Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for libertarians and anarchists

johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:26:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wouldn't say so, no. After all, you put some of your money into it anyway.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Social programs *can* be helpful, and are not always bad. I support -- on the state level -- unemployment insurance, and benefits are equal to or slightly less than the value of the former job's paycheck.

Is it hypocritical? I would in most cases say yes. Like if you rail against welfare yet collect food stamps and general assistance, you are a hypocrite. Though welfare traps people in dependency, and they might want a way out (which is to cut the programs).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
See, I think its only hypocritical if you rail against these programs, but you wouldn't see them destroyed. See I may benefit from getting government loans for my education, but I am against the program conceptually and if I became supreme overlord of the world, I would dismantle it.

Let me ask you guys this. Is Marco Rubio a hypocrite because he is against these programs, but used them to get through school?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The basic rule is get as much as your money back as you can, but never take out more than you put into the system. So don't sit at home sending out just enough job applications to qualify for assistance.

This argument against libertarianism is silly; it's like saying that it's immoral for someone who supports the gold standard to use cash. People can promote a different system without martyring themselves.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.

If a person pays into it, why not? I recall Ron Paul once being inquired about his collecting social security, despite not really being in favor of it. And he said, since he spent over half a century paying into it, he sure as hell was going to collect! Paraphrasing of course, but I agree. I'd rather not pay into any government programs (and instead use the extra income to improve my standard of living, and donate to charities where I know the people collecting the benefits, need it.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.

Yes it clearly is. That's why Ayn Rand, for instance, was a humongous, honking hypocrite when she chose to receive her social security benefits (and she consciously realized this, which is why she did it on the down-low). Also, it's quite intellectually dishonest and hypocritical for "libertarians" to present their antigovernmentism in terms of being proponents of "self-ownership" and personal liberty whilst advocating the total unfettering of the capitalist elite, which would certainly be contraindicated if "libertarians" were genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom. I would also point out that it's precisely this hypocritical and hazardous-to-freedom antigovernmentism that underlies Rand Paul's professed concern about the danger of military drones one day being used as high-tech tools of tyranny to terrorize Americans. The Congressman is doubly hypocritical in this regard, as it's precisely his brand of antigovernmentism that could very well lead to the further excessive empowerment of the economic elite and the possible evolution of a more unabashed plutocratic political status quo that might indeed be defended, against average Americans, with the help of murder drones and whatnot. Yes, Congressman Paul, you and your ideology are indeed quite duplicitous and dangerous; one might say that you're the real threat, which I do in a thread that I've currently got going in the News section, here's the link, http://www.debate.org... - rather than sidetracking this thread let's take up the conversation there.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:10:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
Also, it's quite intellectually dishonest and hypocritical for "libertarians" to present their antigovernmentism in terms of being proponents of "self-ownership" and personal liberty whilst advocating the total unfettering of the capitalist elite, which would certainly be contraindicated if "libertarians" were genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom.

Libertarians aren't genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom? They are dishonest, they don't really want it done? They're plan is that while they are shrinking the government in the name of freedom they will be actively fighting in the name of the capitalist elite?

I guess it's easy to defend corporate/government cronyism when your standard is a non-existent utopia. You can't be bashed for supporting the status quo if you don't have any actual beliefs of your own to fall back on.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:10:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.

Yes it clearly is. That's why Ayn Rand, for instance, was a humongous, honking hypocrite when she chose to receive her social security benefits (and she consciously realized this, which is why she did it on the down-low). Also, it's quite intellectually dishonest and hypocritical for "libertarians" to present their antigovernmentism in terms of being proponents of "self-ownership" and personal liberty whilst advocating the total unfettering of the capitalist elite, which would certainly be contraindicated if "libertarians" were genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom. I would also point out that it's precisely this hypocritical and hazardous-to-freedom antigovernmentism that underlies Rand Paul's professed concern about the danger of military drones one day being used as high-tech tools of tyranny to terrorize Americans. The Congressman is doubly hypocritical in this regard, as it's precisely his brand of antigovernmentism that could very well lead to the further excessive empowerment of the economic elite and the possible evolution of a more unabashed plutocratic political status quo that might indeed be defended, against average Americans, with the help of murder drones and whatnot. Yes, Congressman Paul, you and your ideology are indeed quite duplicitous and dangerous; one might say that you're the real threat, which I do in a thread that I've currently got going in the News section, here's the link, http://www.debate.org... - rather than sidetracking this thread let's take up the conversation there.

