I think I get libertarian economics now

[dblack]

Ah, me boy, you say they do not impose coercive GOVERNMENT oppression. I do not feel oppressed by our government in any area. Let consider:

Yeah. First of all, stop calling me 'boy'. You're going out of your way here to be an insulting prick and I'm trying to steer around it, but please, give it a break.

Second, you're confusing coercion with oppression. When I recognize government as coercive, I'm not saying it's unpopular. Coercion, especially against unpopular minorities, can enjoy broad popular support.

1. Public Social Security - Best thing since sliced bread for the vast majority of people. For proof, look at what happens to politicians when they try to privatize it. They always change directions quickly. People like it a lot.
2. Medicare Read my response above.
3. public parks, city, county, state - Great for the majority. Private parks are no where near as popular. Not counting amusement parks, which are NEVER public.
4. Public roadways - Good deal. I have no problem. Are you looking for private roadways? They exist, and cost a bunch. People only drive on them if they have the money and have to because of traffic problems.
5. Tax on the wealthy - if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that increasing taxes on the wealthy is very close to completely non-recessionary. Hurts no one except some very wealthy folks.
6. Tax on Corporations - see #5.
7. Minimum Wage laws - Stats show that they have NEVER been a long term drag on the economy, and they help people actually live.
8. Labor Unions - While cons like monopoly power in corporations, they see no need to allow labor to have offsetting power. Really?
And on and on, me boy.

So, all of those things which libertarians are against I see as non problems and generally good things. They simply do not allow the wealthy to become more so. What libertarians are, me boy, as you well know, is in the pocket of the wealthy. None of those things that are currently handled by the gov are in any way coercive of me. At all.
Your argument is spacious.

Again, whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not. Coercion is using the threat of violence to force people to comply with a given policy.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, me boy, you say they do not impose coercive GOVERNMENT oppression. I do not feel oppressed by our government in any area. Let consider:

Yeah. First of all, stop calling me 'boy'. You're going out of your way here to be an insulting prick and I'm trying to steer around it, but please, give it a break.

Second, you're confusing coercion with oppression. When I recognize government as coercive, I'm not saying it's unpopular. Coercion, especially against unpopular minorities, can enjoy broad popular support.

1. Public Social Security - Best thing since sliced bread for the vast majority of people. For proof, look at what happens to politicians when they try to privatize it. They always change directions quickly. People like it a lot.
2. Medicare Read my response above.
3. public parks, city, county, state - Great for the majority. Private parks are no where near as popular. Not counting amusement parks, which are NEVER public.
4. Public roadways - Good deal. I have no problem. Are you looking for private roadways? They exist, and cost a bunch. People only drive on them if they have the money and have to because of traffic problems.
5. Tax on the wealthy - if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that increasing taxes on the wealthy is very close to completely non-recessionary. Hurts no one except some very wealthy folks.
6. Tax on Corporations - see #5.
7. Minimum Wage laws - Stats show that they have NEVER been a long term drag on the economy, and they help people actually live.
8. Labor Unions - While cons like monopoly power in corporations, they see no need to allow labor to have offsetting power. Really?
And on and on, me boy.

So, all of those things which libertarians are against I see as non problems and generally good things. They simply do not allow the wealthy to become more so. What libertarians are, me boy, as you well know, is in the pocket of the wealthy. None of those things that are currently handled by the gov are in any way coercive of me. At all.
Your argument is spacious.

Again, whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not. Coercion is using the threat of violence to force people to comply with a given policy.

You ask me not to be insultive of you. Then you make the statement that "whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not." And you expect to be taken seriously??
I can not think of a single thing in life that I see as coercive that I see as a good thing. Jesus, really, me boy???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I can not think of a single thing in life that I see as coercive that I see as a good thing. Jesus, really, me boy???

libsocialism is naturally coercive and violent. Every libsocialist policy is implemented at the point of a gun whereas libertarians and conservatives want less govt violence, rules, regulations, and taxes. 1+1=2

 

[dblack]

Ah, me boy, you say they do not impose coercive GOVERNMENT oppression. I do not feel oppressed by our government in any area. Let consider:

Yeah. First of all, stop calling me 'boy'. You're going out of your way here to be an insulting prick and I'm trying to steer around it, but please, give it a break.

Second, you're confusing coercion with oppression. When I recognize government as coercive, I'm not saying it's unpopular. Coercion, especially against unpopular minorities, can enjoy broad popular support.

