Why do you think the left is so popular?

[Seesawmcgraw]

I am somewhat surprised by how popular Keynesian and even Socialist political opinions are

I believe that people are attracted to it because it coincides with their values.

a more fanatical example of this is in the 16th and 17th century when the Copernican heliocentric universe idea had been supported by Galileo and both men had evidence of their findings

the large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view because it agreed with their values which happened to be religious values

I think it would be best if everybody stopped letting personal and cultural values influence science

that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't worry if an experiment they are doing on a human being is ethical or not

[gloryhound]

Left is popular because sometimes your right gets tired, and you wanna give it a break, especially when you see how big that muscle on you right is.

I'll brb.

[Silverhandorder]

People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.

[shadowy]

I am somewhat surprised by how popular Keynesian and even Socialist political opinions are

I believe that people are attracted to it because it coincides with their values.

a more fanatical example of this is in the 16th and 17th century when the Copernican heliocentric universe idea had been supported by Galileo and both men had evidence of their findings

the large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view because it agreed with their values which happened to be religious values

I think it would be best if everybody stopped letting personal and cultural values influence science

that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't worry if an experiment they are doing on a human being is ethical or not

What do political opinions and scientific theories have in common? O_o

[Baralis]

It has been proven that people that tend to lean left in their youth slowly start to lean more right as they get older (has been found by compairing voting records threw life).

The way I see it. This is just my opinion and based on nothing.

We all know that alot of youth are rebelous. They are becoming an adult and part of the growing process is gaining individualism. They are ready to make their own path and no longer like the idea of parents (or anyone) still telling them what to do.

I think once alot of youth finaly become adults they find that no longer do their parents set the rules and guidelines so they expect the ability to have free reign on their lives only to get a sudden wake up call that this is not so. Now they have the government setting the rules as well as society. So what do they do? Rebel! The left side generaly takes the stance of "government oppresses!". They look at themselves as anti-authority wanting to gain some type of freedom with their own lives that does not exist.

When we see photos of riots who do we generaly see? Young people. Not often do you see a crowd of 50 year olds out rioting. Why is this? Do 50 year olds simply not care about the world and the things around them? I think they care just as much they just arnt under the illusion that they can change the world today. They have enough life under their belts to see that it is a slow ongoing battle where changes are slow to come and not overnight achievements.

Plus I think people (particularly youth) feel that they have to have change were as older people have invested decades in the current system and may fear fast change that could change how they have always lived life.

[GFH_Spike]

The majority believe that the government can provide benefits to society that private industry can't or won't do. The recognition that wealth must be redistributed away from entrepreneurs and other productive members of society is either lacking or morally irrelevant, as is the knowledge that those who benefit most are the leeches (particularly the blood fattened motherfuckers at the top).

When a gun is on the table and it promises greater quality of life, most will pick it up without a second thought, ignorant of the consequences. Who will turn down a free lunch? Brush off the fact that it's of poor quality and includes stolen ingredients.

[Seesawmcgraw]

What do political opinions and scientific theories have in common? O_o

Well when it comes to gay marriage and abortion they hardly have anything in common but when it comes to things like the economy and military they have alot in common in that they should be scientific in analyzing whether or not a certain program is going to do what they hope it will

[Milo Hobgoblin]

People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.

this

lots of lazy ass mother fuckers.. that just LOVE the taste of gubment dick

[Seesawmcgraw]

The majority believe that the government can provide benefits to society that private industry can't or won't do. The recognition that wealth must be redistributed away from entrepreneurs and other productive members of society is either lacking or morally irrelevant, as is the knowledge that those who benefit most are the leeches (particularly the blood fattened motherfuckers at the top).

When a gun is on the table and it promises greater quality of life, most will pick it up without a second thought, ignorant of the consequences. Who will turn down a free lunch? Brush off the fact that it's of poor quality and includes stolen ingredients.

Yeah I went to the recreation room in my dorm building to watch some of the presidential debates or w/e they are called

when McCain was on there talking about his policy people in the room were responding as though he had a bag of presents and voting for him was like voting for McCain to keep all of the presents for him and his friends

at the time I was more ignorant then I am now but I was critical of both of them and felt indifferent I didn't like either of them and felt it didn't matter because IL would go to Obama anyway

[shadowy]

People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.

It's kinda funny that most real leftists i know would agree with all your anti-government/authority speeches.

[Silverhandorder]

It's kinda funny that most real leftists i know would agree with all your anti-government/authority speeches.

I would agree with all their speeches too. Their solutions I find lacking :(.

[shock223]

the left is powerful right now because they offer solutions that people identify with. they identify with the people losing their jobs and the public reach out to them.

fundamentally, the Left has always been a proponent of expanding the government (and by doing so, making more jobs). while i disagree with their solutions, i do understand that the public is looking for a group that can save them from going into the poor house or at lest doing something to keep their heads above water (water being bills) comparative to the Republican response which is "The market will fix it's self!, leave it alone" which the public takes as counter productive to their lives (and seeing as the Republican party is suffering a bit of a shakedown, it'll

the public doesn't care about broad economics right now, they have immediate needs like how to keep the bills down and keep their job and willing to elected anyone who promises that.

note that once the economy is back and rolling (and the republicans get their act together), we will start to see a slow swing to the right again.

[Vanno]

I refuse to acknowledge the term left; it is meaningless. Refine your question, and I will happily add my perspective.

[Gloomrender]

Well public and university (and to a large extent community college) education is highly biased towards the left, for one thing. So people are kind of brainwashed towards the supremacy of leftist ideas by their educators from a young age. That right there accounts for a lot of it. There's also what someone already mentioned...the left gives false hope to poor/lower middle class people, of which there are a large number of. And then there's the promotion by various entities/organizations/institutions of the marxist "future paradise" fantasy...that communism/socialism will create a utopia via some form of magical channeling or something (it certainly isn't grounded in political logic or historical precedent, so magic is what's left, looking at it realistically). All of these things perpetuate each other in a synergistic fashion, and voila, you have millions of delusional socialist/communist drones, with no sense about the real consequences of their political philosophy in reality (which is, ultimately, authoritarian/totalitarian/Orwellian, freedom-oppressive, and dystopian regimes...that no one of sound mind would want to live in).

[Sqarak]

Well public and university (and to a large extent community college) education is highly biased towards the left, for one thing. So people are kind of brainwashed towards the supremacy of leftist ideas by their educators from a young age. That right there accounts for a lot of it. There's also what someone already mentioned...the left gives false hope to poor/lower middle class people, of which there are a large number of. And then there's the promotion by various entities/organizations/institutions of the marxist "future paradise" fantasy...that communism/socialism will create a utopia via some form of magical channeling or something (it certainly isn't grounded in political logic or historical precedent, so magic is what's left, looking at it realistically). All of these things perpetuate each other in a synergistic fashion, and voila, you have millions of delusional socialist/communist drones, with no sense about the real consequences of their political philosophy in reality (which is, ultimately, authoritarian/totalitarian/Orwellian, freedom-oppressive, and dystopian regimes...that no one of sound mind would want to live in).

Any form of political orientation can turn into a authoritarian, freedom-oppressive, dystopian regime.
Any form of government needs to balanced out in its issues. The left/ right vision is a failed and archaic one. You cannot cut every forest and dump plutonium wherever you want to, neither can you force a ban on all oil and turn to wind to make everything work. All issues need a balanced approach.

Some of you should be rather more worried on why so many countries have so much funding to stuff we as citizens are not allowed to know about.
If your partner would be using your money knowingly but flat out refuses to tell you on what you either slap em around or dump them right on the spot. However from a government most accept it blindly.

I do realise that it is easier to beat someone up than to figure out the average government structure, but when I check some of these political troll-fests I cannot help but notice how many of you just cling to symbols and yet blame the other side of being blindly compliant.

[Wickfield]

I'm going to be honest here:

The left is cool because of Europe.

Think about it, what do all democrats want more than anything?
To be considered cool by the European powers.
And this idea appeals to a lot of people -- so they all subscribe.

Specifically, they'll bash America til' they're blue, complain about how we're not like [insert smaller and incomparable European nation], and how we should do things like them. OR they'll complain and then offer no solution to the problem except: "Well THEY can do it, why can't we?"

-Sorry dumbass, we're just not them.

[Wickfield]

I'm going to be dishonest here:

I just ate a panda for breakfast. Now I'm going to go skydiving in space. brb.

[Barbarossa]

Because some people think it's hip and cool to be left.

Not unlike the hippies of the 60's...o wait, they're the ones running the fucking country now.

[Gloomrender]

Any form of political orientation can turn into a authoritarian, freedom-oppressive, dystopian regime.

That doesn't make much sense. If you have a political orientation (for an entire country, which would seem to be what you're talking about, vs a single person) that favors freedom, liberty, and equality, then you have a different society as a result than if you have a political orientation such as communism, which consequently makes for a society of the aforementioned regime nature.

Any form of government needs to balanced out in its issues. The left/ right vision is a failed and archaic one. You cannot cut every forest and dump plutonium wherever you want to, neither can you force a ban on all oil and turn to wind to make everything work. All issues need a balanced approach.

Yet you're still using it yourself...you refer to a "balanced approach", which is still placed upon that left/right spectrum. I agree that "left" and "right" have been devalued in their respective meanings, however the difference is discernible and the extremes are still easily identified on that spectrum. So we know that extremely far left is socialism/communism, while extremely far right is understood to be fascism. Now while I would argue they're both very similar ultimately, and that this spectrum is flawed on that basis; in general, the two opposite sides are commonly understood on the left/right spectrum. So It's not in any way inaccurate to use left, socialist, and communist to describe a certain mindset of a person.

Some of you should be rather more worried on why so many countries have so much funding to stuff we as citizens are not allowed to know about.
If your partner would be using your money knowingly but flat out refuses to tell you on what you either slap em around or dump them right on the spot. However from a government most accept it blindly.

This ties directly into the political philosophy/ies at current discussion. These people that want to make a communist utopia want to have their way with the money/power of the people, with or without their consent, and in ways that in general go against their rights and interests.


I do realise that it is easier to beat someone up than to figure out the average government structure,

This is rather vague and meaningless. "Figure out the average government structure"? Right now the "average government structure" is trending towards socialism/communism. Perhaps It's "easier" to not know what the fuck is going on...you would seem to be in this category by making such an inane non-statement. This IS the kind of important thing we should talking about right now...how our government is changing, in what ways, why, and what we can do about it, if anything.

I haven't heard such a meaningless phrase since "Tighten up the graphics".


but when I check some of these political troll-fests I cannot help but notice how many of you just cling to symbols and yet blame the other side of being blindly compliant.

You're the one making worthless rejections of common political vernacular, and meaningless vague statements, as if they were somehow more important than perhaps the most important subject/debate of our generation. Ignorant people like you just impede the legitimate efforts of others to understand their world. If you have anything real to say, say it, otherwise you should just shut the fuck up and not get in the way of a real conversation. In practice, you're the real "troll" here.

[Kusghuul]

But it appeals to people? The whole "everyone has the same chance" bsns.

[shadowy]

That doesn't make much sense. If you have a political orientation (for an entire country, which would seem to be what you're talking about, vs a single person) that favors freedom, liberty, and equality, then you have a different society as a result than if you have a political orientation such as communism, which consequently makes for a society of the aforementioned regime nature.


Many "democratic"/capitalistic regimes that were setup with those ideas in mind have failed and become dictatorships/totalitarian regimes too.


Yet you're still using it yourself...you refer to a "balanced approach", which is still placed upon that left/right spectrum. I agree that "left" and "right" have been devalued in their respective meanings, however the difference is discernible and the extremes are still easily identified on that spectrum. So we know that extremely far left is socialism/communism, while extremely far right is understood to be fascism. Now while I would argue they're both very similar ultimately, and that this spectrum is flawed on that basis; in general, the two opposite sides are commonly understood on the left/right spectrum. So It's not in any way inaccurate to use left, socialist, and communist to describe a certain mindset of a person.