"The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the "right" to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money"and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
- Ayn Rand -

hy"poc"ri"sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
http://ahdictionary.com...

There are plenty of faults to be found with Rand, but this criticism is an inaccurate and intellectually dishonest one to cling to. Rand wasn't a hypocrite when she accepted SS, she was following exactly what she had preached on the subject.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:27:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government,

They do protect property rights.

and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

China was pretty impoverished until they let markets actually function to a degree. China has a much lower median income than the United States does, so they are less wealthy than we are.

They are allowing market activity, that is why prosperity is emerging and lifting people out of poverty and into a Chinese middle class with rising levels of take home pay.

Now all we have to do is to free the economy to restore economic growth and increase broad prosperity. This requires fundamental reforms, including cutting taxes, spending, welfare payments, etc. Introducing school choice through vouchers at the state level.


The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves,

True.

not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:44:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Social programs *can* be helpful, and are not always bad. I support -- on the state level -- unemployment insurance, and benefits are equal to or slightly less than the value of the former job's paycheck.

At least you're not a total ideologue here.

Is it hypocritical? I would in most cases say yes.

Here we agree.

...Though welfare traps people in dependency, and they might want a way out (which is to cut the programs).

Here we're back to disagreeing. I would assert that what in fact ensnares people in what's left of our society's social welfare safety net is quite simply poverty and unemployment, and recurrent economic downturns such as the current recession, i.e. conditions generated by the behavior of our capitalist system and elite. Also, our society's form of economics generates a host of sociological conditions and ills which conduce to social dysfunctionality and dependency on the dole. Which is all to say that people resorting to going on some form of public assistance and getting trapped there is truly more of a symptom, the underlying pathology is our economic system. But "libertarians" and other free-marketarians have an ideological blind spot, a genuine bias blind spot in this regard. Their skewed perspective simply doesn't allow them to critically perceive the role and responsibility of capitalism for any of its own endemic troubles. All blame is instead facilely shifted to welfare programs, government, and individuals. No, the truth be told, the fault, dear "libertarians", is not so much in ourselves as in our system that we are underlings, debt-ridden wage slaves, casualties of unemployment, and dependent recipients of welfare.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:44:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:21:12 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:10:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
Also, it's quite intellectually dishonest and hypocritical for "libertarians" to present their antigovernmentism in terms of being proponents of "self-ownership" and personal liberty whilst advocating the total unfettering of the capitalist elite, which would certainly be contraindicated if "libertarians" were genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom.

Libertarians aren't genuinely interested in safeguarding and expanding our social freedom? They are dishonest, they don't really want it done? Their plan is that while they are shrinking the government in the name of freedom they will be fighting for the wealthy, crony elite whom they publicly despise?

I guess it's easy to defend corporate/government cronyism when your standard is a non-existent utopia. You can't be bashed for supporting the status quo if you don't have any actual beliefs of your own to fall back on.

fixd
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No. Hypocrisy consists of doing something you don't advocate, or advocating something you don't do. Libertarians advocate that one not support social programs, not that one not use social programs that exist anyway and you'll have to pay taxes for whether you get in the benefits line or not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 7:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:36:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:44:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Social programs *can* be helpful, and are not always bad. I support -- on the state level -- unemployment insurance, and benefits are equal to or slightly less than the value of the former job's paycheck.

At least you're not a total ideologue here.

I try to be a pragmatic libertarian.

Is it hypocritical? I would in most cases say yes.

Here we agree.

...Though welfare traps people in dependency, and they might want a way out (which is to cut the programs).

Here we're back to disagreeing. I would assert that what in fact ensnares people in what's left of our society's social welfare safety net is quite simply poverty and unemployment, and recurrent economic downturns such as the current recession, i.e. conditions generated by the behavior of our capitalist system and elite.

Also, our society's form of economics generates a host of sociological conditions and ills which conduce to social dysfunctionality and dependency on the dole. Which is all to say that people resorting to going on some form of public assistance and getting trapped there is truly more of a symptom, the underlying pathology is our economic system. But "libertarians" and other free-marketarians have an ideological blind spot, a genuine bias blind spot in this regard. Their skewed perspective simply doesn't allow them to critically perceive the role and responsibility of capitalism for any of its own endemic troubles. All blame is instead facilely shifted to welfare programs, government, and individuals. No, the truth be told, the fault, dear "libertarians", is not so much in ourselves as in our system that we are underlings, debt-ridden wage slaves, casualties of unemployment, and dependent recipients of welfare.

