Sam Seder destroys Libertarians

[RGacky3]

0Htf0IgrJrs

With reason, history and fact.

I love his point about the Church taking care of people, which I had'nt thought of before, forcing people to rely on the church turns it into a defacto government and forces people to essencailly be under servitude to the church.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It's beautiful :)

Libertarians theory should be thoroughly dismantled by now, Idk how they still even exist.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's beautiful :)

Libertarians theory should be thoroughly dismantled by now, Idk how they still even exist.

They still exist because there are still stupid people.

The only part that I noticed which was skewed was when he said that Libertarians wanted no government.As far as I know Libertarians want a small government.Otherwise he is confusing communism with Libertarian bullshit.

[Judicator]

He addresses only consequentialist libertarianism, not deontological libertarianism. That's fine, but they are fairly independent and you can knock down one leaving the other untouched.

The first 2mins is a description of social darwinism, not libertarianism. And after that it's just one straw man after another.

2:00 - breach of contract (when you let someone in a building and assert its safe) would permit the wronged party to sue for damages. In the US you don't need the government to pay for a home inspection before you buy it...you buy one yourself.

4:00 - the idea that the mortgage market was anywhere near wholly private is absurd. When you have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owning or guaranteeing half of the mortgage market, it's hardly private.

7:00 - state government which ban home births (insisting that in the interest of "patient safety" a doctor be there) force people giving birth to pay $25,000, rather than the much lower $2,000 for a home birth.

9:00 - this is deliberate misunderstanding of the term "freedom." I currently lack the "freedom" to retire in aruba, but this isn't the fault of capitalism.

10:00 - here it's simple ignorance. You could replace income tax with a consumption tax and collect similar revenue without discouraging investment.

13:00 - Maybe I'll move to Hong Kong and find out really how bad low government spending is.

[RGacky3]

2:00 - breach of contract (when you let someone in a building and assert its safe) would permit the wronged party to sue for damages. In the US you don't need the government to pay for a home inspection before you buy it...you buy one yourself.


And if you can't afford it ....


4:00 - the idea that the mortgage market was anywhere near wholly private is absurd. When you have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owning or guaranteeing half of the mortgage market, it's hardly private.


Both companies were privatized by clinton, which is when the problem started.


7:00 - state government which ban home births (insisting that in the interest of "patient safety" a doctor be there) force people giving birth to pay $25,000, rather than the much lower $2,000 for a home birth.


They ban home births??? I know people that gave home births in the US.


9:00 - this is deliberate misunderstanding of the term "freedom." I currently lack the "freedom" to retire in aruba, but this isn't the fault of capitalism.


Freedom means freedom from coercion, if there are resources there but they are not available to you, not because of any limitattions but because someone is hoarding them, and thus your coerced into doing something to gain access, thats not freedom.

If we're talking about freedom then it includes freedom from exclusive property laws.


10:00 - here it's simple ignorance. You could replace income tax with a consumption tax and collect similar revenue without discouraging investment.


You'd restrict demand, which would harm the economy much more.


3:00 - Maybe I'll move to Hong Kong and find out really how bad low government spending is.

You mean where all the land is owned by the state? And where they have a significant welfare system? And infastructure spending?

[Judicator]

And if you can't afford it ....


Then you can't afford a house either.



Both companies were privatized by clinton, which is when the problem started.


Housing vs. rent was pretty flat under clinton. The real problem is that you make money if you get our before the bubble bursts, and you get bailed out if you are too late.



They ban home births??? I know people that gave home births in the US.


It varies state by state, but in 23 states its illegal to hire a direct-entry midwife.



Freedom means freedom from coercion, if there are resources there but they are not available to you, not because of any limitattions but because someone is hoarding them, and thus your coerced into doing something to gain access, thats not freedom.

If we're talking about freedom then it includes freedom from exclusive property laws.


Freedom means free speech, property, and a few other things. Having limited resources has no impact on the government's right to restrict your speech, take your property, or restrict your right to assemble. If someone has resources, you can choose to transact with him, or choose not to.

Property is by definition exclusive.



You'd restrict demand, which would harm the economy much more.


Encouraging investment is bad for the economy?



You mean where all the land is owned by the state? And where they have a significant welfare system? And infastructure spending?


And all that for under 20% of GDP! It's certainly a start if the US could get down to that level.

[RGacky3]

Then you can't afford a house either.


BTW, working in the construction industry in the past myself, its mostly the government that inspects the house and sets the standards, so that argument is bullshit anyway.


Housing vs. rent was pretty flat under clinton. The real problem is that you make money if you get our before the bubble bursts, and you get bailed out if you are too late.


Ok .... does'nt change the fact that Fannie and Freddy were privatized.

The housing bubble was'nt about who got out perse, it was more who was on what side of what, and shifting externalities to someone else (Causing systemic risk), and yeah, in the end you get bailed out because you brought down the whole system.

Obviously the better solution was to take it over and restructure.