Absolute monarchies are closer to the far right than facism, facism has been referred to as the "third way" that doesn't really fit into the left/right scale but like you said, the whole left/right thing is flawed because it's very hard to define modern politics with it.


This ties directly into the political philosophy/ies at current discussion. These people that want to make a communist utopia want to have their way with the money/power of the people, with or without their consent, and in ways that in general go against their rights and interests.


Socialism and communism as ideas aren't about totalitarianism or centralization of power and wealth(Exactly the opposite) but many regimes have used their message to setup totalitarian states.

[Grunties]

He who controls education and the media controls the universe.

[jonyak]

I blame the liberals.

[Justinian]

I am somewhat surprised by how popular Keynesian and even Socialist political opinions are

I believe that people are attracted to it because it coincides with their values.

a more fanatical example of this is in the 16th and 17th century when the Copernican heliocentric universe idea had been supported by Galileo and both men had evidence of their findings

the large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view because it agreed with their values which happened to be religious values

I think it would be best if everybody stopped letting personal and cultural values influence science

that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't worry if an experiment they are doing on a human being is ethical or not

It panders to the instinct that human beings have leftover from the past when we were much more communo-central. It's the old altruism instinct. It cannot apply on such a massive scale, though. That's what people don't understand.

[Sqarak]

That doesn't make much sense. If you have a political orientation (for an entire country, which would seem to be what you're talking about, vs a single person) that favors freedom, liberty, and equality, then you have a different society as a result than if you have a political orientation such as communism, which consequently makes for a society of the aforementioned regime nature.

I'm yet to see a successful attempt in creating a society that favours freedom, liberty and equality. In every system there is corruption and it is just a matter of time until it begins to spread.
You also seem to forget that a society is more than just political orientation. You also have to include human behaviour. Some people have a greater tendency to follow and others have a greater tendency to lead.

If one person is charismatic enough to convince other people to strife for more individual power over other, your little utopian society will collapse.

My point is that the existence of an utopia or a dystopia has nothing to do with politics, but more with human behaviour.







Yet you're still using it yourself...you refer to a "balanced approach", which is still placed upon that left/right spectrum. I agree that "left" and "right" have been devalued in their respective meanings, however the difference is discernible and the extremes are still easily identified on that spectrum. So we know that extremely far left is socialism/communism, while extremely far right is understood to be fascism. Now while I would argue they're both very similar ultimately, and that this spectrum is flawed on that basis; in general, the two opposite sides are commonly understood on the left/right spectrum. So It's not in any way inaccurate to use left, socialist, and communist to describe a certain mindset of a person.

I just feel that parties should quit shunning or embracing certain issues solely on the basis of whether they may be considered right or left.

This ties directly into the political philosophy/ies at current discussion. These people that want to make a communist utopia want to have their way with the money/power of the people, with or without their consent, and in ways that in general go against their rights and interests.

Still fail to see what this has to do specifically with communism. A facist dictatorship does just the same.
Again this is more due to human behaviour than politics. Many people are very willing to hand all power and the responsibility that comes with it to the leading few. So the outcome depends on leading few their choices, not on their political orientation.




This is rather vague and meaningless. "Figure out the average government structure"? Right now the "average government structure" is trending towards socialism/communism. Perhaps It's "easier" to not know what the fuck is going on...you would seem to be in this category by making such an inane non-statement. This IS the kind of important thing we should talking about right now...how our government is changing, in what ways, why, and what we can do about it, if anything.

There is nothing vague about it. For many people the government structure is complicated. You can call them as lazy or dumb as you want to, but not all people have to capacity or the willingness spend time on grasping it.
Most can still handle the fact that there is a head of state and a government that makes the decisions. Once you start talking about senates, councils and the different levels such as national, federal, provincial,etc they often get that odd blank stare.
This is not something specifically common to leftwing supporters, this is again human behaviour.




You're the one making worthless rejections of common political vernacular, and meaningless vague statements, as if they were somehow more important than perhaps the most important subject/debate of our generation. Ignorant people like you just impede the legitimate efforts of others to understand their world. If you have anything real to say, say it, otherwise you should just shut the fuck up and not get in the way of a real conversation. In practice, you're the real "troll" here.

I'm not making any rejections, I'm just wondering why people persist on pinning many traits on left or right while they have nothing to do with politics, but more with social psychology and human behaviour.

The reason I refer to these threads as political troll-fests is because there is little discussion and more effort to undermine each other, which is sad, because political discussions can be interesting if people at least try to listen to each other.
But forgive me oh wise master that I impede on your absolute wisdom.

[Glaive]

Because some people think it's hip and cool to be left.

Not unlike the hippies of the 60's...o wait, they're the ones running the fucking country now.


Actually, it's hip and cool to be a libertarian nowadays and bash the Obama administration! Get with the times, man!

[Justinian]

Actually, it's hip and cool to be a libertarian nowadays and bash the Obama administration! Get with the times, man!

yeah because the libertarians didn't bash the Bush administration at all, right? Right, guy? Or any other administration?

[Glaive]

yeah because the libertarians didn't bash the Bush administration at all, right? Right, guy? Or any other administration?


I'm sure they did! Liberals bashed him too, and it sure was hip doing it! Now that Obama is President, liberals can no longer bash the government, but the libertarians can. Therefore, it's hip to be libertarian!

[Seesawmcgraw]

I don't know sqarak you think we are blindly ideological by wanting liberty freedom and equality well I figure these things are default because we had them when we were still in the trees.

So you do acknowledge that in order for socialism to work you need to successfully spin the roulette wheel and land on benevolent genius. but you don't see that as a serious flaw? Even people who start off benevolent get corrupted by power.

And just about every time someone from the left blames the free market for something it isn't the free markets fault it is on some level because of government

society is flawed but you can't blame the free market just like people who hate McDonald's well why do you hate McDonald's if they made their meals healthy people wouldn't buy them and someone else would take their place and I'd be pissed if they banned fast food altogether I'm fit and every once in a while when you are in a hurry and short on cash it's nice

nobody is forcing bigmacs down your throat I mean everybody with half a brain knows it isn't healthy for you they offer a tasty product at a reasonable price and if you think obesity in America is the fault of anyone but the obese Americans themselves you are mistaken

but yet there is all this propaganda treating them like they are criminals and took over the world it's easily to criticize but it isn't McDonald's that is flawed
and of course they are going to advertise but so do beer companies and they don't get blamed for alcoholism

[holychicken]

The left is so popular because the right has been in bed with the religious nutters and social conservatives (whom are not really conservative at all) for years.

[Jezrith]

Well public and university (and to a large extent community college) education is highly biased towards the left, for one thing. So people are kind of brainwashed towards the supremacy of leftist ideas by their educators from a young age.

This. I was talking a friend who is working on her masters degree and she is taking an economics class this semester. I asked her what she was studying and she said it was mainly Keynesian. I just /facepalmed at that point...

[jonyak]

This. I was talking a friend who is working on her masters degree and she is taking an economics class this semester. I asked her what she was studying and she said it was mainly Keynesian. I just /facepalmed at that point...

I am not saying your form of economics is wrong...

but isn't it funny that the best teaching/learning institutes on the face of the earth all teach the opposites of what you beleive? if that is actualy the case.

what makes you think your idea's are more intelligent than some of the smartest econimists in the world?

[Seesawmcgraw]

I am not saying your form of economics is wrong...

but isn't it funny that the best teaching/learning institutes on the face of the earth all teach the opposites of what you beleive? if that is actualy the case.

what makes you think your idea's are more intelligent than some of the smartest econimists in the world?

Their track record for one

The Austrian School has made so many accurate predictions before things have happened and have sound economic reasoning behind them

Keynesian economics is full of poetic language and has a worse track record

What you're suggesting is like saying "well he's the president after all he must know what he's doing"

edit: also this (http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html)

[Silverhandorder]

I am not saying your form of economics is wrong...

but isn't it funny that the best teaching/learning institutes on the face of the earth all teach the opposites of what you beleive? if that is actualy the case.

what makes you think your idea's are more intelligent than some of the smartest econimists in the world?

Austrian economics have their own institutes that are well recognized. Some of the most prominent professors in America have PHDs in Austrian economics.

That aside government promotes Keynesian economics over Austrian.

[Matriel]

Most people are educated by collectivist institutions. It makes sense that they grow up with a favorable view of such a system.

I visited Sweden's system as a 16 year old and thought it was awesome. Then I got a job and started paying taxes.

[jonyak]

Most people are educated by collectivist institutions. It makes sense that they grow up with a favorable view of such a system.

I visited Sweden's system as a 16 year old and thought it was awesome. Then I got a job and started paying taxes.

but as a professor in a school, would you not have done multiple years of studying both philosophies and picked one to beleive in based on studying both?

[Matriel]

but as a professor in a school, would you not have done multiple years of studying both philosophies and picked one to beleive in based on studying both?

Or you pick the one that you were taught as the right one that helps to perpetuate the same system you are now a part of?

Or as the old saying goes. Those that can, do, those that can't, teach.

[Slypieguy]

It's popular because being a socialist class warfare solider is cool/chic, and pretty much anyone with a brain who isn't 70+ yrs old is socially liberal.

[Razel]

this

lots of lazy ass mother fuckers.. that just LOVE the taste of gubment dick

yup, right now everythign looks like free money, candy, snowflakes and lots of free hay to consume. People dont think about what all that fluff is gona cost them ultimately, most noteably their freedom. Perpetuating the madness by choosing a football team to follow off a cliff don't help. e.g. a party.

[WhiteF1ame]

The left is the party of entitlements, everyone wants a piece of the pie even if they don't deserve it.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

I am not saying your form of economics is wrong...

but isn't it funny that the best teaching/learning institutes on the face of the earth all teach the opposites of what you beleive? if that is actualy the case.

what makes you think your idea's are more intelligent than some of the smartest econimists in the world?

Hasn't it occured to you thats its (Keynsian economics) pushed so hard because it agrees with a particular agenda.. one that leftist academics furiously beleive.

The vast majority of what Keynes believed has been proven wrong time and time again... If you cant bother to look that up.. you probably shouldnt be on the thread.

[iza]

MAYBE the left is so popular because it's an equally (if not more) valid/rational/beneficial stance?



guhhhhh, no, they must all be brainwashed and ignorant...

[Milo Hobgoblin]

MAYBE the left is so popular because it's an equally (if not more) valid/rational/beneficial stance?



guhhhhh, no, they must all be brainwashed and ignorant...

This...


Please explain how its rational to punish those who produce the most to reward those who produce little if anything?


By admittting this you are openly stating that all people are NOT equal.. which violates the basic tenet of your philosophy..

Because if all people were equal in aptitude and intelligence.. the ONLY reason those who cannot compete fail.. is because they are lazy..

in which case your dogma is rewarding the lazy by taking from the producers..



so which is it? because you have no other choice.

[Seesawmcgraw]

MAYBE the left is so popular because it's an equally (if not more) valid/rational/beneficial stance?



guhhhhh, no, they must all be brainwashed and ignorant...

Oh do go on I would like to debate you on the actual validity and rationality of big government and whether or not it actually benefits the common man

[Silverhandorder]

This...


Please explain how its rational to punish those who produce the most to reward those who produce little if anything?


By admittting this you are openly stating that all people are NOT equal.. which violates the basic tenet of your philosophy..

