Liberterians Love Fascism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Redistribution of wealth isn’t evil, but we could do better, that’s for sure.[/quote]

Until it’s your wealth their stealing. It is intrinsically evil, it functions on jealously, envy and retribution. Laying your burdens at the feet of others is more greedy than somebody who has earned and kept wealth. You aren’t owed anything, nobody is.

And if your reading these extreme left wing rags they will certainly misrepresent people they don’t like. Libertarians are as much fascist and leftists are communist.
[/quote]

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, once said that she’s happy to pay British taxes on her income because the wellfare system supported her, and her children, as she was a struggling writer.

Obviously I don’t share your disdain for taxation, but as you do pay taxes pat, it must make you rage, right?
[/quote]

I certainly don’t enjoy entitlements. But they are here to stay, that doesn’t mean we should put out more entitlements. However, I am sure you would agree that if you are going to redistribute wealth, that the most in need should get it before those with a place to live, food to eat, a computer to blog on, and a place to train, right?
Which means you’d never see a dime, because the neediest would get it all. There’s only so much money to go around. You wouldn’t want the neediest to be sacrificed for your comfort would you?
How much of your money are you willing to give up for your fellow man? 50% 75%?

You do realize you don’t have to wait for the government to take it, you can give it away right now.

62

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Redistribution of wealth isn’t evil, but we could do better, that’s for sure.[/quote]

Until it’s your wealth their stealing. It is intrinsically evil, it functions on jealously, envy and retribution. Laying your burdens at the feet of others is more greedy than somebody who has earned and kept wealth. You aren’t owed anything, nobody is.

And if your reading these extreme left wing rags they will certainly misrepresent people they don’t like. Libertarians are as much fascist and leftists are communist.
[/quote]

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, once said that she’s happy to pay British taxes on her income because the wellfare system supported her, and her children, as she was a struggling writer.

Obviously I don’t share your disdain for taxation, but as you do pay taxes pat, it must make you rage, right?
[/quote]

Besides J.K. isn’t on welfare anymore is she? Why? Because she worked her ass off and wrote amazing books. What percentage of people on the English welfare system get off?
For most it’s a trap, once you get on you cannot get off. It keeps people poor, why would you want to keep people poor? That sounds pretty mean.

63

[quote]groo wrote:
I’d say harder questions for libertarians would be should a free market be open to a nation that employs child slave, or forced labor. Taking the one means of capital that is available to every citizen and devaluing it by force seems counterintuitive to a free market. Allowing these countries to participate with no barriers is largely the same as acknowledging it is ok to take capital by force.

[/quote]

What in the hell makes you think Libertarians support child labor or slave labor? Seriously, where did you get that?

You guys seems to have some cooked up retardation thinking that libertarians support no government what so ever and let total anarchy rule?? All they are asking for is reducing the size of government and preserve the liberties of all. To not let govenment rule every apect of life from window tint to the speed you can push your shopping buggy at the store.
Not letting militias run wild on the street raping women and shooting up towns. Outside of Liftvs, I don’t know anybody supporting anarchy.

I don’t care that you don’t like libertarianism but criticize it’s actual tenets, not that garbage you have been led to believe by something or somebody…

64

[quote]orion wrote:

It will.

But maybe we get a good century or two in in the meantime.

And I bet if she had made it with private charity she would be happy to give back too.

We have corporate fascism now

[/quote]

How do you know that, during those two good centuries, your corporate heaven won’t become a fascist nightmare for the average civilian?

What kind of private charity will support a family for years?

65

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It will.

But maybe we get a good century or two in in the meantime.

And I bet if she had made it with private charity she would be happy to give back too.

We have corporate fascism now

[/quote]

How do you know that, during those two good centuries, your corporate heaven won’t become a fascist nightmare for the average civilian?

What kind of private charity will support a family for years?
[/quote]

  • because corporations cannot do that without the government. With big government they are practically forced to.

  • the ones you would donate to of course!

66

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, once said that she’s happy to pay British taxes on her income because the wellfare system supported her, and her children, as she was a struggling writer.

