "Marxist." Rather primitivist would be more fitting considering his obsession with depopulating cities. Guess who lives in cities in Marxist theory? Or fuck guessing, you should know from studying at 15.


north koreaIt looks like Dean beat me to it.


nicaraguaSimilar to Venezuela in many ways. Not so much Cuba or the USSR. Sorta kinda had their hands tied to do much.

I know better. Engaging you is probably going to be as fruitful as arguing with Catholic theocrats who basically think Chavez is the antichrist and take any criticism of the opposition as a personal insult.

[Bud Struggle]

china albania ussr romania bulgaria venezuela afghanistan cambodia vietnam laos north korea angola nicuaragua take your pick.

Lt., you have run into one of the big problems with Communism--according to strict Marxist analysis--Communism never existed. Everything that has come into the world up to now has had or has been some sort of "perversion" of Communism. So Communism can't be blamed for any "excess" those countries might have tried when it comes to violating human rights.

Real Communism can only come about when in some happy day of the future--the entire world is Communist. Then and only then can real Communism be achieved.

Now how should we view these Commie regimes of the past? People are pretty fragmented om that question around here. There are the M-L-ists that defent to the death the Glorious Soviet Union and will cite pig iron production statistics from the 1932 Five Year Plan with great regularity to prove their point, other's don't care. some support Castro--some think he's a trator to the Revolution. Pol Pot is generally disliked, but you find a group that say he wasn't that bad--just misunderstood. North Korea is another bugaboo--some people are big suporters and look at it as the ideal utopia, some don't like it all that much.

There are a couple of Indians down in Mexico that seem to be Anarchists--but they fail the test under close inspection, but they too have their cheerleaders.

The bottom line is that if you try to pin these places down as "Communist" for anything bad they did--you won't get to far. On the other hand if they do a poll of some Romainian village and the people say they miss the "good old days" our Communist friends will be all over that one saying the Revolution is on its way back.

It's a little confusing--but you'll get the hang of it after a while.

BTW--this isn't some sort of vast Commie plot against OIers--it is just that Communism has a lot of avenues and roads that it is traveling down and some people prefer one way to travel and some another. Once you get beyond a couple of core values Communism is quite a diverse collection of beliefs and ideas.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have no problem with calling those countries socialist, they self-identified as such. My only problem is when you try to conclude that "socialism failed." Socialists have tried to set up governments, but no one has yet tried to set up a socialist government.

[Dean]

that was the best choice to choose. that one fell because reagans contra death squads started bombing hospitals and assassinating peasants and forced the sandinistas into a war footing they couldnt possibly win.
So your attempting to characterize socialism as 'impossible' by citing the interference by the largest imperial military in the world? :laugh:

[Lt. Ferret]

So your attempting to characterize socialism as 'impossible' by citing the interference by the largest imperial military in the world? :laugh:


no, but i can make the assumption that with all the other examples, that the sandanistas would not have made magical leaps and bounds above other groups, in a tropical, unindustrialized banana republic.

[RGacky3]

according to strict Marxist analysis


No according to any analysis, according most analysis the USSR and its off shoots wern't really socialist at all.


It's a little confusing--but you'll get the hang of it after a while.

Its not that confusing, if the economy is run by the workers, i.e. if its democratic, then yeah, we're good.

[Dean]

no, but i can make the assumption that with all the other examples, that the sandanistas would not have made magical leaps and bounds above other groups, in a tropical, unindustrialized banana republic.
So you still have no evidence as to how worker management of the economy is inferior?

[Lt. Ferret]

do you have any evidence at all that it is superior? the ball is definitely in your court to prove the contrary. 150 years have not proven that a classless, entirely worker run business cant work, especially when you classify certain essential workers as useless, and other less "important" workers as pivotal. your desire to make a machine entirely out of gears has never worked, and i still cant see it working.

[#FF0000]

hay guise r u sure dis 'demokrisy" can wrk i mean the last tiem u did somthin liek dis was rome n look how that turned owt!!!!!!!!!

- personal letter from some aristocratic knob circa 1775

[Dean]

do you have any evidence at all that it is superior? the ball is definitely in your court to prove the contrary.

Actually, the onus has always been on you, who made the original claim we're now discussing:

marxism put into practice has not worked.

so sit around with your thumb up your ass and call me an imperialist for not wanting to live in north korea if you want, it sure doesn't bother me.

Proving that the above is false does not in any way have to rely on a proof that the polar opposite is true.