Because if all people were equal in aptitude and intelligence.. the ONLY reason those who cannot compete fail.. is because they are lazy..

in which case your dogma is rewarding the lazy by taking from the producers..



so which is it? because you have no other choice.
No no you got it all wrong. We are not equal but we all have a human right to enjoy the benefits that people richer then us have. Yeah the evolution of liberal ideology in the making, everything is a human right today.

It is my human right to receive pleasure from women by raping them!!!111!!!!

[Milo Hobgoblin]

Its just kills me that leftist dogma is so flawed at its basic core.. it screams equality but forces it upon society because it otherwise doesnt exist.

People are simply not equal.. but leftists will never admit this... doing so creates a catch-22 for their entire philiosophy.

[Tibernicus]

I am somewhat surprised by how popular Keynesian and even Socialist political opinions are

I believe that people are attracted to it because it coincides with their values.

a more fanatical example of this is in the 16th and 17th century when the Copernican heliocentric universe idea had been supported by Galileo and both men had evidence of their findings

the large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view because it agreed with their values which happened to be religious values

I think it would be best if everybody stopped letting personal and cultural values influence science

that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't worry if an experiment they are doing on a human being is ethical or not

Because its easier, idealistic, and "good". Realistic however, it is not.

[Sqarak]

I don't know sqarak you think we are blindly ideological by wanting liberty freedom and equality well I figure these things are default because we had them when we were still in the trees.
Some here sound like they believe that liberty, freedom and equality is truly achievable and maintainable and they start bitching on everyone who even dares to question their delusional little utopia.
Pinning down all woes of human society on one political orientation makes it even more ridiculous.




So you do acknowledge that in order for socialism to work you need to successfully spin the roulette wheel and land on benevolent genius. but you don't see that as a serious flaw? Even people who start off benevolent get corrupted by power.

That serious flaw is a human one. To repeat myself, I just like to point out that human behaviour has more influence on a society than the fact that they are socialist, liberal, conservative, etc.



I just don't get the overall fixation with socialism that's been plaguing these forums lately. The definition of socialism depends apparently on where you live in the world and half of the arguments people bring up here against socialism has to more to do with an authoritarian state model, which is something completely different from a political orientation.

[Matriel]

Some here sound like they believe that liberty, freedom and equality is truly achievable and maintainable and they start bitching on everyone who even dares to question their delusional little utopia.
Pinning down all woes of human society on one political orientation makes it even more ridiculous.


So, why are liberty, freedom, and equality unattainable?

I don't know any Libertarian-esque people who believe that an individually free political setup would be an utopia. It would have its great share of shitty things just like any other system. It simply remains the system that is the most free for the individual.

I guess though that system is so scary to statist retards they have to throw out shit like utopia to discredit it in round about ways instead of attacking the thing they hate most. The idea that an individual is a sovereign entity...

[Sqarak]

So, why are liberty, freedom, and equality unattainable?

I don't know any Libertarian-esque people who believe that an individually free political setup would be an utopia. It would have its great share of shitty things just like any other system. It simply remains the system that is the most free for the individual.

I guess though that system is so scary to statist retards they have to throw out shit like utopia to discredit it in round about ways instead of attacking the thing they hate most. The idea that an individual is a sovereign entity...

liberty, freedom and equality are fairly possible to achieve, but very hard to maintain to it's fullest without breaching one of the three ethos that said society is based on.

Not every individual will feel itself as equal to others.
To maintain liberty and freedom you should allow the individual to be different from the others. This might make other people feel less equal and equality is pretty much done for it.
To maintain equality you might want to remove the individual from the society, but this is in contradiction with liberty and freedom.
And so on and so on.

That is why it is called in it's most strictest form an utopia. Sounds nice on paper, is unmaintainable unless we find a way to permanently alter human behaviour.
Of course no sensible person would take this in its most strictest form. A society that nurtures liberty, freedom and equality is of course more realistic, but I'm not sure how well some people here would handle equality.

[Butcher]

its popular because people are going through shit right now
But if you were rolling around in money, you seriously woundt give a fuck about left or right or whatever

[Matriel]

liberty, freedom and equality are fairly possible to achieve, but very hard to maintain to it's fullest without breaching one of the three ethos that said society is based on.

Not every individual will feel itself as equal to others.
To maintain liberty and freedom you should allow the individual to be different from the others. This might make other people feel less equal and equality is pretty much done for it.
To maintain equality you might want to remove the individual from the society, but this is in contradiction with liberty and freedom.
And so on and so on.

Equality doesn't mean everyone is equal. It means they have equal rights. Obviously not everyone can be a pro-baseball player. And your envy doesn't give you a right to another's property.

It's not a contradiction at all if you don't have a made up definition of some kind retarded utopia (to steal your line) in your head.

That is why it is called in it's most strictest form an utopia. Sounds nice on paper, is unmaintainable unless we find a way to permanently alter human behaviour.
Of course no sensible person would take this in its most strictest form. A society that nurtures liberty, freedom and equality is of course more realistic, but I'm not sure how well some people here would handle equality.

You need to replace your definition of equality with one that's based in reality.

[Ziegler]

I am somewhat surprised by how popular Keynesian and even Socialist political opinions are



People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.


Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

and


Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.



Your question was answered long ago.

[Sqarak]

Equality doesn't mean everyone is equal. It means they have equal rights.


Rights like what? The right for decent housing? The right for proper medical care? The right to believe whatever you want or want not to believe? The right to vote? The right to choose whatever legal partner you want to choose?

Most of these things are pretty basic things that are essential for a equal society, yet I bet some people will feel the need to curb those rights and succeed at it...oh wait that already happened.

[Silverhandorder]

Rights like what? The right for decent housing? The right for proper medical care? The right to believe whatever you want or want not to believe? The right to vote? The right to choose whatever legal partner you want to choose?

Most of these things are pretty basic things that are essential for a equal society, yet I bet some people will feel the need to curb those rights and succeed at it...oh wait that already happened.

GTFO right to decent housing? Housing is not a right. That alone will end up causing a violent revolution. Fucking good for nothing liberals think they have a right to decent housing. For that matter medical care is not a right either.

[Sqarak]

GTFO right to decent housing? Housing is not a right. That alone will end up causing a violent revolution. Fucking good for nothing liberals think they have a right to decent housing. For that matter medical care is not a right either.
:lmao:

I some countries it is, not always free though.

[Silverhandorder]

:lmao:

I some countries it is, not always free though.

Well I don' give a shit what it is in other countries. From a moral standpoint it is not a right. Therefore it does not have to be given in a libertarian society that views everyone as equals under the law.

[shadowy]

Please explain how its rational to punish those who produce the most to reward those who produce little if anything?

That's one of the key arguments of Marxism, why should the land/business owner benefit more than the worker that produces the stuff that the aforementioned land/business owner then uses to line his pockets with cash. This is a prime example why all the arguments about "left wing" are so entertaining, so many different and even exclusive terms/philosophies under the same name. ;)

[Silverhandorder]

That's one of the key arguments of Marxism, why should the land/business owner benefit more than the worker that produces the stuff that the aforementioned land/business owner then uses to line his pockets with cash. This is a prime example why all the arguments about "left wing" are so entertaining, so many different and even exclusive terms/philosophies under the same name. ;)

My answer would be if the workers can do without the owner let them go ahead and do it. It is not alright to infringe on the freedom of owners just because you got a raw deal. Want to prove them wrong build up your own worker run company. You do not have a right to force the owner out with the force of government. For that matter you do not have the right to punish the producer of ideas and the risk taker because you are poor/labor/sick.

[Helgeran]

Equality doesn't mean everyone is equal. It means they have equal rights.
If everyone embraced this a lot of really weird political standpoints would disasappear from both the left and the right.

[shadowy]

My answer would be if the workers can do without the owner let them go ahead and do it.

That's exactly what happens in many fields where it's possible(IT, Doctors etc.), in low paying fields of work the workers rarely got enough capital to do that.

It is not alright to infringe on the freedom of owners just because you got a raw deal. Want to prove them wrong build up your own worker run company. You do not have a right to force the owner out with the force of government. For that matter you do not have the right to punish the producer of ideas and the risk taker because you are poor/labor/sick.

What are you talking about? I didn't talk anything about infringing on their freedom did i?

If everyone embraced this a lot of really weird political standpoints would disappear from both the left and the right.

The bigger question is what kind of rights people should have. :)

[Seesawmcgraw]

Rights like what? The right for decent housing? The right for proper medical care? The right to believe whatever you want or want not to believe? The right to vote? The right to choose whatever legal partner you want to choose?

Most of these things are pretty basic things that are essential for a equal society, yet I bet some people will feel the need to curb those rights and succeed at it...oh wait that already happened.

Yeah you give me the right to decent housing and medical care and then welfare money oh Jeaze look at that I no longer have to work for a living

[jonyak]

Yeah you give me the right to decent housing and medical care and then welfare money oh Jeaze look at that I no longer have to work for a living

someone is projecting.

I would still work.

I liek to work.

not everyone is a lazy slob with no self dicipline.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

someone is projecting.

I would still work.

I liek to work.

You apparently do not realize that you are the exception.. millions of people on the dole in Canada more than prove that.

[Silverhandorder]

That's exactly what happens in many fields where it's possible(IT, Doctors etc.), in low paying fields of work the workers rarely got enough capital to do that.



What are you talking about? I didn't talk anything about infringing on their freedom did i?



The bigger question is what kind of rights people should have. :)
That was a general comment towards marxists not the poster :p.

someone is projecting.

I would still work.

I liek to work.

not everyone is a lazy slob with no self dicipline.

I would work too. I have more worthwhile goals in life then being a leech. Unfortunately many liberals view parasitic life as the epitome of existence. They don't admit it but they follow it.

[jonyak]

I would work too. I have more worthwhile goals in life then being a leech. Unfortunately many liberals view parasitic life as the epitome of existence. They don't admit it but they follow it.

many liberals I know do not view the parasitic life like that.

in fact I have never met a single person who is liek what you say.

I have seen a couple, but I would venture to say they are probably to stupid to even know what a political spectrum was, let alone place themselves on it anywhere.

[Jezrith]

I am not saying your form of economics is wrong...

but isn't it funny that the best teaching/learning institutes on the face of the earth all teach the opposites of what you beleive? if that is actualy the case.


Actually, the best economics schools don't teach the opposite of Austrian Economics. Misses, Rothbard, Hayek etc. are included in the curriculum. Third rate institutions, not so much...


what makes you think your idea's are more intelligent than some of the smartest econimists in the world?

You do realize that some of the economists I agree with just happen to be Nobel Prize winners, right?

[jonyak]

Actually, the best economics schools don't teach the opposite of Austrian Economics. Misses, Rothbard, Hayek etc. are included in the curriculum. Third rate institutions, not so much...



You do realize that some of the economists I agree with just happen to be Nobel Prize winners, right?

Well thats good.. I didn't know.

I am just wondering why, some of the smartest people in the world think one way, yet people on the forums think they are apparently idiots.

I mean there opinion must have some merit... they must have studied both systems to come to a conclusion...

[Jezrith]

Well thats good.. I didn't know.

I am just wondering why, some of the smartest people in the world think one way, yet people on the forums think they are apparently idiots.


It's mainly because some of the smartest people in the world think the those people are full of crap.


I mean there opinion must have some merit... they must have studied both systems to come to a conclusion...

The same could be said of Austrian Economists as well.

[Silverhandorder]

many liberals I know do not view the parasitic life like that.

in fact I have never met a single person who is liek what you say.

I have seen a couple, but I would venture to say they are probably to stupid to even know what a political spectrum was, let alone place themselves on it anywhere.

Mmmmk so you would be for degenerate tax? At the very least flat percentage?

[jonyak]

Mmmmk so you would be for degenerate tax? At the very least flat percentage?

I would rather a flat percentage...

but I have no problems with the way it is now.