1. Public Social Security - Best thing since sliced bread for the vast majority of people. For proof, look at what happens to politicians when they try to privatize it. They always change directions quickly. People like it a lot.
2. Medicare Read my response above.
3. public parks, city, county, state - Great for the majority. Private parks are no where near as popular. Not counting amusement parks, which are NEVER public.
4. Public roadways - Good deal. I have no problem. Are you looking for private roadways? They exist, and cost a bunch. People only drive on them if they have the money and have to because of traffic problems.
5. Tax on the wealthy - if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that increasing taxes on the wealthy is very close to completely non-recessionary. Hurts no one except some very wealthy folks.
6. Tax on Corporations - see #5.
7. Minimum Wage laws - Stats show that they have NEVER been a long term drag on the economy, and they help people actually live.
8. Labor Unions - While cons like monopoly power in corporations, they see no need to allow labor to have offsetting power. Really?
And on and on, me boy.

So, all of those things which libertarians are against I see as non problems and generally good things. They simply do not allow the wealthy to become more so. What libertarians are, me boy, as you well know, is in the pocket of the wealthy. None of those things that are currently handled by the gov are in any way coercive of me. At all.
Your argument is spacious.

Again, whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not. Coercion is using the threat of violence to force people to comply with a given policy.

You ask me not to be insultive of you. Then you make the statement that "whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not." And you expect to be taken seriously??
I can not think of a single thing in life that I see as coercive that I see as a good thing. Jesus, really, me boy???

Apparently you don't understand the English language. But you do have insults down pat. At that I'll bid you "Fuck yourself" and discuss the issue with someone capable of understanding it instead.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, me boy, you say they do not impose coercive GOVERNMENT oppression. I do not feel oppressed by our government in any area. Let consider:

Yeah. First of all, stop calling me 'boy'. You're going out of your way here to be an insulting prick and I'm trying to steer around it, but please, give it a break.

Second, you're confusing coercion with oppression. When I recognize government as coercive, I'm not saying it's unpopular. Coercion, especially against unpopular minorities, can enjoy broad popular support.

1. Public Social Security - Best thing since sliced bread for the vast majority of people. For proof, look at what happens to politicians when they try to privatize it. They always change directions quickly. People like it a lot.
2. Medicare Read my response above.
3. public parks, city, county, state - Great for the majority. Private parks are no where near as popular. Not counting amusement parks, which are NEVER public.
4. Public roadways - Good deal. I have no problem. Are you looking for private roadways? They exist, and cost a bunch. People only drive on them if they have the money and have to because of traffic problems.
5. Tax on the wealthy - if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that increasing taxes on the wealthy is very close to completely non-recessionary. Hurts no one except some very wealthy folks.
6. Tax on Corporations - see #5.
7. Minimum Wage laws - Stats show that they have NEVER been a long term drag on the economy, and they help people actually live.
8. Labor Unions - While cons like monopoly power in corporations, they see no need to allow labor to have offsetting power. Really?
And on and on, me boy.

So, all of those things which libertarians are against I see as non problems and generally good things. They simply do not allow the wealthy to become more so. What libertarians are, me boy, as you well know, is in the pocket of the wealthy. None of those things that are currently handled by the gov are in any way coercive of me. At all.
Your argument is spacious.

Again, whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not. Coercion is using the threat of violence to force people to comply with a given policy.

You ask me not to be insultive of you. Then you make the statement that "whether you, or the majority, see these policies as "good things" has no bearing on whether they are coercive or not." And you expect to be taken seriously??
I can not think of a single thing in life that I see as coercive that I see as a good thing. Jesus, really, me boy???

Apparently you don't understand the English language. But you do have insults down pat. At that I'll bid you "Fuck yourself" and discuss the issue with someone capable of understanding it instead.

co·er·civ [kōˈərsiv]
ADJECTIVE
The definition of coercive is something related to the act of convincing someone through threats, force or without regard to what they want to do.
Read more at Coercive dictionary definition | coercive defined
ADJECTIVE

1. relating to or using force or threats:

Understand, me boy, that I never misunderstood the definition of coercive, me boy. Oops. Scratch that me boy, dipshit. So, dipshit, no one takes an agenda driven libertarian seriously. Because, dipshit, you are incapable of argument. Because, dipshit, you are a simple agenda driven Libertarian. And I NEVER respect those driven by agenda. So, please do scurry off. You are boring.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

Government didn't create the middle class, nimrod. Capitalism created it.

 

[Rshermr]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

According to your definition, there has never been a socialist nation either. Yet, turds like you are constantly pushing us towards socialism. If you were consistent you would simply allow things to remain as they are. But, alas, you are too fucking stupid to be consistent with your stated aims.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

Probably the closes nation on earth would be one that has very little government and allows anything. Example maybe somalia some areas.

It isn't pretty.

Government is necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

Probably the closes nation on earth would be one that has very little government and allows anything. Example maybe somalia some areas.