150 years have not proven that a classless, entirely worker run business cant work,
Thats right, since its been 150 years of capitalist management of production.


especially when you classify certain essential workers as useless, and other less "important" workers as pivotal. your desire to make a machine entirely out of gears has never worked, and i still cant see it working.
I don't see where I've made such claims, nor where this is relevant to the claims being discussed.

[RGacky3]

What is Marxism put into practice? Marxism is a way of analysing historical relationships.

Thats like saying supply and demand put into practice ....

[Bud Struggle]

No according to any analysis, according most analysis the USSR and its off shoots wern't really socialist at all.



Its not that confusing, if the economy is run by the workers, i.e. if its democratic, then yeah, we're good.

I'm not saying Communism itself is confusing--just how it is interpreted around RevLeft.

[#FF0000]

I'm not saying Communism itself is confusing--just how it is interpreted around RevLeft.

What do you mean?

[Jazzhands]

especially when you classify certain essential workers as useless.

I assume you're talking about the capitalist class here, so let's try some examples, shall we?

How exactly is Paris Hilton an "essential worker?" Or even a worker at all?

[Bud Struggle]

I assume you're talking about the capitalist class here, so let's try some examples, shall we?

How exactly is Paris Hilton an "essential worker?" Or even a worker at all?

She entertains. Her exploits make people happy. She brings joy and laughter to people's lives. She's worth more than 5000 tons on iron ore in any Communist Five Year Plan.

[Ele'ill]

I'm not saying Communism itself is confusing--just how it is interpreted around RevLeft.


I think it has more to do with people here on the forum having a lot of information stored in their heads.

Politics in general can be confusing.

[Bud Struggle]

What do you mean?

Two issues--name changes and idologies. You kind of get to know a person's ideology but then you don't interact for a while, they change their name a couple of times you thing you are debating a whole new person with a different ideology and you get the "don't you remember I'm an X."

[Jazzhands]

She entertains. Her exploits make people happy. She brings joy and laughter to people's lives.

No, she really doesn't. Actors and comedians entertain. That's a legitimate service and a legitimate job. Snorting blow and making sex tapes is not a legitimate job. That's pretty much the only thing she has ever, ever done.


She's worth more than 5000 tons on iron ore in any Communist Five Year Plan.

How many troops has she armed? :D

[Bud Struggle]

No, she really doesn't. Actors and comedians entertain. That's a legitimate service and a legitimate job. Snorting blow and making sex tapes is not a legitimate job. That's pretty much the only thing she has ever, ever done. People find her entertaining. Who knows why? You have no right to say what people find entertaining.


How many troops has she armed? :DShe keeps people happy--that's a lot more than boot camp does. You or I have no right to decide what is entertainment like the soviets did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC6D2g571fo

[Lt. Ferret]

No, she really doesn't. Actors and comedians entertain. That's a legitimate service and a legitimate job. Snorting blow and making sex tapes is not a legitimate job. That's pretty much the only thing she has ever, ever done.



How many troops has she armed? :D


she made a movie and she made some dumb pop record and she lends her name to products that, to the general consumer, adds to the value of the product. she did not coerce anyone into earninng her wealth, even if she was an heiress. even if she sucks. so? shes not a thief.

[Jazzhands]

she made a movie and she made some dumb pop record and she lends her name to products that, to the general consumer, adds to the value of the product. she did not coerce anyone into earninng her wealth, even if she was an heiress. even if she sucks. so? shes not a thief.

She does no work yet recieves a massive fortune she did not earn while the vast majority of real workers do not enjoy a single privilege. Is it possible for those people to simply earn that much money through labor? No, of course not. Their jobs only pay a measly fraction of the total amount they would need, but somehow a much larger part of the revenue ends up in the hands of the owners of the means of production, who sit on their asses all day in their comfy office and watch their peons work.

Given that state of affairs, we can conclude that people who actually do amass millions of dollars do so not from their labor, but from the labor of others. And that is theft of the worst possible kind. Parasitism.

[Lt. Ferret]

She does no work yet recieves a massive fortune she did not earn while the vast majority of real workers do not enjoy a single privilege. Is it possible for those people to simply earn that much money through labor? No, of course not. Their jobs only pay a measly fraction of the total amount they would need, but somehow a much larger part of the revenue ends up in the hands of the owners of the means of production, who sit on their asses all day in their comfy office and watch their peons work.

Given that state of affairs, we can conclude that people who actually do amass millions of dollars do so not from their labor, but from the labor of others. And that is theft of the worst possible kind. Parasitism.


those measly laborers spend their money that they earned on paris hilton goods.


and paris hilton is not the archetype of the capitalist. the business owner who works 15 hours a day 6 days a week to make his business thrive is a better example.

how bout paris' grandfather? he founded the hilton franchise.


if you think bosses just sit in their comfy chairs and watch the peons work you can be discarded as having no fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Robert]

Given that state of affairs, we can conclude that people who actually do amass millions of dollars do so not from their labor, but from the labor of others.