[ZeaL-]

Their track record for one

The Austrian School has made so many accurate predictions before things have happened and have sound economic reasoning behind them

Keynesian economics is full of poetic language and has a worse track record


irony

Also, it's funny reading about how dogmatic leftists are in this thread. When all the opinions are coming from diehard right wing tards.

[Silverhandorder]

I would rather a flat percentage...

but I have no problems with the way it is now.

That is a problem that you have no problem with low income earners being parasites to high income earners.

[Jezrith]

irony


It was ironic, but he is right.

[jonyak]

That is a problem that you have no problem with low income earners being parasites to high income earners.

the difference is in how we look at it I guess.

I look at it as if I am giving people with less opportunities, more opportunities to pull themselves out of being poor.

Sure some of them will never do it, but some will, and I will have helped them make a better life for themselves.

in turn, if I ever lose my job, get injured and need assistance, it will be there for me to fall back on.

[Silverhandorder]

the difference is in how we look at it I guess.

I look at it as if I am giving people with less opportunities, more opportunities to pull themselves out of being poor.

Sure some of them will never do it, but some will, and I will have helped them make a better life for themselves.

in turn, if I ever lose my job, get injured and need assistance, it will be there for me to fall back on.


You giving them opportunity with some one elses money...

[ZeaL-]

the difference is in how we look at it I guess.

I look at it as if I am giving people with less opportunities, more opportunities to pull themselves out of being poor.

Sure some of them will never do it, but some will, and I will have helped them make a better life for themselves.

in turn, if I ever lose my job, get injured and need assistance, it will be there for me to fall back on.

He doesn't get it yet because he's living off his parents money which comes from the government.

[jonyak]

You giving them opportunity with some one elses money...

no, with my money. the money I pay in taxes.

everyone else is free to not pay taxes and leave the country if they don't like it.

[Silverhandorder]

no, with my money. the money I pay in taxes.

everyone else is free to not pay taxes and leave the country if they don't like it.

I find it troubling that you can not draw the distinction that even though you pay your taxes you still shift your tax burden on other people by supporting progressive tax. The fact that you do not even recognize that concept is rather troubling.

I am well aware that people are free to leave if they do not agree. That has nothing to do with the argument. Force is still present when you force either or choice on people.

[jonyak]

I find it troubling that you can not draw the distinction that even though you pay your taxes you still shift your tax burden on other people by supporting progressive tax. The fact that you do not even recognize that concept is rather troubling.

I am well aware that people are free to leave if they do not agree. That has nothing to do with the argument. Force is still present when you force either or choice on people.

Yet you would love to force your political ideologies on me...

The rich are still rich, despite how much tax they pay.

[Silverhandorder]

Yet you would love to force your political ideologies on me...

The rich are still rich, despite how much tax they pay.

Well excuse me the initiator of force is you. I am simply living my life and all of a sudden some punk comes along saying he wants social program X Y and Z. On top of that he wants me to also contribute more to paying for it.

By simply refusing to follow your orders I am not forcing my ideology on you, I am returning things to how they are. You have other options available to you. You can become part of a community that voluntarily comes together without coercion. You can loby for a voluntary tax that would cover your program. It is not really my problem to find ways you can be satisfied with your ideology. However I have a right to live free without any force to be initiated by government on your behalf.

[jonyak]

Well excuse me the initiator of force is you. I am simply living my life and all of a sudden some punk comes along saying he wants social program X Y and Z. On top of that he wants me to also contribute more to paying for it.

By simply refusing to follow your orders I am not forcing my ideology on you, I am returning things to how they are. You have other options available to you. You can become part of a community that voluntarily comes together without coercion. You can loby for a voluntary tax that would cover your program. It is not really my problem to find ways you can be satisfied with your ideology. However I have a right to live free without any force to be initiated by government on your behalf.

your gov't would tell you otherwise.

you focus too much on one part of what your taxes pay for.

why not focus your anger on your military spending?

[Silverhandorder]

your gov't would tell you otherwise.

you focus too much on one part of what your taxes pay for.

why not focus your anger on your military spending?

I am confused as to what you are suggesting. What that otherwise may be in a libertarian government?

I am addressing the general idea of where my taxes go. Whether I focus my anger at social programs or military spending is irrelevant.

You may have a point about military spending tho since how do you maintain a government without military. And if you make budget for that from voluntary taxes how do you morally justify coming to the aid of citizens who did not contribute to the military. On the other hand how do you morally justify not coming to the aid of your own brethren. Legally it is justified just like the misplaced justification for welfare. It is one of the power that government can exercise and it is plainly written in the constitution with no room for error. This would be a cop out argument tho since we just went to it is like that because the constitution says but why does constitution have to say it? There I would find a harder time providing an answer.

My best explanation to this is that it is still an irrelevant subject. Me and you are arguing about tax burden and not the justification of taxes.

[Seesawmcgraw]

the difference is in how we look at it I guess.

I look at it as if I am giving people with less opportunities, more opportunities to pull themselves out of being poor.

Sure some of them will never do it, but some will, and I will have helped them make a better life for themselves.

in turn, if I ever lose my job, get injured and need assistance, it will be there for me to fall back on.

How do they have less opportunities they can go to community college and get a decent job they either spend their money foolishly or get knocked up usually both

How is giving them money helping them help themselves? And you can get insurance and or you can save some of your money to give you something to fall back on.

I support Thomas Sowell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI)'s view on this


What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail. In so far as they fail, they receive the money. In so far as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away.

This is extended into the school system where they will give money to schools with low scores. In so far as the school improves its education the money is taken away. So that you are subsidizing people to fail in their own private lives and become more dependent upon the handouts

He goes on to point out that illegitimacy has gone way up since these welfare programs started

also look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfwmGhBbuFw) but skip to 1:55 it's what they call the low wage trap shows the earnings vs net income and how fucked up it is in Pennsylvania

[Sqarak]

Yeah you give me the right to decent housing and medical care and then welfare money oh Jeaze look at that I no longer have to work for a living

You confuse having the right to something with a free handout.
The right to decent housing could also protect you when you rent something. For example, it can be used to make sure all buildings that are rented out meet certain safety standards, etc.
The right on medical care on the other hand also assures you that they cannot deny medical care because of genre,ethnicity, nationality, etc

Whether this is always free or not is something completely different.

[Jezrith]

no, with my money. the money I pay in taxes.


Your money along with the money you choose to take from other people.


everyone else is free to not pay taxes and leave the country if they don't like it.

Having force used against you to deprive you of your property is the exact opposite of being "free".

[Poacher]

People in Brituhn vote left because to them right means BNP and Hitler :(

I recall being told once it was because ole Maggie tried to go too far right and that's why she was ousted and the country became a PC cesspit!

[DougDread]

When I am poor I will vote left for free money, benefits, and reduced tax (not that I will likely pay much anyway).

When I become well off or better, I will vote right so that I am favored for less tax on my loot. Fuck the poor.

Simple economics makes politics easy.

[Seesawmcgraw]

You confuse having the right to something with a free handout.
The right to decent housing could also protect you when you rent something. For example, it can be used to make sure all buildings that are rented out meet certain safety standards, etc.
The right on medical care on the other hand also assures you that they cannot deny medical care because of genre,ethnicity, nationality, etc

Whether this is always free or not is something completely different.

I think you are confused with the definition of rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right
Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature.

Not everyone has a right to decent housing it's an economic privilege some people do fine living in their car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDJ2tGA4F8)

Furthermore I don't see why anyone would mention the "right for decent housing" if they didn't mean subsidized housing I would like to see a country that has outlawed decent houses

[StrawberryClock]

When I am poor I will vote left for free money, benefits, and reduced tax (not that I will likely pay much anyway).

When I become well off or better, I will vote right so that I am favored for less tax on my loot. Fuck the poor.

Simple economics makes politics easy.

Why does everyone disregard social issues when talking left and right.

When I want more personal(non economic, non-gun related freedom) I vote left, but whenever I want religious-based social conservatism I vote right.

That should also do it.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Why does everyone disregard social issues when talking left and right.

When I want more personal(non economic, non-gun related freedom) I vote left, but whenever I want religious-based social conservatism I vote right.

That should also do it.

Well I figure it's only a matter of time before gays will be allowed to marry I'm not culturally conservative I just think free enterprise is fucking great

[ZeaL-]

also look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfwmGhBbuFw) but skip to 1:55 it's what they call the low wage trap shows the earnings vs net income and how fucked up it is in Pennsylvania

That dude seems like he is a self-hating black man. Hanging out with thrifty jews...

[DougDread]

Why does everyone disregard social issues when talking left and right.

When I want more personal(non economic, non-gun related freedom) I vote left, but whenever I want religious-based social conservatism I vote right.

That should also do it.

Social issues pfft.

If I have a girlfriend who gets pregnant, I'll find an underground doctor to take care of the abortion. Then I will tell others who openly want an abortion to kill themselves and go to hell.

I am not gay so I don't give two shits about their rights.

I'll be good friends with the cops - preferential treatment for the win.

And to top it off, I will own a gun and shoot any dumbass who pisses me off - this goes well with my preferential treatment I get from the cops. Guys I would shoot are obviously on drugs and are evil to the bone.

That's why social issues don't mean shit to me when deciding sides. Only economics matters.

[Gloomrender]

Many "democratic"/capitalistic regimes that were setup with those ideas in mind have failed and become dictatorships/totalitarian regimes too.

Freedom isn't an easy path and it usually takes many failures to work. However unlike socialism/communism, it CAN WORK. Whereas communism has only lead to the downfall of every state that has attempted it. Capitalism has a far better record than communism.


Absolute monarchies are closer to the far right than facism, facism has been referred to as the "third way" that doesn't really fit into the left/right scale but like you said, the whole left/right thing is flawed because it's very hard to define modern politics with it.

Not much difference between a monarchy and fascism as far as I'm concerned. And I don't know about your country, but in mine the two extremes are communism/fascism.

Socialism and communism as ideas aren't about totalitarianism or centralization of power and wealth(Exactly the opposite) but many regimes have used their message to setup totalitarian states.

They are exactly about totalitarianism and centralization of power and wealth. The state holds the power/wealth and decides where both go, for the greater good, and how and where you can work and live. Totalitarianism. Fundamentally.



Oh geeze, he responded. Let's see what kind of stupid shit he's come up with to save forum face.


I'm yet to see a successful attempt in creating a society that favours freedom, liberty and equality.

United States for at least a hundred and fifty years. Not hard. There's more but the US is obviously the best example (and no it doesn't need to be a perfect one to qualify k thanks).

In every system there is corruption and it is just a matter of time until it begins to spread.

No society can be perfect, that doesn't mean that some aren't highly preferential over others.


You also seem to forget that a society is more than just political orientation. You also have to include human behaviour. Some people have a greater tendency to follow and others have a greater tendency to lead.

Another dumbass response. Political orientation dictates political behavior.


If one person is charismatic enough to convince other people to strife for more individual power over other, your little utopian society will collapse.

I never claimed freedom would be a utopia, for one. Two, in a truly free society people like that get cut down fast. The US constitution allows for tyrants to be killed legally.

My point is that the existence of an utopia or a dystopia has nothing to do with politics, but more with human behaviour.

Political orientation dictates human behavior. Learn2politics.



I just feel that parties should quit shunning or embracing certain issues solely on the basis of whether they may be considered right or left.

Left or right nowadays usually means extreme left or right. So that's a good basis to to shun either for different reasons.



Still fail to see what this has to do specifically with communism. A facist dictatorship does just the same.

You say that like they're the only 2 choices. They're not.

Again this is more due to human behaviour than politics. Many people are very willing to hand all power and the responsibility that comes with it to the leading few. So the outcome depends on leading few their choices, not on their political orientation.