Obviously I don’t share your disdain for taxation, but as you do pay taxes pat, it must make you rage, right?
[/quote]

I certainly don’t enjoy entitlements. But they are here to stay, that doesn’t mean we should put out more entitlements. However, I am sure you would agree that if you are going to redistribute wealth, that the most in need should get it before those with a place to live, food to eat, a computer to blog on, and a place to train, right?
Which means you’d never see a dime, because the neediest would get it all. There’s only so much money to go around. You wouldn’t want the neediest to be sacrificed for your comfort would you?
How much of your money are you willing to give up for your fellow man? 50% 75%?

You do realize you don’t have to wait for the government to take it, you can give it away right now.[/quote]

So this is just about social programs and not infrastructure, education, healthcare, police force and the fire department?

67

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It will.

But maybe we get a good century or two in in the meantime.

And I bet if she had made it with private charity she would be happy to give back too.

We have corporate fascism now

[/quote]

How do you know that, during those two good centuries, your corporate heaven won’t become a fascist nightmare for the average civilian?

What kind of private charity will support a family for years?
[/quote]

  • because corporations cannot do that without the government. With big government they are practically forced to.

  • the ones you would donate to of course![/quote]

So you want government to regulate corporations?

What kind of private charity do you trust with your money?

68

[quote]pat wrote:
Besides J.K. isn’t on welfare anymore is she? Why? Because she worked her ass off and wrote amazing books. What percentage of people on the English welfare system get off?
For most it’s a trap, once you get on you cannot get off. It keeps people poor, why would you want to keep people poor? That sounds pretty mean.[/quote]

Each and everyone on the dole, barring a few rare exceptions, are freeloading scum?

Ofcourse there’ll be people who abuse the system. That doesn’t mean the system is rotten.

69

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It will.

But maybe we get a good century or two in in the meantime.

And I bet if she had made it with private charity she would be happy to give back too.

We have corporate fascism now

[/quote]

How do you know that, during those two good centuries, your corporate heaven won’t become a fascist nightmare for the average civilian?

What kind of private charity will support a family for years?
[/quote]

  • because corporations cannot do that without the government. With big government they are practically forced to.

  • the ones you would donate to of course![/quote]

So you want government to regulate corporations?

What kind of private charity do you trust with your money?
[/quote]

I want a small government to make sure that you cannot successfully initiate violence gainst your fellow men, no matter how rich you are.

Me personally, or what I would consider to be a trustworthy charity?

70

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, once said that she’s happy to pay British taxes on her income because the wellfare system supported her, and her children, as she was a struggling writer.

Obviously I don’t share your disdain for taxation, but as you do pay taxes pat, it must make you rage, right?
[/quote]

I certainly don’t enjoy entitlements. But they are here to stay, that doesn’t mean we should put out more entitlements. However, I am sure you would agree that if you are going to redistribute wealth, that the most in need should get it before those with a place to live, food to eat, a computer to blog on, and a place to train, right?
Which means you’d never see a dime, because the neediest would get it all. There’s only so much money to go around. You wouldn’t want the neediest to be sacrificed for your comfort would you?
How much of your money are you willing to give up for your fellow man? 50% 75%?

You do realize you don’t have to wait for the government to take it, you can give it away right now.[/quote]

So this is just about social programs and not infrastructure, education, healthcare, police force and the fire department?
[/quote]

Do you believe that libertarians are against infrastructure too? Jumpin’ jelly beans where do yall get such notions.
Most of it is against things the government should not have control over. Once you cede control of something to the government, you don’t get it back. Look at social security, you can hate it all you want, but there is no way to get the genie back in the bottle, so we’re stuck with it. So now, if you depend on it, you are totally at the whim of the government, they want to cut your checks, tough shit. No cost of living increase? Tough shit. Somebody want’s to drain the coffers so that it’s bankrupt? tough shit.
Careful what control you cede to somebody else, once it’s gone, you don’t get it back.

71

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

So you want government to regulate corporations?

What kind of private charity do you trust with your money?
[/quote]

I want a small government to make sure that you cannot successfully initiate violence gainst your fellow men, no matter how rich you are.

Me personally, or what I would consider to be a trustworthy charity?
[/quote]

A small government that needs to be immune to corporate meddling. You’re dealing with people, money and power. I don’t think it’s possible for those two to coexist without influencing each other.

Both, what charites are concerned.