True, too many workers are underpaid.

It does not follow that the rich do not work. Some do, some don't.

[Dean]

those measly laborers spend their money that they earned on paris hilton goods.


and paris hilton is not the archetype of the capitalist. the business owner who works 15 hours a day 6 days a week to make his business thrive is a better example.

how bout paris' grandfather? he founded the hilton franchise.
Unlike you, socialists actually believe in critical analysis to define our understanding of the economy. So "archetypes" don't really mean much unless we're talking about psychology or propaganda. And it sounds like you're hopelessly involved in a very vulgar propagandistic model of the world. How quaint :)

It does make you incredibly easy to be led to become a use-value for whomever your models exonerate, however.


if you think bosses just sit in their comfy chairs and watch the peons work you can be discarded as having no fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about.
You're right, capitalists - that is those who actively attempt to accrue profit by purchase, sale and management of capital - often work very hard to arrange the means of production and commerce to suit their interests. Of course, these acts provide little to to value-addition and their particular income from those acts far exceed what little benefit the product may endure from their labor, if there is any benefit at all.

In fact, the automobiles, houses, chairs and meals that companies sell would probably be no different if we shed the financial-capitalist class from the exchange models which regulate their distribution.

[cska]

Look at all those stupid trotskyists and Johns on this forum. Understand them and you understand libertarianism.

[Lt. Ferret]

Unlike you, socialists actually believe in critical analysis to define our understanding of the economy. So "archetypes" don't really mean much unless we're talking about psychology or propaganda. And it sounds like you're hopelessly involved in a very vulgar propagandistic model of the world. How quaint :)

It does make you incredibly easy to be led to become a use-value for whomever your models exonerate, however.


You're right, capitalists - that is those who actively attempt to accrue profit by purchase, sale and management of capital - often work very hard to arrange the means of production and commerce to suit their interests. Of course, these acts provide little to to value-addition and their particular income from those acts far exceed what little benefit the product may endure from their labor, if there is any benefit at all.

In fact, the automobiles, houses, chairs and meals that companies sell would probably be no different if we shed the financial-capitalist class from the exchange models which regulate their distribution.


capitalists and bosses create the systems of efficient production of goods, and once those systems are in place they are able to manage resource allocation.

good, you can make a chair. welcome to the middle ages. can you make 10,000 chairs an hour? a capitalist figured out how.

you work in the chair factory. can you allocate the resources both in manpower and raw materials? good, youll end up being a, or THE manager.


if we wanted cottage industries we would have remained so, where the super valuable worker could go and whittle a chair a month. but no, we had entrepeneurs which figured out more, efficient ways to create goods.

this is why in most revolutionary socialist countries after they massacre this class of people, production suffers and breaks down and erodes and becomes useless. you killed the class of people that creates efficient systems of productions.

trust me broseph, youre musings of "ah yes, how quaint, your antiquated notions of production that i disregard because of my 150 year old out of date books and manifestos" falls on deaf ears.

[RGacky3]

a capitalist figured out how.


No he did'nt, thats like saying "The emperor built the roads" Again no, but he was the one with the power to make that desicion.


you work in the chair factory. can you allocate the resources both in manpower and raw materials? good, youll end up being a, or THE manager.

YOu gotta have the resources and capital first, then your the boss.


but no, we had entrepeneurs which figured out more, efficient ways to create goods.


Again, read a history book, the inventors are not the ruling class, great theory, but openinig our eyes debunks it.

But I love the attitude, recently I've been reading a lot of ancient mesopotamian history, I would encourage you to read the pronouncements of the kings of assyria or Babylon, things like "I Tiglath conquered all of Sumaria" or "I Nebucudnezzar built the temples"

No you did'nt, you just told people what to do, its the SAME with capitalists and the same attitude. (You gotta justify your power somehow).

[Bud Struggle]

But I love the attitude, recently I've been reading a lot of ancient mesopotamian history, I would encourage you to read the pronouncements of the kings of assyria or Babylon, things like "I Tiglath conquered all of Sumaria" or "I Nebucudnezzar built the temples"

No you did'nt, you just told people what to do, its the SAME with capitalists and the same attitude. (You gotta justify your power somehow).

And the correct answer is:

Both the ruler and the workers built the temple. Without the worker's toil the temple couldn't have been built and without the leader's (Capitalist's) desire and ideas the temple wouldn't have been built.