I don't think you understand human behavior. Especially motivation. Political orientation is what makes them hand power upwards. If they had a different political orientation they wouldn't do that so willingly.



There is nothing vague about it. For many people the government structure is complicated. You can call them as lazy or dumb as you want to, but not all people have to capacity or the willingness spend time on grasping it.
Most can still handle the fact that there is a head of state and a government that makes the decisions. Once you start talking about senates, councils and the different levels such as national, federal, provincial,etc they often get that odd blank stare.
This is not something specifically common to leftwing supporters, this is again human behaviour.

So basically you're saying that being dumb is an acceptable excuse for being a communist. BS. If you commit genocide being dumb isn't an excuse for that either.



I'm not making any rejections, I'm just wondering why people persist on pinning many traits on left or right while they have nothing to do with politics, but more with social psychology and human behaviour.

Yes you are, you're rejecting the word left, obviously. Which is an accurate description of political orientation, which dictates their political behavior. It has everything to do with politics/political philosophy. You're not special because you've taken intro to psychology, you don't know something we don't, and you're wrong.


The reason I refer to these threads as political troll-fests is because there is little discussion and more effort to undermine each other, which is sad, because political discussions can be interesting if people at least try to listen to each other.
But forgive me oh wise master that I impede on your absolute wisdom.

Before your dumbass came in here denying the existence of leftists there was a fine and legitimate political discussion about the origins of leftist political philosophy in America. Fortunately there still is a good discussion going on, despite your idiotic efforts to disrupt the thread with uneducated psycho-babbling.

[Gaal]

It has been proven that people that tend to lean left in their youth slowly start to lean more right as they get older (has been found by compairing voting records threw life).

The way I see it. This is just my opinion and based on nothing.

We all know that alot of youth are rebelous. They are becoming an adult and part of the growing process is gaining individualism. They are ready to make their own path and no longer like the idea of parents (or anyone) still telling them what to do.

I think once alot of youth finaly become adults they find that no longer do their parents set the rules and guidelines so they expect the ability to have free reign on their lives only to get a sudden wake up call that this is not so. Now they have the government setting the rules as well as society. So what do they do? Rebel! The left side generaly takes the stance of "government oppresses!". They look at themselves as anti-authority wanting to gain some type of freedom with their own lives that does not exist.

When we see photos of riots who do we generaly see? Young people. Not often do you see a crowd of 50 year olds out rioting. Why is this? Do 50 year olds simply not care about the world and the things around them? I think they care just as much they just arnt under the illusion that they can change the world today. They have enough life under their belts to see that it is a slow ongoing battle where changes are slow to come and not overnight achievements.

Plus I think people (particularly youth) feel that they have to have change were as older people have invested decades in the current system and may fear fast change that could change how they have always lived life.

Let me guess, you fucking hate skateboarders don't ya?

[Seesawmcgraw]

Let me guess, you fucking hate skateboarders don't ya?

I fucking hate skateboarders and It's only been a year since I graduated from high school

[ZeaL-]

I'm glad cops now smack around annoying little skateboarders with no manners now. Otherwise we would be allowing the youth to run wild.

[Barbot]

I have no idea where some of you got the impression that colleges turn kids to the left. Around here it's quite the opposite. It's generally only the rich boys that go to college. And those colleges mirror the views of parents, which in turn pounds those views into the students' brains.

[ZeaL-]

It's generally only the rich boys that go to college.

This isn't the 1960's.....

[StrawberryClock]

I have no idea where some of you got the impression that colleges turn kids to the left. Around here it's quite the opposite. It's generally only the rich boys that go to college. And those colleges mirror the views of parents, which in turn pounds those views into the students' brains.

That's why the average american university is fail compared to the average canadian university. Rich kids and stupid people paying there way into college.

[Sqarak]

there was a fine and legitimate political discussion about the origins of leftist political philosophy in America.
point taken

[Incanam]

People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.

Or people like intelligence. Either or.

[Slypieguy]

Or people like intelligence. Either or.

Because intelligence only exists in the cranium of socialist nanny-staters :rolleyes:

[Incanam]

Because intelligence only exists in the cranium of socialist nanny-staters :rolleyes:

WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Who said anything about socialism? I thought we were talking about the left? The American political left I assume.

[Vanno]

yeah because the libertarians didn't bash the Bush administration at all, right? Right, guy? Or any other administration?

Yeah because the libertarians aren't a fringe political group at best. Libertarians are the bogeymen of the Republicans or Democrats; they can evoke the evil nebulous concept of libertarian because there aren't any around to defend their own name.

[Slypieguy]

WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Who said anything about socialism? I thought we were talking about the left? The American political left I assume.

Increasing the welfare state? check
Effectively nationalizing several traditionally private entities? check
Nationalized healthcare? On the way
Heavily taxing the rich? check

They can talk about how "moderate" and "bipartisan" they are all they want, but the fact is, they have shown an unprecedented Marxist leaning.

[Slypieguy]

Yeah because the libertarians aren't a fringe political group at best. Libertarians are the bogeymen of the Republicans or Democrats; they can evoke the evil nebulous concept of libertarian because there aren't any around to defend their own name.

Whose fault is that? Surely not the libertarian voters who try to put some into office who would then have to defend their names?

[Paralda]

Well when it comes to gay marriage and abortion they hardly have anything in common but when it comes to things like the economy and military they have alot in common in that they should be scientific in analyzing whether or not a certain program is going to do what they hope it will

Economic theory is very, very subjective. Conservative theories are no more valid than liberal theories on economics. In fact, if you look at history, they would certainly be less so (great depression, the Reagan/Bush Senior recessions, etc).

[StrawberryClock]

Economic theory is very, very subjective. Conservative theories are no more valid than liberal theories on economics. In fact, if you look at history, they would certainly be less so (great depression, the Reagan/Bush Senior recessions, etc).

Your a few miles off cuba.

No surprise teh omfgzorz evil socialism has infected you.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Economic theory is very, very subjective. Conservative theories are no more valid than liberal theories on economics. In fact, if you look at history, they would certainly be less so (great depression, the Reagan/Bush Senior recessions, etc).

All problems that were caused by government intervention if anything you are reaffirming my point Reagan/Bush Senior increased gov't spending and FDR made the depression great

[StrawberryClock]

All problems that were caused by government intervention if anything you are reaffirming my point Reagan/Bush Senior increased gov't spending and FDR made the depression great

Didn't government stringent economic control and heavy investment cure the depression? No don't reply with war because its wasting of resources was just an excuse to shell out a bundle of cash into the economy and put the country in omfg debt.

[Slypieguy]

Didn't government stringent economic control and heavy investment cure the depression?

No, it prolonged it.

[StrawberryClock]

No, it prolonged it.

That happened during war. Read the edit.

[Seesawmcgraw]

http://mises.org/story/3448
look at this

[Silverhandorder]

That happened during war. Read the edit.

No it happened before. Look to Harding for example.

http://mises.org/story/3448
look at this

Hiiissssss not fair man not fair! You can't lick some one smart that obviously agrees with you. Bias!!!!

[StrawberryClock]

No it happened before. Look to Harding for example.



Hiiissssss not fair man not fair! You can't lick some one smart that obviously agrees with you. Bias!!!!

Comprehend.

Economic control and doling out a shit-ton of cash to start up the economy happened during the war as well.

Solved the depression didn't it? Here's a nice picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png).

[Slypieguy]

ROFL @ projected 19.6 trillion debt by 2012. Is there even that much money on earth?

[StrawberryClock]

ROFL @ projected 19.6 trillion debt by 2012. Is there even that much money on earth?

That debt would either approach the japanese debt as a percent of total GDP or would insignificantly surpass it. If japan didn't fail, who says the U.S will?

It does look like they might, with the racist society and barely any immigration happening as well as the massively declining and aging population.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Comprehend.

Economic control and doling out a shit-ton of cash to start up the economy happened during the war as well.

Solved the depression didn't it? Here's a nice picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png).
Our economy got better in spite of government spending in order to prove your point you would need to show a graph that doesn't exist of the United States under a very small government and free enterprise


ROFL @ projected 19.6 trillion debt by 2012. Is there even that much money on earth?

hey now 1/3rd of the world gdp held by 1/20th of the population isn't unreasonable or anything

That debt would either approach the japanese debt as a percent of total GDP or would insignificantly surpass it. If japan didn't fail, who says the U.S will?

It does look like they might, with the racist society and barely any immigration happening as well as the massively declining and aging population.

yeah too bad our gdp is 70% consumer spending
and the Japanese Government did try and save the economy they realized it didn't work and stopped and went through ~10 years with a poor economy

[Slypieguy]

It does look like they might, with the racist society and barely any immigration happening as well as the massively declining and aging population.

Exactly, give them time, lol. They are worse off than us right now, so I don't see how your comparison furthers your argument.

[StrawberryClock]

Our economy got better in spite of government spending in order to prove your point you would need to show a graph that doesn't exist of the United States under a very small government and free enterprise

I may comprehend your sentence wrong due to run-on sentence galore here.

In spite of government spending? So government spending was intended to hurt the economy?

Before the thirties I would have to say the economy and government were pretty small. Look at that graph would yah?

[Seesawmcgraw]

I may comprehend your sentence wrong due to run-on sentence galore here.

In spite of government spending? So government spending was intended to hurt the economy?

Before the thirties I would have to say the economy and government were pretty small. Look at that graph would yah?

yeah they basically doubled the size of government and they still endured 10 years of depression how does that support your point? Just because the economy didn't sink the American Economy into the sands it was a success?

[DougDread]

Without bothering to look into history (which, gathering from many posts using history to argue for or against government regulation, is very subjective to wide interpretation), I can make some common sense arguments of why government should be limited.

For one, unlike businesses, government have no real incentive to be the best organization they can be. Really. There are no competing organizations that will easily lure your source of income (taxes). The only way they fail is if they really fuck things up to the point of a revolution causing collapse (for you democrats who hate bush - even he didn't fuck up that badly so you can see that things have to be much worse for that to happen).

Secondly, the top positions are voted in by the people. People of whom the massive majority not only know fuck all about politics in general, but have no real knowledge of the candidates. When someone tries to become employed in a real business under a position of real importance, they undergo a rigorous background check and testing. Candidates for voters just show snazzy commercials, put up websites that overview their promises and positions, and compete in rather diluted debates. So here we have the stupid masses voting in relatively unknown candidates to the top positions.

Thirdly, in a real business, it is relatively easy to fire even a top level employee if they are completely fucking things up. We do have a process for impeaching the current government if they mess up as well - but it is a very complicated process and appears to be unfeasible. As such a candidate that may turn out bad from the start usually gets to have his fun for the whole term - at the expense of the citizens.

So we got 3 rather simple points about government that I hope others can relatively agree with. Why should I trust any organization (of ANY political alignment) that thinks it has the resources and right to regulate everything? They will likely be full of mediocre employees (I see many shitty unambitious assholes who get a government job and are by no means even CLOSE to the cream of the crop of candidates), and leaders who have little to gain from being awesome instead of just mediocre.

I like some regulation, but by no means do I ever think government should step into everything - they just aren't that smart.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Yeah because our government is supposed to be held accountable by political momentum when one party fucks up the other gets a chance to make things right but that fails when both parties are making the same mistakes (much like what is happening right now)

Basically I would rather live in anarchy then live in socialist or partially socialist government people say well wouldn't alot of people get killed if there were anarchy? Well States killed 170million in the 20th century alone and that is probably more people than have been murdered by other people in the history of mankind

[StrawberryClock]

yeah they basically doubled the size of government and they still endured 10 years of depression how does that support your point? Just because the economy didn't sink the American Economy into the sands it was a success?