Freedom means free speech, property, and a few other things. Having limited resources has no impact on the government's right to restrict your speech, take your property, or restrict your right to assemble. If someone has resources, you can choose to transact with him, or choose not to.

Property is by definition exclusive.


No it does'nt, freedom does'nt mean property, nor has it ever meant property, otherwise that would basically mean freedom is only for people that can afford it, which is what i suppose libertarians ant.

Having limited resources has no impact an the governments right to protect property for the benefit of some people.

Property is by definition exclusive which can't make it a innaleable right.

Heres what I say, if you need a government or a monopoly violence to protect your property, its probably not valid property, property is only valid unless its valid by consensus (necessarily becuase it IS exclusive, speach is not).


Encouraging investment is bad for the economy?


No, restricting demand is bad for the economy, investment never happens without demand.


And all that for under 20% of GDP! It's certainly a start if the US could get down to that level.

Sure, Cut defense spending.

[Bud Struggle]

It's beautiful :)

Libertarians theory should be thoroughly dismantled by now, Idk how they still even exist.

Bottom line--it's no different than Anarchism.

[Dumb]

And all that for under 20% of GDP! It's certainly a start if the US could get down to that level.

The US could easily get down to that level if not for military spending.

[Agent Equality]

Bottom line--it's no different than Anarchism.

Its totally different than Anarchism what are you smoking? :blink:

[Bud Struggle]

Its totally different than Anarchism what are you smoking? :blink:

The only difference between these guys and Anarchists are that Anarchists use "Robert's Rules of Order."

[Judicator]

BTW, working in the construction industry in the past myself, its mostly the government that inspects the house and sets the standards, so that argument is bullshit anyway.

There's no government agent making sure when I buy a house it doesn't have $20,000 in hidden repairs, I have to do that myself. The argument was simply that you don't need the government to do the final inspection.



No, restricting demand is bad for the economy, investment never happens without demand.


Income taxes reduce investment. When you have money, you either buy stuff now (consumption) or save it for later (investment). Income taxes mean the returns to investment (dividends, interest) are reduced.



Sure, Cut defense spending.


Wow, you've just got yourself a whopping 4% of GDP, how do you close the huge remaining gap?


Bottom line--it's no different than Anarchism.

Bottom line socialisim is the same as fascism...


The US could easily get down to that level if not for military spending.

Military spending is 4% of GDP, you have a long way to go buddy. Also, what would europe do, they are already spending nothing on their military.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bottom line socialisim is the same as fascism...

And here we come to the meat of the issue that is Judicator. You are a sophist, more interested in scathing political rhetoric than any kind of truthful analysis of world affairs.
I'm glad the truth has finally come out and we can stop dancing around the issue.

BTW; your posts today are very inflammatory. Are you having a bad day? I feel for you man. Just remember, we can only be mad if we choose to be.

[PhoenixAsh]

The only difference between these guys and Anarchists are that Anarchists use "Robert's Rules of Order."

There is a huge difference.

Anarchists do not recognize private property for example. Libertarians pretty much thrive on the concept of provate property.

Anarchists reject the concept of capitalism. Libertarians thrive on free market ideology.

Libertarians believe in nation states...Anarchists pretty much do not.

Libertarians believe in parliamentary systems....Anarchists do not.

Libertarians believe in government (however small) and Anarchists do not.

Libertarians believe in representative democracy...Anarchists believe in radical democracy.



To name but a few essential differences.

[Judicator]

And here we come to the meat of the issue that is Judicator. You are a sophist, more interested in scathing political rhetoric than any kind of truthful analysis of world affairs.
I'm glad the truth has finally come out and we can stop dancing around the issue.

I'm glad you can conclude so much from a single statement. Seems pretty standard on these forums.

My response was to "Bottom line--it's no different than Anarchism." was essentially the same idea as "Its totally different than Anarchism what are you smoking?"


BTW; your posts today are very inflammatory. Are you having a bad day? I feel for you man. Just remember, we can only be mad if we choose to be.

More than usual, really? I would think any non-socialist idea would be inflammatory in these circles. When everyone here thinks something like "property is theft" then suggesting otherwise is, to them, to support theft.

Thanks for looking out for me though.

[Dumb]

Military spending is 4% of GDP, you have a long way to go buddy. Also, what would europe do, they are already spending nothing on their military.

I said "military spending," not "Department of Defense spending"; DoD is only about half of military spending. All of the following departments are also intimately involved in U.S. military and foreign affairs: Department of State, Department of Energy, Veterans Affairs (I wouldn't cut veterans benefits myself, but the fact is that a smaller military means fewer veterans), Homeland Security, NASA (and then there's interest we pay on past and current wars). Add all that up, and you get well over a trillion dollars annually.

EDIT: Also...like you give a damn about Europe. Ha ha. But anyway, Europe seems to be doing just fine, and it's not like we're protecting them from anybody threatening to bomb them. If anything, U.S. foreign policy is what's creating the threats in the first place.

[Dumb]

There is a huge difference.