[Revolution starts with U]

capitalists and bosses create the systems of efficient production of goods, and once those systems are in place they are able to manage resource allocation.

good, you can make a chair. welcome to the middle ages. can you make 10,000 chairs an hour? a capitalist figured out how.

No no no no no no no. Capitalists did NONE of that. Market theorists, entrepreneurs, and the division of labor created the "systems of efficient production" so one can make "10,000 chairs/hr." Capitalists just own things like land and factories and charge rent to use their services.


you work in the chair factory. can you allocate the resources both in manpower and raw materials? good, youll end up being a, or THE manager.
Studies have shown factories with worker management run just as well if not better than those with degree'd management.


but no, we had entrepeneurs which figured out more, efficient ways to create goods.
Good, you're starting to figure it out. But entrepreneur != capitalist, per se.


this is why in most revolutionary socialist countries after they massacre this class of people, production suffers and breaks down and erodes and becomes useless
Production was way up the first 40 years of the USSR, it's up in China right now, what are you going on about? There are a multitude of reasons the USSR fell, productivity was not one of them.

Your conclusions don't follow from your premise. Try logic 101.

[Lt. Ferret]

the USSR's production fell when they couldnt switch from heavy industry to consumer goods, and what consumer goods they could hobble out were atrocious and nobody wanted them. china is picking up nicely now because besides quelling free speech and political freedoms, their economic system is opening up.

[RGacky3]

Both the ruler and the workers built the temple. Without the worker's toil the temple couldn't have been built and without the leader's (Capitalist's) desire and ideas the temple wouldn't have been built.

THey could have done it without the ruler/capitalist, except they would be building what they wanted on their own terms.

You act as if without Capitalists/rulers telling them what to do and exploiting them, people would all just starve to death. We'd be just fine ruling ourselves thank you.

[Dean]

capitalists and bosses create the systems of efficient production of goods, and once those systems are in place they are able to manage resource allocation.

good, you can make a chair. welcome to the middle ages. can you make 10,000 chairs an hour? a capitalist figured out how.

you work in the chair factory. can you allocate the resources both in manpower and raw materials? good, youll end up being a, or THE manager.


if we wanted cottage industries we would have remained so, where the super valuable worker could go and whittle a chair a month. but no, we had entrepeneurs which figured out more, efficient ways to create goods.

this is why in most revolutionary socialist countries after they massacre this class of people, production suffers and breaks down and erodes and becomes useless. you killed the class of people that creates efficient systems of productions.

-The vamping up of efficiency is a necessary prerequisite for socialist organization
-the surplus value available once efficiency is introduced is completely taken up by the capitalist class, which typically is also able to cut back labor costs - both in wages and number of laborers.


trust me broseph, youre musings of "ah yes, how quaint, your antiquated notions of production that i disregard because of my 150 year old out of date books and manifestos" falls on deaf ears.
The shit you talk about sounds like it came out of 100-yr old Austrian propaganda essays.

And, I spend a significant amount of time reading media which is contemporaneous and describes the workings of power. From what you say, I suspect you haven't even read any analytical news like seen in the Wall St Journal or its peers.

[Lt. Ferret]

the surplus value goes to increasing factory efficiency, expanding it and creating mor ejobs, and paying workers more in order to get the best workers away from competing firms.

my wifes old boss owned a warehouse where he fixed up furniture and sold it over the internet. he was technically a millionaire, but all of it was in his stock of furniture. he lived in the warehouse in a small housing area in the corner he had made for himself.

also, when capitalists buy shit, it creates jobs and services. i cant believe i have to come off as some sort of libertarian to teach you basic economics.

go start a company right now where the workers share equal rights and priviliges, nothing stops you at all. if you can compete and beat the competition while maintaining your socialist orthodoxy you will have proven yourself. the only co-ops i see are anarchist bookstores and i think most of them weasel into getting tax exemptions, and its certainly not a business model that leads to growth.

[RGacky3]

the surplus value goes to increasing factory efficiency, expanding it and creating mor ejobs, and paying workers more in order to get the best workers away from competing firms.



On what universe? Also reinvestment due to market needs (as if the market ALWAYS wants more), is not surplus value, look up what that term means then come back.


also, when capitalists buy shit, it creates jobs and services. i cant believe i have to come off as some sort of libertarian to teach you basic economics.

When ANYONE buys stuff it creates jobs, actually needing things create jobs, existing creates jobs, capitalists having all the money, means it the jobs are for their benefit, profit.


go start a company right now where the workers share equal rights and priviliges, nothing stops you at all.

Capital, generally, if you have enought disposale income to start a company, your probably not interesting in socialism much.