72

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

So this is just about social programs and not infrastructure, education, healthcare, police force and the fire department?
[/quote]

Do you believe that libertarians are against infrastructure too? Jumpin’ jelly beans where do yall get such notions.
Most of it is against things the government should not have control over. Once you cede control of something to the government, you don’t get it back. Look at social security, you can hate it all you want, but there is no way to get the genie back in the bottle, so we’re stuck with it. So now, if you depend on it, you are totally at the whim of the government, they want to cut your checks, tough shit. No cost of living increase? Tough shit. Somebody want’s to drain the coffers so that it’s bankrupt? tough shit.
Careful what control you cede to somebody else, once it’s gone, you don’t get it back.
[/quote]

It was a question, pat. All libertarians seem to rail against are taxes and social programs.

Perhaps it’s easier to say what role government should have instead of what it shouldn’t be able to.

73

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Besides J.K. isn’t on welfare anymore is she? Why? Because she worked her ass off and wrote amazing books. What percentage of people on the English welfare system get off?
For most it’s a trap, once you get on you cannot get off. It keeps people poor, why would you want to keep people poor? That sounds pretty mean.[/quote]

Each and everyone on the dole, barring a few rare exceptions, are freeloading scum?

Ofcourse there’ll be people who abuse the system. That doesn’t mean the system is rotten. [/quote]

I never made a comment as to what type of people are on the teet, only that the teet likes to keep you on it. It gives you just enough that any menial job you get won’t pay as much, but if you don’t have an education and you don’t start at the bottom somewhere, you never get off the teet.
It not a flawed system because of who’s on it, it’s flawed because it doesn’t give you a way to get off of it.

74

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Besides J.K. isn’t on welfare anymore is she? Why? Because she worked her ass off and wrote amazing books. What percentage of people on the English welfare system get off?
For most it’s a trap, once you get on you cannot get off. It keeps people poor, why would you want to keep people poor? That sounds pretty mean.[/quote]

Each and everyone on the dole, barring a few rare exceptions, are freeloading scum?

Ofcourse there’ll be people who abuse the system. That doesn’t mean the system is rotten. [/quote]

I never made a comment as to what type of people are on the teet, only that the teet likes to keep you on it. It gives you just enough that any menial job you get won’t pay as much, but if you don’t have an education and you don’t start at the bottom somewhere, you never get off the teet.
It not a flawed system because of who’s on it, it’s flawed because it doesn’t give you a way to get off of it.[/quote]

When my brother lost his job two years ago he was elligible for 18 months of unemployement benefits. Luckily he found another job within 6 months, but nevertheless, with a mortgage and two young kids, he welcomed the benefits.

The US has unemployement benefits, doesn’t it? Look, we approach this with our social and cultural bias attached. Things are somewhat different over here. Generally the system works.

75

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

So this is just about social programs and not infrastructure, education, healthcare, police force and the fire department?
[/quote]

Do you believe that libertarians are against infrastructure too? Jumpin’ jelly beans where do yall get such notions.
Most of it is against things the government should not have control over. Once you cede control of something to the government, you don’t get it back. Look at social security, you can hate it all you want, but there is no way to get the genie back in the bottle, so we’re stuck with it. So now, if you depend on it, you are totally at the whim of the government, they want to cut your checks, tough shit. No cost of living increase? Tough shit. Somebody want’s to drain the coffers so that it’s bankrupt? tough shit.
Careful what control you cede to somebody else, once it’s gone, you don’t get it back.
[/quote]

It was a question, pat. All libertarians seem to rail against are taxes and social programs.

Perhaps it’s easier to say what role government should have instead of what it shouldn’t be able to.
[/quote]

You have varying degrees just like anything else, you have extremist who are against everything, but most want limited government, not no government.
No I don’t consider myself a Libertarian btw. I do support a lot of libertarian ideas though. Particularly a reduction in laws like to psuedoephidrine purchasing database, traffic light cameras, speed cameras, etc. There are tons of laws designed to encroach on your life. They aren’t out there to starve little children for amusement.

76

[quote]kamui wrote:
so, the developer can not own his own idea because ideas are not scarce goods, but it’s ok if the internet hosting company make billions selling this idea.

how can they sell something that can’t be owned ?

it doesn’t make sense. At all.

and btw, if you are serious about this “ideas are not ownable” thing, you should oppose intellectual property in all its form, including patents, R&D wages and exclusivity agreements, brand licensing, etc.[/quote]

Information cannot be owned.

Ideas cannot be owned.

Only real things can be owned.

