A Libertarian's look at Christmas

[Anguille]

This thread is a hoot!


I especially like how the bleeding hearts talk about selfishness as if it's an absolute. I wonder how they're able to pay for internet service since they selflessly give away everything they earn to help the less fortunate.

What bleeding hearts? Who mentioned selflessness? Strawman!
BTW I don't pay for internet service. My neighbor unknowingly shares.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paulie doesn't give because he is inspired by libertarian dogma, he gives because he is a decent and nice guy.

But this is precisely why it's ridiculous to say libertarians are greedy. People don't give in the name of their ideology. It's just something that's within a person, and it's completely independent of their political platforms.

Conservatives/libertarians believe charity should be voluntary. Many liberals however, believe that it should be voluntary and forced through taxation for whatever it is they think the money should be taken to spend on.

This issue really shouldn't be filthied by pigeon-holing it to politics.

I think all people are basically greedy. Liberals and socialists realize this and understand that leaving things up the goodness of people's hearts has never and will never eradicate poverty. Some Libertarians and conservatives may actually be naive enough to think that but must are just being disingenuous and hide behind that charity should be voluntary sort of phoney piety because they want to hold onto all the power and money for themselves and dole stuff out just enough to keep people from uprising but not enough so that actual equality can be achieved. Libs and socialists don't like to share either but they are more willing to do so if everyone is being made to share too.

I would say believing that government will somehow eliminate poverty without simply putting all of us in poverty is naive. There's no way to fully eradicate poverty, but to allow people more freedom to keep their own property creates more incentives to succeed and ultimately give more to the needy.

 

[manifold]

Yes, that's what I said and/or implied.

I know. That's why I replied as I did.

I admire your first class critical reading skills.

Thank you. But you deserve all the credit. Your point was clear and concise. In your opinion 200 years of our system of government has done us wrong. I simply disagree. It may not be perfect, but it's still the best there's ever been... IMO.

 

[Anguille]

You want the criminals in Washington or your state capital in charge of the criminals in prison? I certainly don't.

Whether they be criminals or not, at least they are criminals which we can vote out of office. Unlike CEOs.

And how well has that worked out for us over the last 200 years? Not very well I'd say.

Sure worked out better for us than it did back in feudal times.

 

[Anguille]

But this is precisely why it's ridiculous to say libertarians are greedy. People don't give in the name of their ideology. It's just something that's within a person, and it's completely independent of their political platforms.

Conservatives/libertarians believe charity should be voluntary. Many liberals however, believe that it should be voluntary and forced through taxation for whatever it is they think the money should be taken to spend on.

This issue really shouldn't be filthied by pigeon-holing it to politics.

I think all people are basically greedy. Liberals and socialists realize this and understand that leaving things up the goodness of people's hearts has never and will never eradicate poverty. Some Libertarians and conservatives may actually be naive enough to think that but must are just being disingenuous and hide behind that charity should be voluntary sort of phoney piety because they want to hold onto all the power and money for themselves and dole stuff out just enough to keep people from uprising but not enough so that actual equality can be achieved. Libs and socialists don't like to share either but they are more willing to do so if everyone is being made to share too.

I would say believing that government will somehow eliminate poverty without simply putting all of us in poverty is naive. There's no way to fully eradicate poverty, but to allow people more freedom to keep their own property creates more incentives to succeed and ultimately give more to the needy.

Yeah, I know, you like the status quo because in the short term it looks like it would benefit you the best.

 

[Anguille]

Yes, that's what I said and/or implied.

I know. That's why I replied as I did.

I admire your first class critical reading skills.

Maybe you need new reading glasses because you are making no sense in your replies to him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think all people are basically greedy. Liberals and socialists realize this and understand that leaving things up the goodness of people's hearts has never and will never eradicate poverty. Some Libertarians and conservatives may actually be naive enough to think that but must are just being disingenuous and hide behind that charity should be voluntary sort of phoney piety because they want to hold onto all the power and money for themselves and dole stuff out just enough to keep people from uprising but not enough so that actual equality can be achieved. Libs and socialists don't like to share either but they are more willing to do so if everyone is being made to share too.