I'd like to take your argument 500 years ago, "You want to be a king/noble/knight juts get your own land, and make it all equal, nothings stopping you."


the only co-ops i see are anarchist bookstores and i think most of them weasel into getting tax exemptions, and its certainly not a business model that leads to growth.

Growth is only an indicator for success in Capitalism, because it requires purpetual growth, which is why it always collapses.

[Bud Struggle]

THey could have done it without the ruler/capitalist, except they would be building what they wanted on their own terms. And a limitless monkeys on typewriters could write Shakespeare's plays. There's plenty of abandoned factories in Detroit--and plenty of layed off workers. Hmmm--what is missing?


You act as if without Capitalists/rulers telling them what to do and exploiting them, people would all just starve to death. We'd be just fine ruling ourselves thank you. :D

[RGacky3]

And a limitless monkeys on typewriters could write Shakespeare's plays. There's plenty of abandoned factories in Detroit--and plenty of layed off workers. Hmmm--what is missing?


Money, capital (i.e. the tools of modern rulership). Not the brains and drive of capitalists.

[Bud Struggle]

Money, capital (i.e. the tools of modern rulership). Not the brains and drive of capitalists.

No. Organization and initiative.

The rest is incidental. Been there. Done that.

[RGacky3]

No. Organization and initiative.

The rest is incidental. Been there. Done that.

Nope, wrong way around, Organizatiog and initiative is incidental, the bottom line comes first. If your a worker and have organization and initiative your a union organizer :P.

But money is the reason bud. Don't be naive, I know you'd like to think that you Capitalists are a special breed, but your not, you have money.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, wrong way around, Organizatiog and initiative is incidental, the bottom line comes first. If your a worker and have organization and initiative your a union organizer :P.

But money is the reason bud. Don't be naive, I know you'd like to think that you Capitalists are a special breed, but your not, you have money.

Oh I have money now, but I wasn't born with it and nobody gave it to me.

I wonder how I got it? :)

[RGacky3]

I base my understanding of the world on facts, not the life of Bud.

But, guess what Bud, it was'nt JUST you, you don't live in a bubble.

But again, I go by facts.

[Bud Struggle]

I base my understanding of the world on facts, not the life of Bud.

But, guess what Bud, it was'nt JUST you, you don't live in a bubble.

But again, I go by facts.

Cool. And I don't live in the "Gacky bubble." It's not as if you are living some "true life" and I'm living in a wonderland. My father came here from Poland in 1934. Poor. Worked in a factory. Treated like shit. He made a good life for me.

What can I say--he was a good father.

[Revolution starts with U]

If your father, Bud, was a wage-laborer, his taxes were supplemented by his company (the self employed have no such benefit). You/he drove on government funded roads. Food was eaten that was subsidized by government. Did you/he recieve federal loans for school? Did he take out any loans, insured by government?
Not to mention just government;
Did he buy food/goods/services ever? Well, he was only able to because some other worker did the work.
"I did it myself" is the most assinine, incoherent, un-human phrase ever uttered in history (in regards to building wealth).

[Lt. Ferret]

okay. and the rich basically funded all that stuff. dont kill your golden goose, now.

[Revolution starts with U]

YOu are saying if property/wealth wasn't stolen from the people for 6000 years, those things wouldn't have been built anyway. Don't go against your own beliefs; wealth/progress are created through value, labor, and exchange. Where does systematic thievery play in that?

[Lt. Ferret]

it doesnt play much of a role in it, especially now. what happened 6000, 4000, 400, 200, 100, 50 years ago is not always indicative of how things are now.

my grandmother lived under nazi occupation in belgium and a good portion of my family was exterminated, but she still lived a decent life when she moved to america after the war. her daughter, my mother, was a army brat runaway who didn't finish highschool and basically got knocked up with me.

thats a wibbly wobbly line that doesn't really show any systematic oppression that im going to look at for why things go wrong or right in my life. if you think that your life sucks becuase xerxes attacked greece or prussia invaded france or iran overthrew the shah then youre not taking any responsibility for yourself. and at that point its easy to blame others for your problems.

[Revolution starts with U]

haha. I don't think my life sucks at all ;)
BUt I do find it a grave injustice that any white man claims to own property in America

[Revolution starts with U]

That's the thing, I'm not a socialist/capitalist because it's in my interest (I actually run a business, probably not in my interest). I'm a socialist because it's right.

[#FF0000]

okay. and the rich basically funded all that stuff. dont kill your golden goose, now.

This is a dumber argument than the "UH IT'S BEEN 150 YEARS BRO HEH".

