Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Third World Nation, a Koch Brothers' Dream

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 2:24:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

Let's take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

'We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.

We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.

We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.

We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.

We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.

We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.

We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.

As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.

We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.

We condemn compulsory education laws and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.

We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.

We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.

We support abolition of the Department of Energy.

We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.

We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.

We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called self-protection equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.

We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.

We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.

We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.

We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

We support the repeal of all state usury laws.'" - http://www.sanders.senate.gov...
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:20:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
RE:
We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

However, we do support Federal and State Government subsidies to corporations like Koch Industries.
Think
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:23:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Third World Nation is the DREAM of Regressives. Seems you got it all wrong there Regressive.

No. I believe extreme individualism promotes social disintegration by downplaying the need for one's responsibility to his, or her, society. It's cooperation between members of a society that promote its growth. Extreme Libertarianism puts too much emphasis on the individual while sacrificing the needs of society. It posits every man, or woman, for himself, or herself, thereby creating conflicts of interests. Instead of building a nation, it destroys it by eroding social cohesion.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:29:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:20:50 AM, ecco wrote:
RE:
We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

However, we do support Federal and State Government subsidies to corporations like Koch Industries.

Even though I dislike that which the Koch brothers stand for, I have to say they have said they are against corporate welfare.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 4:19:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:23:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Third World Nation is the DREAM of Regressives. Seems you got it all wrong there Regressive.

No. I believe extreme individualism promotes social disintegration by downplaying the need for one's responsibility to his, or her, society.

But it doesn't really down play them at all. Conservatives are way more likely to tithe and contribute to charity. I think fooling ourselves into thinking the government is capable of or even good at helping the needy is a way to forego personal responsibility for our fellow man.

It's cooperation between members of a society that promote its growth. Extreme Libertarianism puts too much emphasis on the individual while sacrificing the needs of society.

Not really, they just promote voluntary efforts at cooperation which have been proven to be more effective than the unethical forced ways of achieving the same ends.

It posits every man, or woman, for himself, or herself, thereby creating conflicts of interests. Instead of building a nation, it destroys it by eroding social cohesion.

I'm not sure you're aware of how the invisible hand works. If we all mostly help ourselves than we can best insure we get the help we need. Typically I'll be more aware of what I need than the rest of society, so I should take care of that instead of expecting them to, as they're more likely to get it wrong.

The Koch brothers policies would actually ring in a huge amount of economic prosperity and pretty much eradicate poverty, that's what should be focused on, the results of such policies, not the intent.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:19:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 4:19:44 AM, Wylted wrote:
Typically I'll be more aware of what I need than the rest of society, so I should take care of that instead of expecting them to, as they're more likely to get it wrong.


And this is the fatal flaw of socialism. One size will never fit all without a heavy hand in eugenics or a form of soft cloning.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:46:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:23:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Third World Nation is the DREAM of Regressives. Seems you got it all wrong there Regressive.

No. I believe extreme individualism promotes social disintegration by downplaying the need for one's responsibility to his, or her, society. It's cooperation between members of a society that promote its growth. Extreme Libertarianism puts too much emphasis on the individual while sacrificing the needs of society. It posits every man, or woman, for himself, or herself, thereby creating conflicts of interests. Instead of building a nation, it destroys it by eroding social cohesion.

The softest collectivism requires a heavy handed centralized power. Mutually beneficial voluntary groups never require a bayonet to maintain social cohesion.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:48:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:29:23 AM, s-anthony wrote:


Even though I dislike that which the Koch brothers stand for, I have to say they have said they are against corporate welfare.

Click on "Koch Industries" in their parent companies list and voila! $157 million in state and federal subsidies are revealed, with an additional $6.2 million in federal loan guarantees.

Louisiana has ponied up the most $77 million in subsidies for the Koch operations, followed by $25 million in Oregon, $21 million in Oklahoma, and $15 million in Iowa.

- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org...
Think
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. I believe extreme individualism promotes social disintegration by downplaying the need for one's responsibility to his, or her, society.

But it doesn't really down play them at all. Conservatives are way more likely to tithe and contribute to charity. I think fooling ourselves into thinking the government is capable of or even good at helping the needy is a way to forego personal responsibility for our fellow man.

The key word is "tithe". In the study to which you allude, saying conservatives are more likely to donate to charity than liberals, no distinction is made between churches and other nonprofits. Conservatives are more likely to be church-goers, and church-goers feel compelled by their religion to tithe.

The problem with comparing donations to a church and donations to charity is most churches do very little in the way of charity, as the bulk of contributions go to the administration and maintenance of churches.