Anarchists do not recognize private property for example. Libertarians pretty much thrive on the concept of provate property.

Anarchists reject the concept of capitalism. Libertarians thrive on free market ideology.

Libertarians believe in nation states...Anarchists pretty much do not.

Libertarians believe in parliamentary systems....Anarchists do not.

Libertarians believe in government (however small) and Anarchists do not.

Libertarians believe in representative democracy...Anarchists believe in radical democracy.



To name but a few essential differences.

The other poster probably had anarcho-capitalism in mind. It's easy to get confused like that; for that very reason, until last year, I myself thought that anarchists were simply more extreme counterparts to the libertarians.

I'm sorry if I'm putting words in anybody's mouth.

[Judicator]

I said "military spending," not "Department of Defense spending"; DoD is only about half of military spending. All of the following departments are also intimately involved in U.S. military and foreign affairs: Department of State, Department of Energy, Veterans Affairs (I wouldn't cut veterans benefits myself, but the fact is that a smaller military means fewer veterans), Homeland Security, NASA (and then there's interest we pay on past and current wars). Add all that up, and you get well over a trillion dollars annually.


Often when I want to make an issue important, I also use any trick I can to increase its share of the budget. But either way, 4% or 7.5%, still a long way from 20% of GDP.



EDIT: Also...like you give a damn about Europe. Ha ha. But anyway, Europe seems to be doing just fine, and it's not like we're protecting them from anybody threatening to bomb them. If anything, U.S. foreign policy is what's creating the threats in the first place.


Not to long in the future Europe won't be able to do anything in conflicts as small as Libya.

I would like Europe to be successful. It's a pity there are so many anti-business policies in places like France, where they have enjoyed US recession level unemployment rates since 1980.

[Dumb]

Often when I want to make an issue important, I also use any trick I can to increase its share of the budget. But either way, 4% or 7.5%, still a long way from 20% of GDP.

And likewise, when I want to minimize an issue, I will use any trick I can to decrease its share of the budget. If you want to question my motives and integrity, I can just as easily question yours. That's a two-edged sword.

Anyway, considering that all those factors together add up to $1.4 trillion, and considering that GDP is around $14-15 trillion depending on your source, you're actually looking at over 9%, and perhaps 10%, of GDP (and about 40% of the federal budget).

After that, there's also spending under the category of "public safety" - the cost of maintaining the largest prison population, on a per capita basis, on planet Earth. I'm not sure how big that is, but can find out if you'd like.


Not to long in the future Europe won't be able to do anything in conflicts as small as Libya.

I would like Europe to be successful. It's a pity there are so many anti-business policies in places like France, where they have enjoyed US recession level unemployment rates since 1980.

And Europe needs to do anything in Libya because...?

Forgive the sarcasm. I just don't see how the conflict in Libya would have affected Europe's ongoing livelihood one way or the other.

[RGacky3]

There's no government agent making sure when I buy a house it doesn't have $20,000 in hidden repairs, I have to do that myself. The argument was simply that you don't need the government to do the final inspection.


Actually governments DO check houses all the time and make sure they are safe to live in. But yeah, you ahve to do it yourself, example 1, checking a house is something people CAN do.

Checking your food for ecoli is something you cannot.


Income taxes reduce investment. When you have money, you either buy stuff now (consumption) or save it for later (investment). Income taxes mean the returns to investment (dividends, interest) are reduced.


Saving it for later is not investment, investment is essencially buying capital for production. Saving it for later is putting it in a bank, a bank may use it for investment or may not, or it may use it just to give consumers credit.

Income taxes don't reduce investment, if there is profit to be made people will invest, they'll find a way, what reduces investment is lack of demand which comes from lack of consumption.


Wow, you've just got yourself a whopping 4% of GDP, how do you close the huge remaining gap?


HALF of the tax revenues come from defense spending, social security pays for itself so that does'nt count, medicare can be fixed easily by getting rid of part d, the private handout part of it, then you basically have a small government budget, and you have space for the public sphere to actually fix the economy.


Bottom line socialisim is the same as fascism...


Really Glen Beck?


Military spending is 4% of GDP, you have a long way to go buddy. Also, what would europe do, they are already spending nothing on their military.

Yes, but it takes up half of the tax revenue ...

What would Europe do without the US wasting assloads of money in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending tons of money on military contractors?

Probably the same thing they are doing now, europe does'nt need to the US for anything.

[R_P_A_S]

I'm yet to her anyone who argues against Libertarians point out that we (who ever opposes it) Aren't advocating NOR DEFENDING government. Because that's how most people come off as:

That they love government and can't imagine life going on with out it.,, NO!

I would love to see or hear a revolutionary socialist, communist or anarchist tell these Libertarians that yes Government blows! The type we have now.. But we can replace it with a true representative democracy ran by the working class!

we need more of this argument!!!

[NewLeft]

So socialist states can't exists without capitalist America.. BUT when capitalism fails, it's not capitalism anymore.. It's socialism. Got it!