Before the French Revolution, everything people had up to that point was thanks to the nobility and the church. Doesn't mean they weren't right to try and overthrow them to establish liberal democracy.


thats a wibbly wobbly line that doesn't really show any systematic oppression that im going to look at for why things go wrong or right in my life. if you think that your life sucks becuase xerxes attacked greece or prussia invaded france or iran overthrew the shah then youre not taking any responsibility for yourself. and at that point its easy to blame others for your problems.

Except this is a horrible argument because the only reason we in the West have the relative candystore we do over here is because of people willing to go overseas and do terrible things to people who didn't want to play ball.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, I bet you're sick of the state taking all your money in taxes..
Suck it up. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game, just create new value.
You can blame taxes and welfare for your problems or you can "roll up your sleeves and get to work." :thumbup1:

[Lt. Ferret]

they take 400 a month from me. they probably take like 6 a month from you. why do you deserve any of my wealth, eh bro-ski?:cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

Ha, you'd like to think that.
Do you have any idea how self-employment, title 9, and capital gains taxes work? I can assure you, it's not cheap for a small business.

[Revolution starts with U]

(Oh, btw, I'm an anarchist buddy. Taxes are strong-armed robbery)

[RGacky3]

Cool. And I don't live in the "Gacky bubble." It's not as if you are living some "true life" and I'm living in a wonderland. My father came here from Poland in 1934. Poor. Worked in a factory. Treated like shit. He made a good life for me.

What can I say--he was a good father.

Great, good for you, But again, we don't live in a bubble MEANINIG we are not independant of social and economic external forces, pay attention.


okay. and the rich basically funded all that stuff. dont kill your golden goose, now.

Yeah, no shit, if all the money was owned by one person, he'd be funding stuff too, that does'nt mean he should have the money.


Before the French Revolution, everything people had up to that point was thanks to the nobility and the church. Doesn't mean they weren't right to try and overthrow them to establish liberal democracy.


Exactly, arguments for the ruling order never change.


they take 400 a month from me. they probably take like 6 a month from you. why do you deserve any of my wealth, eh bro-ski?:cool:

Why do you deserve any of your wealth? BTW, I take it you don't use the post office ever, only DHL or Fedex, because the government sucks.

[DWI]

This is a dumber argument than the "UH IT'S BEEN 150 YEARS BRO HEH".

Before the French Revolution, everything people had up to that point was thanks to the nobility and the church. Doesn't mean they weren't right to try and overthrow them to establish liberal democracy.
Despite, not thanks to.


Except this is a horrible argument because the only reason we in the West have the relative candystore we do over here is because of people willing to go overseas and do terrible things to people who didn't want to play ball.
No not really. Third World doesn't have enough wealth that even if we looted all of it (and you can't really loot the money they spend on food, which is most, or they simply would die) we would not live noticeably better than we do now.

[Dean]

Despite, not thanks to.


No not really. Third World doesn't have enough wealth that even if we looted all of it (and you can't really loot the money they spend on food, which is most, or they simply would die) we would not live noticeably better than we do now.
No, most of their money isn't spent on food. Huge portions of it go to arms, unnecessary contracts which government agencies are bribed to take, and about 1.8Tn were lifted from Africa alone between 1980-2000 via money laundering.

The notion that the third world is "simply lacking in value" as if it were some simple market fact is absurd, and only betrays your lack of knowledge (and your indifference) about the economic phenomena going on there.

[Lt. Ferret]

Great, good for you, But again, we don't live in a bubble MEANINIG we are not independant of social and economic external forces, pay attention.



Yeah, no shit, if all the money was owned by one person, he'd be funding stuff too, that does'nt mean he should have the money.



Exactly, arguments for the ruling order never change.



Why do you deserve any of your wealth? BTW, I take it you don't use the post office ever, only DHL or Fedex, because the government sucks.

i deserve my wealth becuase i made a voluntary agreement in order to be paid for my labor.

i am definitely a statist so i use the post office, and roads, and im glad the usda inspects my meat before i eat it. why do i pay 400 a month for these services and you pay maybe 20? youre also more likely to use such services.

[#FF0000]

Despite, not thanks to.

Looks like you missed the point.


No not really. Third World doesn't have enough wealth that even if we looted all of it (and you can't really loot the money they spend on food, which is most, or they simply would die) we would not live noticeably better than we do now.

Labor.

[DWI]

Labor.
The labour is what isn't very valuable. In the developed world, it is leveraged using machines and organisation to produce a lot more per person. Third world labour is mostly low yield agriculture. This is changing in most places (I think only Zimbabwe and DPRK are stagnated/shrinking), but in some a lot faster than others.