I was referring to government spending more. Look at that huge increase in spending after world war 2 started. Look at how it helped the economy historically. The government could just start a phony war against spacebatmutants, shell out and waste a shit ton of resources and get the economy going again today.

Things like Public Works during the depression had effects although that is highly debatable on whether it made the blow soften or made it worse.

[StrawberryClock]

Yeah because our government is supposed to be held accountable by political momentum when one party fucks up the other gets a chance to make things right but that fails when both parties are making the same mistakes (much like what is happening right now)

Can you stop with run-on sentences please? They pretty much fuck up the arguments and degrade it into mud slinging with all its misunderstanding and ambiguity.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I was referring to government spending more. Look at that huge increase in spending after world war 2 started. Look at how it helped the economy historically. The government could just start a phony war against spacebatmutants, shell out and waste a shit ton of resources and get the economy going again today.

Things like Public Works during the depression had effects although that is highly debatable on whether it made the blow soften or made it worse.

Basically by 1940 the free market despite being undermined managed to repair itself. People during the depression saved their money, they were really thrifty. Some people that lived through the depression had developed almost obsessive saving habits.

And that created a pool of savings entrepreneurs could tap into and after the war they had a ton of people looking for work. So the economy went from being okay to eventually prospering in the 50s because we had built up a real economy.

Because the market booms and when it booms we often spend foolishly see the 1920s. But this boom is often created by artificial credit again see 1920s with people buying stocks and only paying low low margins. So we get a ton of malinvestment and resources allocated improperly and the boom isn't sustainable.

To correct this the market forces companies that aren't allocating resources properly to fail. This frees up land, labor and capital for other more productive businesses and the economy repairs itself.

[StrawberryClock]

Basically by 1940 the free market despite being undermined managed to repair itself. People during the depression saved their money, they were really thrifty. Some people that lived through the depression had developed almost obsessive saving habits.

And that created a pool of savings entrepreneurs could tap into and after the war they had a ton of people looking for work. So the economy went from being okay to eventually prospering in the 50s because we had built up a real economy.

I'm going to guess that those people in that 11 year course didn't start rebuilding any earlier.

Could that giant government spending be the catalyst that moved the economy? The economic revival didn't start till that massive spike in spending.

Alot of the money they saved were put into war bonds which was repaid anyways so nobody really lost that much except to those gigantic taxes used to buy, create and waste a shit ton of resources.

[StrawberryClock]

To correct this the market forces companies that aren't allocating resources properly to fail. This frees up land, labor and capital for other more productive businesses and the economy repairs itself.

I agree with this, let failed companies fail, let people change their wasteful habits. Keep student loans so we don't have good minds go to waste however.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I agree with this, let failed companies fail, let people change their wasteful habits. Keep student loans so we don't have good minds go to waste however.

Right well what we should do right now is let all the shit hit the fan, lots of people lose there jobs, lots of businesses go under, people hoard there money because they are uncertain of the future. Demand drops, prices on everything drops including labor and the saving helps facilitate deflation.

The saved money allows businessmen to buy up for example Chrysler's manufacturing plant for pennies on the dollar we start producing again and our economy starts rolling.

What is happening is they are trying to prop up the economy one of the ways they are doing this is with high fiscal spending and inflationary monetary policy.

By debasing our currency so rapidly they are destroying any motivations of thrift. And still not allowing the market to correct itself.

They are talking about taking over the automobile industry basically Chrysler would be 50% government and 40% union owned. Maybe eventually fully union owned and government subsidized which would be a disaster they would eat up tax dollars, run an efficient company, kill competition by being rescued from any failure with taxdollars.

So less productivity and draining resources from the private sector, the economy probably won't recover any time soon under this and when another industry goes under they will take that over to.

I'm seriously considering moving to Australia I read they have a 14 something$ minimum wage and their cost of living is 80% of what ours is.


btw I hate the neocons giving the right a bad name this is how I see it
<---------------------------+------------------------->
Comy Soclist neolib neocon center true con libertarian anarchist

Because the Neocons are basically only after power these days
And that line isn't spaced properly it is just ordered properly

[Slypieguy]

I see your wall of text and raise you a more boring one:

Justice Holmes was a harbinger of the legal progressive movement in the late 1800s. Though the movement did not mount its most considerable attacks until later, he was an important and respected figure in its history. The progressive or realist platform was heavily based on criticism of the old order, as well as calling for more consideration of social sciences in the law. In fact, the early days of the progressive movement offered almost no alternative to the old order, only criticism of it. This was during the rise of the regulatory state and the fall of the free market, so abundant criticism was to be expected. The progressives denied that the law existed outside of other disciplines, refuted the public/private law dichotomy, and denied that property rights were natural, asserting that they instead came from the government. In rejecting the public/private dichotomy, contract law was a paramount example. Instead of contract law merely being about the will of the parties, the progressives contended that certain principles were imposed on the parties; coercion and state imposition, apart from what the parties intended, such as uniform gap-fillers, seemed to contradict the old order's conception of contract law. The progressives also argued that the only objective elements in a given case were the facts, not principles or values, and so the facts needed to be more fully researched and understood, rather than spending time on deciding which principles to apply. In a time when economic thought was shifting from a principled approach to a more practical approach, the progressives pushed for a similar shift in the law; they wanted a more tailored, fact specific approach that took into consideration other disciplines, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics.

[Paralda]

No, it prolonged it.

Yeah... FDR prolonged the depression for the first year of his presidency. Past 1932, the GDP and stock market only increased, falling once in 1938 when he CUT spending. I think you're just a dumbfuck.

[seinnej]

Oh shit, didn't mean to click on a serious thread.

/exits

[Slade Trillgon]

So we got 3 rather simple points about government that I hope others can relatively agree with. Why should I trust any organization (of ANY political alignment) that thinks it has the resources and right to regulate everything? They will likely be full of mediocre employees (I see many shitty unambitious assholes who get a government job and are by no means even CLOSE to the cream of the crop of candidates), and leaders who have little to gain from being awesome instead of just mediocre.

Excellent points

To state my position, I can not really stand the "left" or "right" and that no matter where or when you live this battle will be waged in one form or the other.

To me I see the same opportunities for man to become corrupt and subjugate those that are beneath them in both systems. It is still "man" in the positions of power.

Remember that, at least in the US, those damned dirty politicians are being bought by the lobbyists for said corporations and various other special interest groups, that the "right" wants to have freer reign.

[Vanno]

I'm going to assume the role of debate moderator here and restrict both sides from making arguments based on what the GDP did or didn't do under FDR without comparing it to like scenarios (70's early 80's, 2001, now).

In other words, because an Economy recovered (which is sort of what they do) doesn't mean that actions taken by government aided in that recovery. So, if you are going to be making arguments based on GDP (an absurd embarrassment of an approximation for the health of an Economy) at least add a sense of relativity. The reality is that a full recovery took the better part of a decade. Temper your opinions with that, and you might be able to make some valid points.

[Slypieguy]

Yeah... FDR prolonged the depression for the first year of his presidency. Past 1932, the GDP and stock market only increased, falling once in 1938 when he CUT spending. I think you're just a dumbfuck.

what vanno said

[Matriel]

Rights like what? The right for decent housing? The right for proper medical care? The right to believe whatever you want or want not to believe? The right to vote? The right to choose whatever legal partner you want to choose?

Most of these things are pretty basic things that are essential for a equal society, yet I bet some people will feel the need to curb those rights and succeed at it...oh wait that already happened.


All of the things you are trying to call a right would come from the property of another individual. You don't have a right to violate someone else's liberty. This is a basic concept.

You should have just said the right to steal with threat of force. That's exactly what that bullshit translates to.

[Matriel]

everyone else is free to not pay taxes and leave the country if they don't like it.

Ah yes, the idea that I owe some nebulous entity my property because some mythical borders drawn on a map means I'm in a contract with them. I pay my taxes because if I don't men with guns come and use violence against me. I shouldn't have to leave my home because some self-entitled petty tyrant feels a right to my property.

[Badem]

I agree

why should I pay all these companies lots of money for shit, why should I pay the government tax on money i earn for working bloody hard?

viva la Revolucian

[Matriel]

I have to give social-contract theory one thing. It's one of the best farces that have been given to people hook, line, and sinker in the history of humanity. Convincing people that an intangible entity is more important than they are is absolutely amazing and sad.

[Justinian]

Ah yes, the idea that I owe some nebulous entity my property because some mythical borders drawn on a map means I'm in a contract with them. I pay my taxes because if I don't men with guns come and use violence against me. I shouldn't have to leave my home because some self-entitled petty tyrant feels a right to my property.

yeah, this is the argument I always make to people. Geopolitical boundaries are a powerful fo(a)rce indeed.

[jonyak]

Ah yes, the idea that I owe some nebulous entity my property because some mythical borders drawn on a map means I'm in a contract with them. I pay my taxes because if I don't men with guns come and use violence against me. I shouldn't have to leave my home because some self-entitled petty tyrant feels a right to my property.

it doesn't matter what you think it should be like, the fact is that it is that way, almost everywhere on the face of the earth.

you better get used to it, or you are going to have a very sad, anger filled life.

you can do 1 of three things.

Put up with it.
Move somewhere else.
do something about it.

bitching about it on a videogame forum is not going to get you anywhere.

[jonyak]

I have to give social-contract theory one thing. It's one of the best farces that have been given to people hook, line, and sinker in the history of humanity. Convincing people that an intangible entity is more important than they are is absolutely amazing and sad.

where you not in the military?

if so it really surprises me that you think this way.

especially if you were a marine like you say you were.

[Seesawmcgraw]

it doesn't matter what you think it should be like, the fact is that it is that way, almost everywhere on the face of the earth.

you better get used to it, or you are going to have a very sad, anger filled life.

you can do 1 of three things.

Put up with it.
Move somewhere else.
do something about it.

bitching about it on a videogame forum is not going to get you anywhere.

where you not in the military?

if so it really surprises me that you think this way.

especially if you were a marine like you say you were.
Wow that almost looks like
That's how we do things in the Yeenited States of Amurikah and if you don't like it then you can get out, love it or leave it queer!

I didn't know you disagreed with me, I thought you said you were a patriot.

[Slypieguy]

I have to give social-contract theory one thing. It's one of the best farces that have been given to people hook, line, and sinker in the history of humanity. Convincing people that an intangible entity is more important than they are is absolutely amazing and sad.

Have you ever read Rousseau's book? I threw up a little, like every other page.

[jonyak]

Wow that almost looks like

it isn't because I am not even american.

I just hate armchair libertarians who will never do anything, but bitch.

thats how the world works. either shut up and put up with it, or try and change your position or the system.

[Slypieguy]

it isn't because I am not even american.

I just hate armchair libertarians who will never do anything, but bitch.

thats how the world works. either shut up and put up with it, or try and change your position or the system.

I'm sure no one here has ever:
Written their representative
Voted 3rd party
Donated to a 3rd party
Attended a rally
Fundraised

Wtf do you want us to do? Form an underground military group? The average libertarian is much more politically active than the average partyline sheep.

[Seesawmcgraw]

it isn't because I am not even american.

I just hate armchair libertarians who will never do anything, but bitch.

thats how the world works. either shut up and put up with it, or try and change your position or the system.
It doesn't make an idea any less ignorant because you aren't American

How do you know he doesn't belong to the NRA and or any other groups

Don't you understand you need descent for a healthy democracy?

[ZeaL-]

Anyone else notice that whenever their logic and reasoning is questioned they link a mises article as an appeal to authority? It's pretty pathetic, but amusing as well. Especially since that organization is the laughing stock of the economic profession. I wonder if they've ever published something in any well-known journal..I'm guessing never.