The few churches that donate to charity do so in the form of government grants. I know this because I have worked for nonprofits, and the very requirements needed to satisfy HUD and the USDA are the exact same requirements in which churches stipulate.

Not long ago, in order to continue receiving state grants, the State of New York required Catholic adoption agencies to allow gay couples to adopt, to which the church responded by saying it would no longer facilitate adoptions. If the bulk of the adoption agencies' funding did not come in the form of state grants, then, why did this one move threaten the existence of these agencies?

Years ago, I worked for ACORN Housing. We were required to collect certain documents to satisfy HUD. If these requirements were not met, we would've lost our funding and would've quickly gone out of business.

In August of 2013, during the partial Government shut down, I was laid off from a nonprofit called "Be a Champion". (We fed low income school children using a supplemental after school food program.) Because of the shut down, we were no longer funded by the USDA and were not able to stay in business, solely, from contributions of the private sector.

Now, I work for Memorial Hermann Hospital, the largest hospital system in the world, which received a billion dollars in grant money last year. The hospital gives, only, four percent of its funds to charity which is the least amount a nonprofit can give in the State of Texas and keep its nonprofit status.

I believe one of the biggest misconceptions most people have is the belief nonprofits are primarily funded by private donors. In fact, if most nonprofits solely depended on private donations, they would have gone out of business a long time ago.

It's cooperation between members of :a society that promote its growth. Extreme Libertarianism puts too much emphasis on the individual while sacrificing the needs of society.

Not really, they just promote voluntary efforts at cooperation which have been proven to be more effective than the unethical forced ways of achieving the same ends.

It posits every man, or woman, for himself, or herself, thereby creating conflicts of interests. Instead of building a nation, it destroys it by :eroding social cohesion.

I'm not sure you're aware of how the invisible hand works. If we all mostly help ourselves than we can best insure we get the help we need. Typically I'll be more aware of what I need than the rest of society, so I should take care of that instead of expecting them to, as they're more likely to get it wrong.

If this is true, why do states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the most conservative and poorest economies in the Country have the highest rates of income disparity? Why are there more people in the State of Texas without health insurance, receiving food stamps, and working in the service industry (unskilled professions making the lowest wages) than any other state?

People in the United States are working longer hours than their parents did for lower wages with fewer benefits. Since 2008, the only sector of our economy that has seen real growth is the top one percentile of wage earners, while growth for the middle class has remained stagnant, and the poor has seen a decrease in wages.

Wealth disparity in America is at an all-time high, primarily due to the fact the wealthy pay very little in capital gains' taxes (capital gains being the bulk of their income) while the middle class and working poor pay, nearly, a third of their income in income taxes.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:29:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol, you point out that not paying taxes helps people become wealthy, while the poor are stuck paying them, but instead of helping the poor by eliminating the income tax, you propose to merely hurt the 401k accounts of retirees by increasing capital gains taxes.
OFT60
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 7:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You say what there Regressive ? Look at your loved Obama today and see his view of what he wants. A Third World Nation is his DREAM !
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 7:21:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Typically I'll be more aware of what I need than the rest of society, so I should take care of that instead of expecting them to, as they're more likely to get it wrong.

And this is the fatal flaw of socialism. One size will never fit all without a heavy hand in eugenics or a form of soft cloning.

You may feel your introspection is superior, and in some regards, it is; however, it's not complete, in and of itself. It was not conceived on its own, and it will not be sustained on its own. For, not only do we see ourselves through our own eyes but also through the eyes of others.

A person who cannot accept the advice or opinions of others has a closed mind that's opposed to change and therefore growth. The world is made of many and varied perspectives. If your perspective is the only one you will agree to consider, then, your world is very small and one-dimensional.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 9:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 7:21:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The world is made of many and varied perspectives.

Then why would you advocate one size fits all socialism? Flawed Humans can't be 100 percent normalized. That's why we have a judicial system rather than eugenic labs.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:50:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The world is made of many and varied perspectives.

Then why would you advocate one size fits all socialism? Flawed Humans can't be 100 percent normalized. That's why we have a judicial system rather than eugenic labs.

How is saying there is a multitude of perspectives equivalent to saying, " ...one size fits all...?" Or better yet, how is saying, "That blouse comes in many different sizes," the same as saying, "One size fits all?"

You're the one who's arguing the significance of one, single perspective as though any perspective were not influenced by a host of many, many other perspectives. Even though your perspective may be personal and particular to you, it was not born in a vacuum and neither can it survive in one.