I would say believing that government will somehow eliminate poverty without simply putting all of us in poverty is naive. There's no way to fully eradicate poverty, but to allow people more freedom to keep their own property creates more incentives to succeed and ultimately give more to the needy.

Yeah, I know, you like the status quo because in the short term it looks like it would benefit you the best.

What I proposed is far from the status quo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I know. That's why I replied as I did.

I admire your first class critical reading skills.

Maybe you need new reading glasses because you are making no sense in your replies to him.

My responses to him don't need to make sense. He grasped a faulty premise, as did you, from what I said, and neither of you are going to change your mind regardless of what I say in my defense so why bother?

 

[Paulie]

I think all people are basically greedy. Liberals and socialists realize this and understand that leaving things up the goodness of people's hearts has never and will never eradicate poverty. Some Libertarians and conservatives may actually be naive enough to think that but must are just being disingenuous and hide behind that charity should be voluntary sort of phoney piety because they want to hold onto all the power and money for themselves and dole stuff out just enough to keep people from uprising but not enough so that actual equality can be achieved. Libs and socialists don't like to share either but they are more willing to do so if everyone is being made to share too.

I would say believing that government will somehow eliminate poverty without simply putting all of us in poverty is naive. There's no way to fully eradicate poverty, but to allow people more freedom to keep their own property creates more incentives to succeed and ultimately give more to the needy.

Yeah, I know, you like the status quo because in the short term it looks like it would benefit you the best.

I'm not sure you'll find many libertarians that are pleased with the status quo.

Let's not confuse us with regular old wanna-be conservative RINO's.

 

[manifold]

My responses to him don't need to make sense. He grasped a faulty premise, as did you, from what I said, and neither of you are going to change your mind regardless of what I say in my defense so why bother?

I'm absolutely willing to change my mind if I misunderstood your point.

So by all means, tell me what you meant by this:

And how well has that worked out for us over the last 200 years? Not very well I'd say.

 

[Anguille]

I would say believing that government will somehow eliminate poverty without simply putting all of us in poverty is naive. There's no way to fully eradicate poverty, but to allow people more freedom to keep their own property creates more incentives to succeed and ultimately give more to the needy.

Yeah, I know, you like the status quo because in the short term it looks like it would benefit you the best.

What I proposed is far from the status quo.

By status quo I was referring to the class system which is being pushed to dangerous extremes by this country's current capitalist, anti-regulation mind set.

 

[Anguille]

My responses to him don't need to make sense. He grasped a faulty premise, as did you, from what I said, and neither of you are going to change your mind regardless of what I say in my defense so why bother?

I'm absolutely willing to change my mind if I misunderstood your point.

So by all means, tell me what you meant by this:

And how well has that worked out for us over the last 200 years? Not very well I'd say.

Ditto on changing my interpretation if it can be demonstrated he said something different that what he's seems to have said.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My responses to him don't need to make sense. He grasped a faulty premise, as did you, from what I said, and neither of you are going to change your mind regardless of what I say in my defense so why bother?

I'm absolutely willing to change my mind if I misunderstood your point.

So by all means, tell me what you meant by this:

And how well has that worked out for us over the last 200 years? Not very well I'd say.

What I meant was that the system hasn't worked because those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out. Since government cannot be trusted we should not trust government to act in our best interests. In a private market there is a profit motive to acting in the best interests of your customers. This, however, doesn't imply perfection. As I said before there will always be someone trying to game the system, no matter what the system is.

 

[Anguille]

What I meant was that the system hasn't worked because those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out. Since government cannot be trusted we should not trust government to act in our best interests. In a private market there is a profit motive to acting in the best interests of your customers. This, however, doesn't imply perfection. As I said before there will always be someone trying to game the system, no matter what the system is.

"those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out."
To quote dear Ravi, ... Link?
I agree that there will always be someone willing to game the system, but when their clients are not their bosses, (so to speak since the voters hire the politicians) they have even more freedom to steal.
Please explain how profit motive acts in the best interest of customers since getting the most from giving as little as possible is what drives profit up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What I meant was that the system hasn't worked because those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out. Since government cannot be trusted we should not trust government to act in our best interests. In a private market there is a profit motive to acting in the best interests of your customers. This, however, doesn't imply perfection. As I said before there will always be someone trying to game the system, no matter what the system is.