[#FF0000]

do you know anything about imperialism or

[Revolution starts with U]

why do i pay 400 a month for these services and you pay maybe 20? youre also more likely to use such services.
Because the more wealthy you are, the more likely it is you are going to use the services. Come on man, that's a 3rd grade argument.
What are you saying, the poor should pay just as much as the rich in taxes (not just in percentages but in actual dollars)? That's what it sounds like, and that is ludicrous.
Even in percentages it's ludicrous, and you obviously never read Adam Smith. A flat tax punishes the middle class for not being rich (id say the poor, but we all know they don't pay income taxes).

[RGacky3]

why do i pay 400 a month for these services and you pay maybe 20? youre also more likely to use such services.

Because we as a society decided that you should pay that much and I should pay this much, if you don't like democracy go live in a cave.


i deserve my wealth becuase i made a voluntary agreement in order to be paid for my labor.


In that case I'd be more worried about your boss taking your surplus value than the government.

[Lt. Ferret]

i can worry about that between me and my boss. if the populace voted in the inability to strike, would that be okay to you?

democracy is basically legitimizing how much you can steal from each other.

[RGacky3]

if the populace voted in the inability to strike, would that be okay to you?


Thats a straw man, thats like asking if the populace voted in a monarchy would it be ok? Its not gonna happen, and you know it.


democracy is basically legitimizing how much you can steal from each other.

Thats Capitalism.

[Lt. Ferret]

it's not a straw man. unions get a bad rap in america, because a few of them turned into giant bureacracies, you think a reactionary surge in american political thought wouldn't allow for a vote against striking ? not as much a straw man as a hypothetical situation under the same conditions that would allow for progressive taxation.

[Dean]

it's not a straw man. unions get a bad rap in america, because a few of them turned into giant bureacracies, you think a reactionary surge in american political thought wouldn't allow for a vote against striking ? not as much a straw man as a hypothetical situation under the same conditions that would allow for progressive taxation.

Right, and GM and all the other massive bureaucracies don't get criticized until they face insolvency. The bureaucratic element has nothing to do with why unions are attacked.

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah businesses dont get criticized until they fail . unions can be criticized if they are contributing to the failure of a business. either way you dodged the point i made.

[Dean]

yeah businesses dont get criticized until they fail . unions can be criticized if they are contributing to the failure of a business. either way you dodged the point i made.
What was your point? That people might "vote for it"? This issue has been addressed before. All we can do is try to arrange the social order in the freest manner possible - if the people want to empower a regime that would kill off certain people in the world, the best we could do is to fight it by any means necessary.

Such hypothetical situations do little to prove or explain anything.

[Jazzhands]

democracy is basically legitimizing how much you can steal from each other.

Or it's people getting together and deciding not to steal from each other, because nobody likes being stolen from. That's a far more realistic scenario. You hear this argument a lot among Ancaps.

[RGacky3]

yeah businesses dont get criticized until they fail . unions can be criticized if they are contributing to the failure of a business. either way you dodged the point i made.


I criticize buisinesses all the time that turn a profit.

Unions work for the workers, not the buisiness.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also Ferret.... i must have missed this in my first glance.. but you actually stated the opposite?!?!
How the hell do the poor use roads more than the rich? Or are you forgetting all those giant trucks out there transporting rich people's goods back and forth across the country?
Businesses also mail more stuff than anyone else. The argument continues for meat, who owns the restaurants?
Dude, seriously, you didn't think that one through?

[Lt. Ferret]

i pay 400 a month in taxes. someone making minimum wage pays between 40-80. do i use the roads 5-10 times more than anyone else? no.

also, those trucks carrying rich peoples goods are going to stores so poor people can buy them.

[RGacky3]

i pay 400 a month in taxes. someone making minimum wage pays between 40-80. do i use the roads 5-10 times more than anyone else? no.

If you don't like social contracts move to Somalia, no ones forcing you to live here (same argument with workers being exploited).


also, those trucks carrying rich peoples goods are going to stores so poor people can buy them.

Actually not really, poor people don't have money, they arn't buying that much.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you buy things? I am sure you buy more than someone on min wage. Which means more shit has to be carried to you. You use the roads more. I'm not just making this up, this is well established economics. As individuals, the rich use way more of social services than the poor. The only way the poor ever use more than the rich is if you combine all poor people into one homogenous lump... and wow, what a slap in the face of methodological individualism that would be.
You pay 400/mo in taxes? That means you make 4k/mo in income? Or, you are including SS in taxes (fallacious), ergo you make like 3k? Man those government subsidies of imperialism are really paying off for you. ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

i make 3800 a month. they take 400 out, maybe a bit more i cap it at 400 for these kinds of arguments. im not including medicare, social security, or any of that stuff. though thats another 200 or so.

im curious as to what you guys do for a living, and how much you make? i send out a lot of personal info on this stuff and all i get in return is your failed attempts at being snide.