[Xandar464]

The left in Europe are using mass imigrantion out of Islamic countries to make up for the loss of votes by the working class to right wing parties.
Of course what they don't realise is that instead of a "open, tolerant, multicultural, society", and all that other crap they try to shove us down the throat, there gonna end up in Eurabia, where sharia will be law !

[ZeaL-]

The left in Europe are using mass imigrantion out of Islamic countries to make up for the loss of votes by the working class to right wing parties.
Of course what they don't realise is that instead of a "open, tolerant, multicultural, society", and all that other crap they try to shove us down the throat, there gonna end up in Eurabia, where sharia will be law !

as opposed to a right wing theocracy?

[Seesawmcgraw]

Anyone else notice that whenever their logic and reasoning is questioned they link a mises article as an appeal to authority? It's pretty pathetic, but amusing as well. Especially since that organization is the laughing stock of the economic profession. I wonder if they've ever published something in any well-known journal..I'm guessing never.

How do you benchmark these economic sources? Whichever ones get featured on cnn or cnbc or whichever ones more economists agree with or whichever one is taught at what is considered the most prestigious university?

It's also pretty pathetic but amusing when people use popularity as a benchmark

as opposed to a right wing theocracy?

wtf is theocratic about the right wing I think religions should taxed like everyone else

[jonyak]

It doesn't make an idea any less ignorant because you aren't American

How do you know he doesn't belong to the NRA and or any other groups

Don't you understand you need descent for a healthy democracy?

you misunderstand what I am saying..

I am all for you doing what you need to change things the way you want to.

but bitching constantly about those damn liberals on a video game forum is not goign to change anything.

[ZeaL-]

How do you benchmark these economic sources? Whichever ones get featured on cnn or cnbc or whichever ones more economists agree with or whichever one is taught at what is considered the most prestigious university?

It's also pretty pathetic but amusing when people use popularity as a benchmark


Its not about popularity. I know you feel special being a contrarian, but its about whether or not a source is reputable. A right wing redneck infested organization in alabama that just creates articles with right-wing slants created by ideologues is not a reputable source. I know in your fairy tale land it somehow is though..

[StainlessSteelRat]

as opposed to a right wing theocracy?

This is assinine. The "right wing" has been in power often enough of the last 100 years and guess what? That's right, no theocracy.

How the fuck is a 'right wing theocracy' the only other possible option to sharia law?

I'll take "Dumbfuck not-so-witty-internet-retorts" for 500, Alex

[Slypieguy]

Its not about popularity. I know you feel special being a contrarian, but its about whether or not a source is reputable. A right wing redneck infested organization in alabama that just creates articles with right-wing slants created by ideologues is not a reputable source. I know in your fairy tale land it somehow is though..

rofl, maybe read the first couple paragraphs of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) before you go throwing around such idiotic remarks.

[jonyak]

rofl, maybe read the first couple paragraphs of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) before you go throwing around such idiotic remarks.

sounds liek the political equivalent of a religious school to me.

[Slypieguy]

sounds liek the political equivalent of a religious school to me.

Oh noes, they might teach someone something!

[Seesawmcgraw]

sounds liek the political equivalent of a religious school to me.

It has no formal affiliation with any political party (including the Libertarian Party), nor does it receive funding from any. The Institute also has a formal policy of not accepting contract work from corporations or other organizations.


It doesn't sound like that at all

Nice ad hominems though

[StainlessSteelRat]

Anyone else notice that whenever their logic and reasoning is questioned they link a mises article as an appeal to authority? It's pretty pathetic, but amusing as well. Especially since that organization is the laughing stock of the economic profession. I wonder if they've ever published something in any well-known journal..I'm guessing never.

Yeah, can you imagine citing a book written by this guy in an Econ debate? ...... pft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._Murphy

[jonyak]

It doesn't sound like that at all

The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), based in Auburn, Alabama, is a libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. Its scholarship is inspired by the work of Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other Austrian School academics such as Murray Rothbard and Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek have also had a strong influence on the Institute's work.

no ad hominem at all... just an observation.

[jonyak]

Oh noes, they might teach someone something!

more that they only teach one side, and pass it off as fact, instead of encouraging critical thinking on both sides.

[Seesawmcgraw]

more that they only teach one side, and pass it off as fact, instead of encouraging critical thinking on both sides.

They do study the arguments on the other side and destroy them it's up to people to look at all sides and draw their own conclusion I have already done this

In response to that I would ask you why everyone at Mises will gladly respond to someone who critiques their article or theory and most people who get critiqued by Mises will just try and avoid a direct debate with the Austrian economists?

[jonyak]

They do study the arguments on the other side and destroy them it's up to people to look at all sides and draw their own conclusion I have already done this

In response to that I would ask you why everyone at Mises will gladly respond to someone who critiques their article or theory and most people who get critiqued by Mises will just try and avoid a direct debate with the Austrian economists?

I wouldn't know, I have never debated them.

but if they are anything like the people on this board I understand totaly. and its not because they are right.

[TrikkyMakk]

Handouts.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I wouldn't know, I have never debated them.

but if they are anything like the people on this board I understand totaly. and its not because they are right.

Well you haven't made any arguments to make your case

You said "I believe in equal opportunity" "rich people will still be rich even if you tax them" and "well if a bunch of mainstreams economists believe in something..." then a bunch of criticisms on what we have said

You don't like what we are saying but you have not produced a single argument in defense of your beliefs

[Matriel]

it doesn't matter what you think it should be like, the fact is that it is that way, almost everywhere on the face of the earth.

There are murders every where on this planet. I guess that makes murder right too?


bitching about it on a videogame forum is not going to get you anywhere.

Got any more assumptions about my political activeness?

where you not in the military?

if so it really surprises me that you think this way.

especially if you were a marine like you say you were.

I was in the military from 18-22. I'm 26, almost 27. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to advance their beliefs as they age... I'm proud of the accomplishments of the Marine Corps and the things I did within reason. I also believe that the Marine Corps is very successful in spite of the government, but that's another argument.

Working theater level intelligence for the government is largely the reason I hate the government so much. I saw first hand all the evil shit they do. There is no government in history that hasn't fucked people over, but morons like you are so ready to make this magical entity more important than you. It boggles the mind.

Have you ever read Rousseau's book? I threw up a little, like every other page.

I tried... :( I think I hate Leviathan a little more though.

[jonyak]

Well you haven't made any arguments to make your case

You said "I believe in equal opportunity" "rich people will still be rich even if you tax them" and "well if a bunch of mainstreams economists believe in something..." then a bunch of criticisms on what we have said

You don't like what we are saying but you have not produced a single argument in defense of your beliefs

I am not so much trying to make my case, that was a lost cause on these forums years ago.

I simply ask questions most of the time to better understand your point of view, or make you think more about the opposing views.

[jonyak]

There are murders every where on this planet. I guess that makes murder right too?



Got any more assumptions about my political activeness?



I was in the military from 18-22. I'm 26, almost 27. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to advance their beliefs as they age... I'm proud of the accomplishments of the Marine Corps and the things I did within reason. I also believe that the Marine Corps is very successful in spite of the government, but that's another argument.

Working theater level intelligence for the government is largely the reason I hate the government so much. I saw first hand all the evil shit they do. There is no government in history that hasn't fucked people over, but morons like you are so ready to make this magical entity more important than you. It boggles the mind.


No assumptions about your political activism, simply all I see is you and other bitching here all the time.

about the murder thing... you know it does seem to be part of human nature and chances are it will never go away. does it make it moraly right? depending on culture that could be debated I guess.

sure change you view. its just weird that someone that comes from a very collectivist, patriotic institution thinks the way you do sometimes.

calling the people you debate wiith morons does not foster good raport, nor does it make people want to talk in a civil manner to you.

and its not gov't that I want to make more important than the individual, it is humanity as a whole.

I am not important, what is is continuing the human race and conintuing the advancement of the species. that IMO is much more important than you or me.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I am not so much trying to make my case, that was a lost cause on these forums years ago.

I simply ask questions most of the time to better understand your point of view, or make you think more about the opposing views.

Well I already do and already have questioned my viewpoints and explored the alternatives this has brought me to my libertarian position

You said it was a lost cause I begin to question whether or not you could even produce said argument

I think you just don't want your argument to get torn apart you should really take a look at where you stand

[jonyak]

Well I already do and already have questioned my viewpoints and explored the alternatives this has brought me to my libertarian position

You said it was a lost cause I begin to question whether or not you could even produce said argument

its a lost cause because it falls on dead ears.

well my viewpoint is much more grey than most of yours seem to be. I do not really have a solid view. I tend to realise I do not know everything, but I can build an opinion on what I know. I also realise that others have differing views, and should be allowed to have them and that does not make them bad, or idiots or any other pejorative you liek to use.

my argument has been torn apart. I don't agree with the people who "tore it apart". I have spent years questioning my beleifs, and I keep coming back to the same ones, just like you.

[Matriel]

No assumptions about your political activism, simply all I see is you and other bitching here all the time.

about the murder thing... you know it does seem to be part of human nature and chances are it will never go away. does it make it moraly right? depending on culture that could be debated I guess.

I'm arguing from a natural law standpoint, not morals.

sure change you view. its just weird that someone that comes from a very collectivist, patriotic institution thinks the way you do sometimes.

How better to know what disgusts you than to be a part of it?

calling the people you debate wiith morons does not foster good raport, nor does it make people want to talk in a civil manner to you.

Well, it is afterall a video game forum. And what hope do I have with people that think they are unimportant?

and its not gov't that I want to make more important than the individual, it is humanity as a whole.

I am not important, what is is continuing the human race and conintuing the advancement of the species. that IMO is much more important than you or me.

That would make sense if we were an ant colony and not a huge blob of individuals. Individuals can work together for a better outcome for everyone. Using violence to achieve this is not altruistic in the slightest.

[Helgeran]

The thing is, politics in most western countries is nitpicking these days. All the major parties are socially liberal to a bigger or smaller degree and people seem to want that. Sure some radical shit slips by (slippery slope? who can tell?) but this is all bullshit till we have some actual communists or fascists or racists or theological people having a shot at power.

[Slypieguy]

I'm arguing from a natural law standpoint, not morals.

Natural law and morals go hand-in-hand matty. Why do you think the Catholics got their rocks off by attacking the legal progressives in the 40s and 50s?

[Seesawmcgraw]

The thing is, politics in most western countries is nitpicking these days. All the major parties are socially liberal to a bigger or smaller degree and people seem to want that. Sure some radical shit slips by (slippery slope? who can tell?) but this is all bullshit till we have some actual communists or fascists or racists or theological people having a shot at power.

The United States Government is expanding almost as fast as the universe of course they aren't going to come out and say "we're taking control of the entire private sector" no it is going to be gradually usurped by the public sector

they exaggerate our GDP (by changing the way they measure gdp) to make it appear our government isn't really that big compared to our gdp but really it is massive

Just look they are taking over insurance companies, banks, financial institutions, the automobile industry, energy might be in the works

You know what happens when the governments really start using their ownership powers to the full extent well basically these public institutions put the private ones out of business

I really think the United States economy is further left then most people peg it

[Xandar464]

as opposed to a right wing theocracy?

Right wing theocracy in Western Europe ? It think your confusing the right winged parties in Europe and the American republicans. Altho with the 2 party system in the states, I'm sure alot of Republicans aren't religious zealots...

[Helgeran]

The United States Government is expanding almost as fast as the universe of course they aren't going to come out and say "we're taking control of the entire private sector" no it is going to be gradually usurped by the public sector

they exaggerate our GDP (by changing the way they measure gdp) to make it appear our government isn't really that big compared to our gdp but really it is massive

Just look they are taking over insurance companies, banks, financial institutions, the automobile industry, energy might be in the works

You know what happens when the governments really start using their ownership powers to the full extent well basically these public institutions put the private ones out of business

I really think the United States economy is further left then most people peg it
Still it's liberalism. Private ownership is a pretty new thing historically. Like, the left and the right you a debating is like the difference between a green and a red apple while other political systems are knives, zebras and flying spagetti monsters.