A musician cannot own a song he writes but he can get paid to perform it for people because he owns his own life and presumable his instruments, etc. If he is popular enough he performs in a large venue that he doesn’t own and the venue owner will alway get paid more than the performer.

Similarly most developers get paid to write code they will never own by large companies that require specific code to do specific things.

I oppose the idea of all intellectual property.

Now just because something cannot be owned does not mean one cannot derive an income by delivering content; however, once content is delivered it is up to the receiver how it will be used, resold or even given away for free.

77

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
so, the developer can not own his own idea because ideas are not scarce goods, but it’s ok if the internet hosting company make billions selling this idea.

how can they sell something that can’t be owned ?

it doesn’t make sense. At all.

and btw, if you are serious about this “ideas are not ownable” thing, you should oppose intellectual property in all its form, including patents, R&D wages and exclusivity agreements, brand licensing, etc.[/quote]

Information cannot be owned.

Ideas cannot be owned.

Only real things can be owned.

A musician cannot own a song he writes but he can get paid to perform it for people because he owns his own life and presumable his instruments, etc. If he is popular enough he performs in a large venue that he doesn’t own and the venue owner will alway get paid more than the performer.

Similarly most developers get paid to write code they will never own by large companies that require specific code to do specific things.

I oppose the idea of all intellectual property.

Now just because something cannot be owned does not mean one cannot derive an income by delivering content; however, once content is delivered it is up to the receiver how it will be used, resold or even given away for free.[/quote]

Information can to be owned. If I have an idea I don’t want you to have, I don’t tell you.

Second, intellectual property isn’t about knowing about something, it’s about using it to make money.

78

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
so, the developer can not own his own idea because ideas are not scarce goods, but it’s ok if the internet hosting company make billions selling this idea.

how can they sell something that can’t be owned ?

it doesn’t make sense. At all.

and btw, if you are serious about this “ideas are not ownable” thing, you should oppose intellectual property in all its form, including patents, R&D wages and exclusivity agreements, brand licensing, etc.[/quote]

Information cannot be owned.

Ideas cannot be owned.

Only real things can be owned.

A musician cannot own a song he writes but he can get paid to perform it for people because he owns his own life and presumable his instruments, etc. If he is popular enough he performs in a large venue that he doesn’t own and the venue owner will alway get paid more than the performer.

Similarly most developers get paid to write code they will never own by large companies that require specific code to do specific things.

I oppose the idea of all intellectual property.

Now just because something cannot be owned does not mean one cannot derive an income by delivering content; however, once content is delivered it is up to the receiver how it will be used, resold or even given away for free.[/quote]

Information can to be owned. If I have an idea I don’t want you to have, I don’t tell you.

Second, intellectual property isn’t about knowing about something, it’s about using it to make money. [/quote]

Onwership implies use. Once you use it you have expressed it.

If you have an idea you never use to create anything then what does it matter?

An artist with with ideas but no paint has nothing.

79

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I’d say harder questions for libertarians would be should a free market be open to a nation that employs child slave, or forced labor. Taking the one means of capital that is available to every citizen and devaluing it by force seems counterintuitive to a free market. Allowing these countries to participate with no barriers is largely the same as acknowledging it is ok to take capital by force.

[/quote]

What in the hell makes you think Libertarians support child labor or slave labor? Seriously, where did you get that?

You guys seems to have some cooked up retardation thinking that libertarians support no government what so ever and let total anarchy rule?? All they are asking for is reducing the size of government and preserve the liberties of all. To not let govenment rule every apect of life from window tint to the speed you can push your shopping buggy at the store.
Not letting militias run wild on the street raping women and shooting up towns. Outside of Liftvs, I don’t know anybody supporting anarchy.

I don’t care that you don’t like libertarianism but criticize it’s actual tenets, not that garbage you have been led to believe by something or somebody…[/quote]

Libertarians support a free market internationally. If we do business with countries that use forced or slave labor without putting barriers in the market that is at least a tacit endorsement that the value of the free market overrides the morality of using such labor, but thats not the point I was trying to make. If we have an international market with no barriers and some participants bring down the value of one of the means of capital…in this case labor…artificially by force it compels the other actors in the market to keep the value of labor lower than it would be in a truly free market.

80

But at least in a free market we aren’t forced to buy from slave employers…and what’s more in a free market we are not slaves.

One can dream.