What Would Happen if The Libertarian Party Rose?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i wasn’t making your point actually. The cold reality is that, in our current semi-capitalist free market, many workers are worse off than slaves. And you’re really not that disconnected that you’d think that prostitution to stay alive is actually a carriere choice, are you?

I think you are being very disingenuous. Are you saying you would rather be the property of someone else than be able to make the choice between cleaning nectarines and prostitution? Besides, you cannot say for certain those are the only choices these people have – there are many other choices you cannot see. You make light of slavery and the ill effects it really has on people.

Prostitution is a career choice for many. It is no less valid a service than massage, dancing naked, porn, acting, or the arts. People genuinely find value in these services and are willing to pay top-dollar for them.[/quote]

…i see little difference between being owned by someone and having no choice than to work 16 hours a day for pennies. Either way you’re a slave to the system…

102

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…
[/quote]

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

103

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.[/quote]

…if only it were that easy…

104

[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

…if only it were that easy…

[/quote]
It’s not. There are people who will waste their whole lives lamenting that fact.

Successful people are the ones who recognize it but don’t let it affect them. They dream impossible dreams and never believe for one second it is not possible to achieve anything they set their mind to.

Life is for people who show up.

105

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

…if only it were that easy…

It’s not. There are people who will waste their whole lives lamenting that fact.

Successful people are the ones who recognize it but don’t let it affect them. They dream impossible dreams and never believe for one second it is not possible to achieve anything they set their mind to.

Life is for people who show up.[/quote]

…please cut the bullshit before i throw up…

106

[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

…if only it were that easy…

It’s not. There are people who will waste their whole lives lamenting that fact.

Successful people are the ones who recognize it but don’t let it affect them. They dream impossible dreams and never believe for one second it is not possible to achieve anything they set their mind to.

Life is for people who show up.

…please cut the bullshit before i throw up…
[/quote]

It’s not bullshit. It’s true. Come the the USofA and witness it first hand.

107

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…[/quote]

No its not because the alternative is worse, or else they would turn to s6tarvation or whoring.

It is the best of many unpleasant alternative and to call the best alternative slavery and those providing them slaveholders does hurt those who depend on these jobs the most.

108

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.

Capital needs to be operated.

Heavy machinery requires skilled personal.

Training to work that heavy machinery is expensive and takes time.

You cannot whip slaves to learn how to operate sophisticate machinery and to use them efficiently because they try to get away with doing as little work as possible.

Free people working heavy machinery are more productive than slave labor because they get to keep what they earn and have superior tools.

Slave labor no longer pays off and disappears because it is out competed by free men using more capital.

You really think we would not have slavery right now if it was still good business?

What did those who had slaves at the time think? Did they think it was good business? How high a cost were they willing to pay to keep their slaves? Was it capital accumulation that made it “bad business” or something else?

Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

[/quote]

It really does not matter what they thought. They would have been outcompeted anyway.

That is the beauty of capitalism, you adapt or you perish.

And yes there are and they moved to countries where human labor is cheap, giving those people a chance.

Now could they theoretically use slavery?

Id say the point where they could effectively do that lies in the past, but even if they would want ti use it now we would not buy their products.

People went apeshit when Kathie Lee-Gifford paid them three times the market price for their labor , what do you think would happen with actual slavery?

109

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

No its not because the alternative is worse, or else they would turn to s6tarvation or whoring.

It is the best of many unpleasant alternative and to call the best alternative slavery and those providing them slaveholders does hurt those who depend on these jobs the most.

[/quote]

…sorry, i just woke up from a nap and don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please explain?

110

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

…if only it were that easy…

It’s not. There are people who will waste their whole lives lamenting that fact.

Successful people are the ones who recognize it but don’t let it affect them. They dream impossible dreams and never believe for one second it is not possible to achieve anything they set their mind to.

Life is for people who show up.

…please cut the bullshit before i throw up…

It’s not bullshit. It’s true. Come the the USofA and witness it first hand.[/quote]

…right. All those people in the US living below the poverty threshold are losers who can not, and will not, apply themselves?

111

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.

Capital needs to be operated.

Heavy machinery requires skilled personal.

Training to work that heavy machinery is expensive and takes time.

You cannot whip slaves to learn how to operate sophisticate machinery and to use them efficiently because they try to get away with doing as little work as possible.

Free people working heavy machinery are more productive than slave labor because they get to keep what they earn and have superior tools.

Slave labor no longer pays off and disappears because it is out competed by free men using more capital.

You really think we would not have slavery right now if it was still good business?

What did those who had slaves at the time think? Did they think it was good business? How high a cost were they willing to pay to keep their slaves? Was it capital accumulation that made it “bad business” or something else?

Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

It really does not matter what they thought. They would have been outcompeted anyway.

That is the beauty of capitalism, you adapt or you perish.

And yes there are and they moved to countries where human labor is cheap, giving those people a chance.

Now could they theoretically use slavery?

Id say the point where they could effectively do that lies in the past, but even if they would want ti use it now we would not buy their products.

People went apeshit when Kathie Lee-Gifford paid them three times the market price for their labor , what do you think would happen with actual slavery? [/quote]

Primary source documents “don’t matter” when studying history? This is what I’m LOLing: theory over everything else.

Many high labor (low capital) industries moved abroad, but all of them? And why did they move abroad again? Wages you say? Huh. How large a wage do slave get? You were saying something about capital accumulation removing the need for unskilled labor, weren’t you?

[quote]People went apeshit when Kathie Lee-Gifford paid them three times the market price for their labor , what do you think would happen with actual slavery?[/quote] You mean, “what is happening,” right?

Theory is great, but it doesn’t trump everything. Capitalism is great, but it isn’t a panacea for everything. Libertarianism is great, but it didn’t end slavery.

112

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…right. All those people in the US living below the poverty threshold are losers who can not, and will not, apply themselves?
[/quote]

That’s not what I said and it certainly could not be implied from what I said.

I merely said successful people are the ones who choose not to be victims. This isn’t always the case but attitude has more implications to success then the circumstances one is born in.

113

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Either way you’re a slave to the system…

If you mean that life requires one expend energy to maintain it then I agree. But this is just a colloquialism.

The alternative is to kill yourself if you really believe you have no choices.

Everyone has choices. Even slaves.

…if only it were that easy…

It’s not. There are people who will waste their whole lives lamenting that fact.

Successful people are the ones who recognize it but don’t let it affect them. They dream impossible dreams and never believe for one second it is not possible to achieve anything they set their mind to.

Life is for people who show up.

…please cut the bullshit before i throw up…

It’s not bullshit. It’s true. Come the the USofA and witness it first hand.

…right. All those people in the US living below the poverty threshold are losers who can not, and will not, apply themselves?

That’s not what I said and it certainly could not be implied from what I said.

I merely said successful people are the ones who choose not to be victims. This isn’t always the case but attitude has more implications to success then the circumstances one is born in.[/quote]

…you fooled me into thinking that was exactly what you meant…

114

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

No its not because the alternative is worse, or else they would turn to s6tarvation or whoring.

It is the best of many unpleasant alternative and to call the best alternative slavery and those providing them slaveholders does hurt those who depend on these jobs the most.

…sorry, i just woke up from a nap and don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please explain?

[/quote]

What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.

Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.

115

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you fooled me into thinking that was exactly what you meant…
[/quote]

I’ve seen dirt poor people rise to the top just by their own tenacity and willingness to work hard. And I have seen rich people throw everything away that was handed to them by their parents just by thinking they were “above the system” and then blaming their parents.

Attitude works both ways.

There are people that get it and people that don’t. Don’t for one second think that I believe it is easy even if one has the right attitude.

Better to have the freedom to fail than have all the “social security” in the world.

116

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

No its not because the alternative is worse, or else they would turn to s6tarvation or whoring.

It is the best of many unpleasant alternative and to call the best alternative slavery and those providing them slaveholders does hurt those who depend on these jobs the most.

…sorry, i just woke up from a nap and don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please explain?

What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.

Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.[/quote]

…lol @ orion. Since when is capitalist enterprise out to help people? You really are a Victorian douche, are you? And i mean that in a nice way, lol…

117

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.

Capital needs to be operated.

Heavy machinery requires skilled personal.

Training to work that heavy machinery is expensive and takes time.

You cannot whip slaves to learn how to operate sophisticate machinery and to use them efficiently because they try to get away with doing as little work as possible.

Free people working heavy machinery are more productive than slave labor because they get to keep what they earn and have superior tools.

Slave labor no longer pays off and disappears because it is out competed by free men using more capital.

You really think we would not have slavery right now if it was still good business?

What did those who had slaves at the time think? Did they think it was good business? How high a cost were they willing to pay to keep their slaves? Was it capital accumulation that made it “bad business” or something else?

Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

It really does not matter what they thought. They would have been outcompeted anyway.

That is the beauty of capitalism, you adapt or you perish.

And yes there are and they moved to countries where human labor is cheap, giving those people a chance.

Now could they theoretically use slavery?

Id say the point where they could effectively do that lies in the past, but even if they would want ti use it now we would not buy their products.

People went apeshit when Kathie Lee-Gifford paid them three times the market price for their labor , what do you think would happen with actual slavery?

Primary source documents “don’t matter” when studying history? This is what I’m LOLing: theory over everything else.

Many high labor (low capital) industries moved abroad, but all of them? And why did they move abroad again? Wages you say? Huh. How large a wage do slave get? You were saying something about capital accumulation removing the need for unskilled labor, weren’t you?

People went apeshit when Kathie Lee-Gifford paid them three times the market price for their labor , what do you think would happen with actual slavery? You mean, “what is happening,” right?

Theory is great, but it doesn’t trump everything. Capitalism is great, but it isn’t a panacea for everything. Libertarianism is great, but it didn’t end slavery.
[/quote]

Does this post contain a message?

If so, send me the decoder ring.

118

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you fooled me into thinking that was exactly what you meant…

I’ve seen dirt poor people rise to the top just by their own tenacity and willingness to work hard. And I have seen rich people throw everything away that was handed to them by their parents just by thinking they were “above the system” and then blaming their parents.

Attitude works both ways.

There are people that get it and people that don’t. Don’t for one second think that I believe it is easy even if one has the right attitude.

Better to have the freedom to fail than have all the “social security” in the world.[/quote]

…fair enough, but the line between failure and a minimal income for those chinese factory workers is as thin as a hair. There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…

119

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

No its not because the alternative is worse, or else they would turn to s6tarvation or whoring.

It is the best of many unpleasant alternative and to call the best alternative slavery and those providing them slaveholders does hurt those who depend on these jobs the most.

…sorry, i just woke up from a nap and don’t understand what you’re saying here. Please explain?

What you call slavery is their best option and you are slandering exactly those people that provide it.

Good job defaming the only ones that actually help those people.

…lol @ orion. Since when is capitalist enterprise out to help people? You really are a Victorian douche, are you? And i mean that in a nice way, lol…

[/quote]

I did not say that they were out to help those people, I said that they DO help those people.

Big difference.

There “greed” has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of the most extreme poverty whereas your wishing them the best has not created as much as one stinking job in China.

Not even a low paid, dangerous and dirty one.

So tell me, who has done more for them?

120

[quote]ephrem wrote:
There is no comparison between a minimal income worker in the USA and one in China…
[/quote]

And yet everyone tries to compare them.

Soon enough poor people in the US will know what it is like to be poor in China and soon poor people in China will be driving SUVs and watching big screen TVs like the poor do here in the US.

And the really sad thing is people in the US will blame capitalism its failures and in China they will praise communism for its successes – and they will both be wrong.