[Slypieguy]

Still it's liberalism. Private ownership is a pretty new thing historically.

I thought it was working out pretty well :\

[Matriel]

Natural law and morals go hand-in-hand matty. Why do you think the Catholics got their rocks off by attacking the legal progressives in the 40s and 50s?

Not really. One supports the bounds of liberty and the other allows people to push their ideals on others.

[Mordhak]

Not really. One supports the bounds of liberty and the other allows people to push their ideals on others.

Sup Matriel, you old fat sweaty redneck.

[Matriel]

Sup Matriel, you old fat sweaty redneck.

I'm alive you non showering goth dutch bastard. You?

[Slypieguy]

Not really. One supports the bounds of liberty and the other allows people to push their ideals on others.

But natural law implies morals, unless you actually think there are universal untouchable rights and wrongs floating out there in a philosophically neutral vacuum.

[Seesawmcgraw]

Not really. One supports the bounds of liberty and the other allows people to push their ideals on others.

But Matriel I've been to a housing project in my city and it's like one big playground for people who have been kicked around by society who doesn't like playgrounds are you suggesting we destroy their playground?

[Matriel]

But natural law implies morals, unless you actually think there are universal untouchable rights and wrongs floating out there in a philosophically neutral vacuum.

Kinda what liberty is. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.

But Matriel I've been to a housing project in my city and it's like one big playground for people who have been kicked around by society who doesn't like playgrounds are you suggesting we destroy their playground?

Or allow me to sell drugs there to make money. I'm up for either.

[DougDread]

and its not gov't that I want to make more important than the individual, it is humanity as a whole.

I am not important, what is is continuing the human race and conintuing the advancement of the species. that IMO is much more important than you or me.

You know what? Why the fuck is it so important to ensure the longevity and advancement of the human race? Seriously, assuming that death brings no chance of returning to this place of existence (so assuming no re-incarnation), I see little incentive for me to care about what happens to humanity >60 years down the road.

To me, my incentives are embracing ideas that will improve my standard of living now with some benefits to my children, grand children, maybe great grand children - whomever exists while I am living that I care about. After I die, don't give a shit - just going to hope that reincarnation is not the process after death (even if it is, the result will likely be determined through physical parameters like all things natural - I doubt some moral entity will be involved).

Does it make me an asshole? No it does not. Since entropy will decidedly ensure an end no matter what we do I think the largest assholes are those who want to control how we live today for the benefit of a future generation - of how far into the future they never specify.

The human species will continue to advance and evolve without collectivist assholes trying to artificially determine the course. We already have a pretty liberal and secure society (always room for changes of course) that caters plenty to the weak and stupid.

Hey for the sakes of humanity we really should disband all assistance programs and let the stupid and weak die - technically their genes/stupidity are getting in the way of our advancement. Why do collectivists who say they want control for the benefit of humanity overlook this major point?

[Mordhak]

I'm alive you non showering goth dutch bastard. You?

Ha! I showered last year for christmas. Take your crappy american stereotypes and shove 'em!

[Slypieguy]

Kinda what liberty is. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.


So you believe in said neutral vacuum of rights and wrongs?

[Seesawmcgraw]

and its not gov't that I want to make more important than the individual, it is humanity as a whole.

I am not important, what is is continuing the human race and conintuing the advancement of the species. that IMO is much more important than you or me.

Why don't they just make canada one big commune farm that way when you work twice as hard your standard of living might go up by ~.000003%, it totally pays to be hard working!

[Matriel]

Ha! I showered last year for christmas. Take your crappy american stereotypes and shove 'em!

Well, I'm only a sweaty redneck... :(

So you believe in said neutral vacuum of rights and wrongs?

I guess in a manner of speaking.

[Slypieguy]

I guess in a manner of speaking.

Ain't no fucking with you then. "Because I said so" always worked for my parents.

[Matriel]

Ain't no fucking with you then. "Because I said so" always worked for my parents.

Obviously you have to enforce that as an individual. So, not really because I said so...ish. AKA why I carry a gun.

[Sqarak]

Ah yes, the idea that I owe some nebulous entity my property because some mythical borders drawn on a map means I'm in a contract with them. I pay my taxes because if I don't men with guns come and use violence against me. I shouldn't have to leave my home because some self-entitled petty tyrant feels a right to my property.

I hope you are willing to give a decent answer to this.

How can one claim something as property and at the same time not recognize borders? Isn't a border the claim of property on a larger scale?

Or are you more pointing to fact you rather see organisation on a community/ regional level as opposed to a distant capital city deciding over things it isn't even able to observe, like an absentee landlord who claims his rent, but doesn't bother to manage his property and sends his goons when you don't pay in time?

Or are you more in favour of the individual choice on how to manage your own territory and accepting the fact that you also have to face and handle the consequences of these individual choices?

[Helgeran]

I thought it was working out pretty well :\
I just implied you shouldn't take it for granted!

[PirateGlen]

Kinda what liberty is. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.

Or allow me to sell drugs there to make money. I'm up for either.

How do we know it's not survival of the fittest? I've depressed myself just now, pondering the answer.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I hope you are willing to give a decent answer to this.

How can one claim something as property and at the same time not recognize borders? Isn't a border the claim of property on a larger scale?

Or are you more pointing to fact you rather see organisation on a community/ regional level as opposed to a distant capital city deciding over things it isn't even able to observe, like an absentee landlord who claims his rent, but doesn't bother to manage his property and sends his goons when you don't pay in time?

Or are you more in favour of the individual choice on how to manage your own territory and accepting the fact that you also have to face and handle the consequences of these individual choices?

It would be more like a landlord who finds some total stranger living in one of his houses and calls the police

[Incanam]

Increasing the welfare state? check
Effectively nationalizing several traditionally private entities? check
Nationalized healthcare? On the way
Heavily taxing the rich? check

They can talk about how "moderate" and "bipartisan" they are all they want, but the fact is, they have shown an unprecedented Marxist leaning.

Please learn what Marxism is, then get back to me...

[Slypieguy]

Please learn what Marxism is, then get back to me...

I have a pretty good grasp on it, but here is the wikipedia link since you seem to be struggling with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Come back when you have an actual point to make

[Silverhandorder]

I have a pretty good grasp on it, but here is the wikipedia link since you seem to be struggling with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Come back when you have an actual point to make

He is butt hurt over his self denial that he is following a failed system that will fail again should they bring it about. Which type are we going to devolve towards? Fascism or communism?

[Matriel]

I hope you are willing to give a decent answer to this.

How can one claim something as property and at the same time not recognize borders? Isn't a border the claim of property on a larger scale?

Borders are country's aren't individual properties. It's a state entity that's taken control of an area by force.

Or are you more pointing to fact you rather see organisation on a community/ regional level as opposed to a distant capital city deciding over things it isn't even able to observe, like an absentee landlord who claims his rent, but doesn't bother to manage his property and sends his goons when you don't pay in time?

Local government control would be preferable to far off blanket Federal control, however I would prefer neither.

Or are you more in favour of the individual choice on how to manage your own territory and accepting the fact that you also have to face and handle the consequences of these individual choices?

Bingo.

How do we know it's not survival of the fittest? I've depressed myself just now, pondering the answer.

Certainly a possibility. In which case, we're just animals though. Which is depressing. The fallbacks of an individual belief system. :(

[ZeaL-]

sounds liek the political equivalent of a religious school to me.

ruh roh, no wonder so many christians are libertarians.

[Seesawmcgraw]

ruh roh, no wonder so many christians are libertarians.

actually I'm an atheist and a libertarian

I wonder why New York is so liberal the welfare bankrupts the city

[ZeaL-]

actually I'm an atheist and a libertarian

I wonder why New York is so liberal the welfare bankrupts the city

I bet there are plenty of christians that visit that organization in alabama.

[Seesawmcgraw]

I bet there are plenty of christians that visit that organization in alabama.

I bet there are alot of liberals that visit the welfare office in New York

[StainlessSteelRat]

I bet there are alot of liberals that visit the welfare office in New York

lol

[ZeaL-]

No wonder the invisible hand is so appealing to christian nut jobs. To believe in a supernatural force that creates order is freaking hilarious. No wonder we have the same ideologues here arguing idiotically about another form of their religion.

[Jezrith]

No wonder the invisible hand is so appealing to christian nut jobs. To believe in a supernatural force that creates order is freaking hilarious. No wonder we have the same ideologues here arguing idiotically about another form of their religion.

/facepalm

[[O]_Fawkes]

As the nation becomes poorer we want a system that takes care of us.

When the nation is richer again you'll see people start whining that "those damn bums" don't need their money and that they should have got it on their own like they did.

Typical band-wagon creatures as we are, Americans will shift from right to left in coordination with their economic status.

[PirateGlen]

Borders are country's aren't individual properties. It's a state entity that's taken control of an area by force.

This doesn't seem too different than an individual making a claim to property. Suppose we take the understanding that the US has claimed the land and retains ownership? I'm sure that sounds pretty shitty but it is consistent with the concept of owning property. All land "purchases" made within the US would be made with the understanding that you would be under US jursidiction.

You could alternatively take the understanding that the states own the land and have submitted themselves and all their inhabitants to US rule.

It would be similar to a single rich person making claim to the entire US in terms of an understanding of property rights, but at least we get elections.

In either case I'm a bit suspicious of property rights, but that's another topic.

Certainly a possibility. In which case, we're just animals though. Which is depressing. The fallbacks of an individual belief system. :(

My hopes of something uplifting have been shattered.

[Qikdraw]

ruh roh, no wonder so many christians are libertarians.

Actually it would be better to say that many libertarians are christians. The way you worded it made it sound like there are a lot of libertarians and that is just not the case at all. Libertarians make up roughly 4% of likely voters. Thats so minute its not worth even mentioning.

Most 'libertarians' don't even run as a libertarian, they run under the republican party because if they run under the libertarian party they'll never get elected because of its far out there idealogy. Even the libertarian messiah (Ron Paul) is actually in office as a republican.

No matter how much bluster and bullshit you read on these boards the libertarian party is nothing more than an extreme fringe group and there are no libertarians in Congress or the Senate.

[ZeaL-]

Actually it would be better to say that many libertarians are christians. The way you worded it made it sound like there are a lot of libertarians and that is just not the case at all. Libertarians make up roughly 4% of likely voters. Thats so minute its not worth even mentioning.

Most 'libertarians' don't even run as a libertarian, they run under the republican party because if they run under the libertarian party they'll never get elected because of its far out there idealogy. Even the libertarian messiah (Ron Paul) is actually in office as a republican.

No matter how much bluster and bullshit you read on these boards the libertarian party is nothing more than an extreme fringe group and there are no libertarians in Congress or the Senate.

True, I shouldn't have acted like they were significant. It might encourage them..

[Incanam]

I have a pretty good grasp on it, but here is the wikipedia link since you seem to be struggling with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Come back when you have an actual point to make

I don't understand how anyone can post the link that proves that person inccorrect.

Human ingenuity...it boggles the mind. This is clearly one of those bugs bunny/daffy duck things, where you switch the point your arguing for and I switch mine because you did.

"Rabbit Season"
"Duck Season"
"Rabbit Season"
"Duck Season"
"Rabbit Season"
"Rabbit Season"
"Duck Season"


You almost got me, too.

[Sharuk]

People like being told what to do. They can't stand responsibility.

This, they love to be fat dumb and happy little pawns

Course this is refering to America, we had some strange reversal in our history where the Left and Right changed Positions, even though atm All the politicians are the same