"those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out."
To quote dear Ravi, ... Link?
I agree that there will always be someone willing to game the system, but when their clients are not their bosses, (so to speak since the voters hire the politicians) they have even more freedom to steal.
Please explain how profit motive acts in the best interest of customers since getting the most from giving as little as possible is what drives profit up.

As futile as I thought it'd be.

 

[manifold]

My responses to him don't need to make sense. He grasped a faulty premise, as did you, from what I said, and neither of you are going to change your mind regardless of what I say in my defense so why bother?

I'm absolutely willing to change my mind if I misunderstood your point.

So by all means, tell me what you meant by this:

And how well has that worked out for us over the last 200 years? Not very well I'd say.

What I meant was that the system hasn't worked because those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out. Since government cannot be trusted we should not trust government to act in our best interests. In a private market there is a profit motive to acting in the best interests of your customers. This, however, doesn't imply perfection. As I said before there will always be someone trying to game the system, no matter what the system is.

That is exactly what I thought you meant. And my point stands.

For all it's faults, our system that has been in place over the past 200 years has produced an infrastructure and environment where I've been able to provide comfortably for myself and my family and enjoy the liberty to do almost anything I please. Your comment implies either that this is not the case for you or that you're an illogical gambler who would be willing to roll the dice and see how your life would be if we had a different system for the last 200 years. You didn't strike me as an illogical gambler so I assumed the former. My bad.

 

[Anguille]

What I meant was that the system hasn't worked because those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out. Since government cannot be trusted we should not trust government to act in our best interests. In a private market there is a profit motive to acting in the best interests of your customers. This, however, doesn't imply perfection. As I said before there will always be someone trying to game the system, no matter what the system is.

"those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out."
To quote dear Ravi, ... Link?
I agree that there will always be someone willing to game the system, but when their clients are not their bosses, (so to speak since the voters hire the politicians) they have even more freedom to steal.
Please explain how profit motive acts in the best interest of customers since getting the most from giving as little as possible is what drives profit up.

As futile as I thought it'd be.

Futile of you to try to claim you meant something other than what you said.

You're an ungrateful whiner who will have even more to whine about if libertarians ever get a chance to screw up this country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"those who are the most corrupt are on the payroll of somebody and are just short of impossible to vote out."
To quote dear Ravi, ... Link?
I agree that there will always be someone willing to game the system, but when their clients are not their bosses, (so to speak since the voters hire the politicians) they have even more freedom to steal.
Please explain how profit motive acts in the best interest of customers since getting the most from giving as little as possible is what drives profit up.

As futile as I thought it'd be.

Futile of you to try to claim you meant something other than what you said.

You're an ungrateful whiner who will have even more to whine about if libertarians ever get a chance to screw up this country.

Ungrateful of what exactly?

And politics is the art of whining, so everyone on this board is a whiner.

 

[Ravi]

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

Scrooge Defended - Michael Levin - Mises Institute

Take a look at my signature. There is nothing heartless about holding people accountable for their actions. There is also nothing wrong with not giving handouts to every person that thinks they are entitled to them. You didn't mention that ugly fact in your post. In fact, you appear to believe in taking from one by force, which is a lot like theft, and giving to another. I rather hold to strict constitutionalism, than using the government as a weapon of force, to rob others.

If you believe there are a lot of people entitled to more 'stuff,' open your own wallet wider, worrying about your own business, instead of worrying about how much others are giving of their own volition.

Appeals to emotion don't work.

A Christmas Carol...or whatever the name of the book/movie was...wasn't about taxing people...it was about a stingy old fart that was visited by angels from God being "forced" by his conscience to quit being a user.

IIRC, this story wasn't about force at all, it was about charity and kindness and not abusing others. If you can't see the ridiculousness of the rewrite you are probably an idiot...no offense.

 

[Ravi]

This is why it would truly behoove our society to feed libertarians to the poor.

Quite the Modest Proposal.

I find Libertarians are tasty with a good helping of Tabasco.