[RGacky3]

i send out a lot of personal info on this stuff and all i get in return is your failed attempts at being snide.

Because its irrelivent, and they are rational arguments, not trying to be snide.

[Revolution starts with U]

Pointing out that you make 45k/yr (not including benefits?) off of a government funded system of aggression, and theft is snide? I call that reality.
Would it blow your mind if I said, at that income, I don't think you should be paying taxes at all... and by american standards, I still include you in "the poor?" (even tho you do make your money through a system of organized aggression and theft of on a global scale)

I run a business inspecting vacant houses, I also teach gung fu and qi gung on the side, but that doesn't really turn a profit. You can give out your info all you want, I am going to respectfully hold on to mine. But I can assure you I don't whine about my taxes, because I can see what society had given me on my way up.

[Lt. Ferret]

"if you dont like social contracts move to somalia" is a rational argument? social contracts in of themselves are nothing good. there used to be social contracts of segregation, of extreme patriarchy, of slavery, of indentured servitude. theres nothing stopping our current social contract from banning the communist party (again). theres nothing stopping them from banning unions altogether. they already limit free speech and gun rights all over the place.

when i lived in texas the sooocial contract did not allow me to buy liquor on a sunday because the christians voted it in. they also made homosexual acts a crime until a few years ago, that was also under your vaunted social contract. so any worth i should find it, im looking, but dont see it.

[Lt. Ferret]

i dont whine about my taxes insofar as that i know im a statist and i need to pay, but to think i need to pay more than others because i etiher owe them, or stole from them, or something ridiculous is not cutting it with me. and to be honest, i think the poor ought to be paying more taxes. i dont think anyone should get a tax refund. its probably the most unpopular sentiment ever but its true.

[#FF0000]

Why on earth should the poor pay more in taxes?

[Dean]

i dont whine about my taxes insofar as that i know im a statist and i need to pay, but to think i need to pay more than others because i etiher owe them, or stole from them, or something ridiculous is not cutting it with me. and to be honest, i think the poor ought to be paying more taxes. i dont think anyone should get a tax refund. its probably the most unpopular sentiment ever but its true.
What makes your own moral value "true"?

[Revolution starts with U]

What is your justification for saying you should pay more taxes than Bill Gates?
You make 40k dude, you're not rich. You're poor just like the rest of america. You may not get a rebate, but apparently you don't have kids. If you did, you would (get a rebate). Raise kids on 40k and then come back and say you need MORE taxes.
Whether or not you did the stealing, you have benefited from theft, and recieved stolen property. We all have. It's called being an american.
Do you even understand what a progressive tax is, and why it is used? Do you not see how a progressive tax IS THE ONLY "flat" tax?
Come outside your little bubble, friend. There is more to the world than "I I I I I I"

[RGacky3]

"if you dont like social contracts move to somalia" is a rational argument? social contracts in of themselves are nothing good. there used to be social contracts of segregation, of extreme patriarchy, of slavery, of indentured servitude. theres nothing stopping our current social contract from banning the communist party (again). theres nothing stopping them from banning unions altogether. they already limit free speech and gun rights all over the place.

There is a big difference of social contracts being "Lets do this together", or "this is something with public interest" and a social contract being "lets stop these people."

Also, segregation and banning unions and the such were not democratic desicions, all history shows that more democracy leans to more freedom.


when i lived in texas the sooocial contract did not allow me to buy liquor on a sunday because the christians voted it in. they also made homosexual acts a crime until a few years ago, that was also under your vaunted social contract. so any worth i should find it, im looking, but dont see it.

What would you prefer, those desicions to be made by one or a few people? Do you think democracy is MORE likely to make restrictions?

Again, over time, more democracy is more freedom.

But hey, if you don't like it move to somalia .... gun rights are doing fine there, if your a homosexual I would REALLY use those gun rights too. In somalia there is no pesky democracy to tell you what to do, you can keep EVERY dollar you can scrape.

[Jazzhands]

i think the poor ought to be paying more taxes.

That makes complete economic sense. Of course the people who can't actually pay should be required to pay more.:rolleyes:

Not only is that fucked up on even the most wide moral standards, but it's completely inefficient. There would be more people who can't pay because, you know, they're poor, which means more people with criminal charges from the IRS, less tax revenue, widening income disparity, and god knows how many other problems.

Seriously, this is common sense.