It isn't pretty.

Government is necessary.

The United States prior to 1914.

Somalia has plenty of government.

 

[Rshermr]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

According to your definition, there has never been a socialist nation either. Yet, turds like you are constantly pushing us towards socialism. If you were consistent you would simply allow things to remain as they are. But, alas, you are too fucking stupid to be consistent with your stated aims.

Ha.Just on queue. A delusional knuckle dragger. Everyone take
note.
By the way, me boy, what do you think my stated aim is???

 

[Rshermr]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

Probably the closes nation on earth would be one that has very little government and allows anything. Example maybe somalia some areas.

It isn't pretty.

Government is necessary.

The United States prior to 1914.

Somalia has plenty of government.

The US prior to 1914 had lots of gov, and was far from Libertarian. Stupid statement. That was just 14 years prior to the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

And Somalia, me boy, has had no central government since 1991. Nice try, but another swing and a miss, dipshit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

Libertarians are everything socialists profess to be but aren't. They believe in rewarding industry and don't frown upon real compassion.

 

[Rshermr]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

Libertarians are everything socialists profess to be but aren't. They believe in rewarding industry and don't frown upon real compassion.

Socialists have actual economies to point to. Libertarians have none. Libertarians have no success to point to, but plenty of failures.
But we do so value your opinion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

America was much worse off before the 20th century..A lot of ideas that came from the 20th century turned out to be great ideas.

Not everything, but alot. To be against them all makes you nutz.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[bripat9643]

I believe in civilization which has been around for a good 10 thousand years. All great civilizations need and had GOVERNMENT.

They invested in infrastructure
They invested in science...China has always been a great civilization of innovation and science!!!! Proving loserterinsim is kind of dumb!
I could name dozens of great civilizations that were built the same way we became a great power.

Loserterterism is the opposite of everything we should do. it is evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it evil. It simply advocates for a very different form of society with a very different set of values. What we see as progress, such as workers having rights and the existence of a middle class, a truly libertarian society would see as wasteful and pointless.

While there are self proclaimed Libertarians, there are no (as in zero) libertarian societies. With over 200 nations and over hundreds of years, there has NEVER been a libertarian nation. If libertarianism was so great, WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE THERE NO SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN NATIONS? Why, because the people always revolt to stop the libertarian bosses from continuing to ruin their, and their families life's.
So, these self professed libertarians are simply delusional clowns that are too stupid to see the obvious. Reading Atlas Shrugged and pounding on their chest. Just delusional knuckle draggers.

According to your definition, there has never been a socialist nation either. Yet, turds like you are constantly pushing us towards socialism. If you were consistent you would simply allow things to remain as they are. But, alas, you are too fucking stupid to be consistent with your stated aims.

Ha.Just on queue. A delusional knuckle dragger. Everyone take
note.
By the way, me boy, what do you think my stated aim is???

I think I already stated it: like all leftists you're trying to push this nation in the direction of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

America was much worse off before the 20th century..A lot of ideas that came from the 20th century turned out to be great ideas.

Not everything, but alot. To be against them all makes you nutz.

In the realm of politics, what ideas are those?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

Libertarians are everything socialists profess to be but aren't. They believe in rewarding industry and don't frown upon real compassion.

Socialists have actual economies to point to. Libertarians have none. Libertarians have no success to point to, but plenty of failures.
But we do so value your opinion.

Really? Where is this 100% socialist country that you imagine existed, Cambodia under the Khmers?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, so I've figured out that the ideal libertarian society is made up of two classes: the rich, or the capitalists, and the poor, or proletariat. The capitalists own the state and all property, including the means of production. Their chief goals are to keep their position in society and to expand their personal wealth. They do this by intelligently deploying their human and material capital, cutting their costs to the bare minimum required for maximum efficiency, and investing in the proletariat to the minimum level for them to be useful employees. The proletariat are the workforce of society and use the property of the capitalists throughout their lives in exchange for their wages. Their chief goal is to earn those wages by using the capitalists' means of production to create and sell goods as cheaply as possible. They are also the primary consumers of those goods.

Tldr: The rich own the nation and everything in it. They acquire their wealth by the labor and taxation of the poor. The poor earn wages by working to help the rich become richer and spend those wages on the taxes that the state owned by the rich needs to perform its various functions and the goods and services they produce and need for their daily survival.

Libertarians are everything socialists profess to be but aren't. They believe in rewarding industry and don't frown upon real compassion.

Hmmm, no, they don't believe government should be in the business of rewarding anyone. I'm perfectly in favor of compassion so long as you do it on your own dime and don't get the government to do it by taking away my dimes.