No I think a free market, with limited government would bring about much greater prosperity. And it is all logical as well.

Through school choice and competition, the quality of schools would for the vast part would skyrocket. They have charter schools with 100% passing rates that are in Harlem with "at risk" kids. High quality education is the key for future opportunity.

Ending the drug war has innumerable benefits. Less gov't expenditures, more tax revenues, safer drugs, stronger families because of less crime, more stable communities.

Free Market Capitalism will bring about a tide of economic prosperity that would cause the economy to grow and thrive, with rising wages and millions of new jobs. More savings, investment, and more capital accumulation.

Higher standards of living -- more jobs and higher wages -- are the very things we need to help our society flourish.

Inflation is a tax on the poor on a separate note.

Welfare imposes a high marginal tax rate. If you get a job, you lose most of your benefits, and are worse off. In other words, you are trapped. If the guy on subsidized housing earns more than $1000 a month, he loses his living space.

Gov'ts programs are usually for the worst. There are exceptions, like the Civil Rights Act was a good policy, but overall limiting the economy's ability to grow harms those you are very looking at help.
--------------------------------------------

I have a fierce passion for economic policy, and those who propose gov't solutions are simply wrong. Ineffective job training programs, overseas military conflicts, the drug war, higher taxes for redistribution (the gov't claims 70% of all welfare dollars for itself, and the rest is for dependency), and a monopoly school system are all the things that are undermining this great nation.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it is extremely hypocritical when people benefit from social programs to get rich. Yet, want to cut social programs when they become rich.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like a quote from Ragnar on this:

"I want to stop the train, not jump off it."

Or something like that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's look at Medicare as an example. We are forced to pay for Medicare through taxes our entire life.

If libertarians opposed Medicare, according to some, it would be hypocritical to pay for Medicare and then take benefits. This is ridiculous. Libertarians want a world where they don't have to pay for state benefits or get them. But, in a world where they do have to pay for them, they obviously still take them without being hypocritical.

The state has a monopoly on roads. Is it hypocritical for libertarians to drive on roads?

Of course not. Libertarians are still people and they have to drive like everyone else.

As the video I linked to above says, saying it is hypocritical to oppose state programs and still take benefits from them is like saying that it was hypocritical for someone in the Soviet Union to oppose communism and still take food rations to survive.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:43:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like a quote from Ragnar on this:
"I want to stop the train, not jump off it."
Or something like that.

That's essentially what Rothbard says on the subject as well. I think that one is morally entitled to take back what's been stolen from him and to help bankrupt the system of extortion that makes it possible.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:05:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?

With how they control their economy and have avoided the rolling blackouts that India faces because they weren't prudent enough to slow their economic growth until their infrastructure could handle it?

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are a lot of poor countries with a lot of cheap labor. China's leading the way for a reason, and that reason isn't simply size. If it were, India is big enough to keep pace. Why haven't they?

https://www.google.com...

That's not accounting for Hong Kong, either, which is the "free market zone" in China (though, yeah...growth is nuts there, and per capita GDP, in the same constant dollars is $35K/yr)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:05:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?

With how they control their economy and have avoided the rolling blackouts that India faces because they weren't prudent enough to slow their economic growth until their infrastructure could handle it?

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are a lot of poor countries with a lot of cheap labor. China's leading the way for a reason, and that reason isn't simply size. If it were, India is big enough to keep pace. Why haven't they?

https://www.google.com...

You're comparing statist to statist. India is very economically authoritarian and socialistic.

Also, China has quite a few blackouts of its own:

http://www.forbes.com...

That's not accounting for Hong Kong, either, which is the "free market zone" in China (though, yeah...growth is nuts there, and per capita GDP, in the same constant dollars is $35K/yr)

I hardly classify Hong Kong as being economically part of China- it's on a whole separate level.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, it's not. Libertarians are not against the good of social programs, they are against the reallocation of wealth. It's already been reallocated by that point.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:05:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?

With how they control their economy and have avoided the rolling blackouts that India faces because they weren't prudent enough to slow their economic growth until their infrastructure could handle it?

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.
https://www.youtube.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler