Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School

[JoeNormal]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

The fact that you've taken the time and trouble to write it down must make it true I suppose.

No, what makes it true is sound principle upon which it rests... which accurately conveys that which happened.

So... I can't help but to notice that you were unable to define 'fairness', at all... let alone as a principle.

Would it be presumptuous of me to expect that this in no way alters your feelings on any of this? That your chronic inability to sustain a word ya say, or any premise ya advance... that as far as your concerned, that failure on your part could in no way undermine your sense that your feelings on the issue are credible?

 

[idb]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

The fact that you've taken the time and trouble to write it down must make it true I suppose.

No, what makes it true is sound principle upon which it rests... which accurately conveys that which happened.

So... I can't help but to notice that you were unable to define 'fairness', at all... let alone as a principle.

Would it be presumptuous of me to expect that this in no way alters your feelings on any of this? That your chronic inability to sustain a word ya say, or any premise ya advance... that as far as your concerned, that failure on your part could in no way undermine your sense that your feelings on the issue are credible?

You could try reading before posting...no...that must be a Marxist principle...you'll never go for it!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Sustaining those who are unable to sustain themselves is a primary tenet of Judea-Christian values.
Socialism does not seek to sustain those who cannot sustain itself... it seeks to use social subsidy as a means to coerce individuals to exchange their political support for their government stipend.

Such policy neither serves the interests of the individuals being supported or the collective from which the property that is transferred, was confiscated.

What you do not realize is that where a familiar community joins in collective support, such policy may very well be perfectly appropriate and may very well work fine. But beyond the familial, accountability falls to the wayside and absent familial accountability, the tendency of human nature is to demand the subsistence as their right. The subsistence then becomes that which they depend upon, depriving them of the natural impetus to provide such for themselves, which is otherwise essential to the human spirit, thus to human health.

Therefore it becomes clear that the endless movement to carry that which is appropriate for a family, to be used as the construct of national policy, are foolish, misguided and never to be tolerated by any culture which seeks to remain viable.

 

[idb]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Sustaining those who are unable to sustain themselves is a primary tenet of Judea-Christian values.
Socialism does not seek to sustain those who cannot sustain itself... it seeks to use social subsidy as a means to coerce individuals to exchange their political support for their government stipend.

Such policy neither serves the interests of the individuals being supported or the collective from which the property that is transferred, was confiscated.

What you do not realize is that where a familiar community joins in collective support, such policy may very well be perfectly appropriate and may very well work fine. But beyond the familial, accountability falls to the wayside and absent familial accountability, the tendency of human nature is to demand the subsistence as their right. The subsistence then becomes that which they depend upon, depriving them of the natural impetus to provide such for themselves, which is otherwise essential to the human spirit, thus to human health.

Therefore it becomes clear that the endless movement to carry that which is appropriate for a family, to be used as the construct of national policy, are foolish, misguided and never to be tolerated by any culture which seeks to remain viable.

I don't know all the essential tenets of Socialism...you might be right that the basic principle of it is a political quid pro quo.
However, I do believe in a societal collective responsibility which, after all, is also espoused by both Liberals and Conservatives.
The mechanism of asserting that responsibility is the real dispute.

 

[idb]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

The fact that you've taken the time and trouble to write it down must make it true I suppose.

No, what makes it true is sound principle upon which it rests... which accurately conveys that which happened.

So... I can't help but to notice that you were unable to define 'fairness', at all... let alone as a principle.

Would it be presumptuous of me to expect that this in no way alters your feelings on any of this? That your chronic inability to sustain a word ya say, or any premise ya advance... that as far as your concerned, that failure on your part could in no way undermine your sense that your feelings on the issue are credible?

You could try reading before posting...no...that must be a Marxist principle...you'll never go for it!

And with that, I recognize your inability to reason soundly. And inform you of my standing policy that such pathetic individuals do not rise to the minimal requirements necessary for your input to qualify for consideration.

As such your numerous concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. And you're hereby sentenced to: LIFE IN IGNORE. (Say "Hi" to the other idiots for me, will ya?)

You've truly demonstrated yourself as the Hallmark of insipid contributors.

Oh well

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Oh now THAT has always fascinated me, this notion of the 'mixing' of ideas which promote the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit (profit) of both parties and those which oppose such.


Would ya take a moment to express the principles to which you adhere within your 'capitalist' side and the principles which you feel are central to your socialist mix?

It's the real world.
Look around you.

So what you're saying is that despite being politely requested to simply state the principles which you recognize as being central to your desire to mix diametrically opposed ideas, you have absolutely NO means to identify any principles which get anywhere near to the center of what stands as your 'reasoning'.

LOL!

Anyone shocked by an advocate of 'mixing' freedom with tyranny having no kinship with principle?

As always, the addled 'centrist' is just a Leftist, who lacks the courage to commit.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

Your use of the words 'freedom' and 'tyranny' to describe conservative and liberal principles reveals you as an uncritical thinker.

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.

I wasn't aware that 'fairness' is a principle.

A principle is a natural law... a fundamental truth or, a proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior, it is a chain of reasoning which defines predictable outcomes.

Actuarial lending principles... for instance, when applied these provide that where value is loaned, it is highly probable that the debt will be satisfactorily serviced (that means that the money loaned will be repaid within the terms of the agreement around which the loan was originated.

Now... the US Left spent several decades coercing the Financial markets to set aside the soundly reasoned actuarial lending principles for your would-be principle of 'fairness'. What's more they defined 'fariness' as "Every deserves to own their home".

Of course, in truth... those who 'deserve' to own a home meet the fundamental requirements which the principles of actuarial lending prescribe, thus the likelihood that those folks will repay the loan required to secure the mortgage necessary to buy the home... . So we can see that 'fairness'; and particularly the perverse understanding of 'fairness' as applied to that particular circumstance was inappropriate and it was inappropriate because 'fairness' is not a principle and as such 'fairness' cannot sustain a circumstance which can only be sustained through adherence to sound principle.

So tell me, how do YOU define your principle: "Fairness"?

OK, a reasonable question.
I think that fairness as a principle of organising a society is that everyone is given the opportunity to rise to their maximum potential regardless of their starting position.
People should also not be denied access to basic services based on their ability to pay.
There's plenty of room to argue what these basic services should be.
This all goes both ways and there should be no acceptance of abuse of services and opportunities provided.

I think that a society has a duty to look after the least of it's citizens.

God, you're right...I'm a complete Pinko!

And you'd be wrong...

What you're speaking of is OPPORTUNITY... which is available to everyone where the foundational principles of America are recognized, respected, defend and adhered to. Principles which the specious 'principles' you alluded to diametrically OPPOSE.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

I've followed this discussion and there is no evidence within the record of such, which could reasonably be used to infer that you've 'offended' Kaz.

This in contrast to the Everest of the piled evidence which demonstrates you've humiliated yourself.

And your inability to recognize such notwithstanding.

The fact that you've taken the time and trouble to write it down must make it true I suppose.

No, what makes it true is sound principle upon which it rests... which accurately conveys that which happened.

So... I can't help but to notice that you were unable to define 'fairness', at all... let alone as a principle.

Would it be presumptuous of me to expect that this in no way alters your feelings on any of this? That your chronic inability to sustain a word ya say, or any premise ya advance... that as far as your concerned, that failure on your part could in no way undermine your sense that your feelings on the issue are credible?

You could try reading before posting...no...that must be a Marxist principle...you'll never go for it!

And with that, I recognize your inability to reason soundly. And inform you of my standing policy that such pathetic individuals do not rise to the minimal requirements necessary for your input to qualify for consideration.

As such your numerous concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. And you're hereby sentenced to: LIFE IN IGNORE. (Say "Hi" to the other idiots for me, will ya?)

You've truly demonstrated yourself as the Hallmark of insipid contributors.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Can someone tell me when Ted Cruz was on CNN with AL Frank, or is the OP lying?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can someone tell me when Ted Cruz was on CNN with AL Frank, or is the OP lying?

Probably...

 

[eagle1462010]

FCC tax plan a threat to the Internet

One set of proposals currently under consideration would effectively classify Internet access services as “interstate telecommunications services” under Title II, which would allow the FCC to treat broadband access more like a public utility--effectively handing them exclusive regulatory control over broadband access.

However, by classifying broadband access services as ‘interstate telecommunications services’ broadband providers would then be required to pay FCC fees. With the fee structure currently at 16.1 percent, it’s likely to be the highest, one-time tax increase on the Internet.

The move would result in billions of dollars in new funding for the FCC, all without congressional authorization. While Congress could take action and pass new broadband rules for the FCC to abide by, it has yet to act. Should the FCC move to classify Internet access services as “interstate telecommunications services” under Title II, it would be problematic on two fronts.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of FCC Title II Broadband 8212 for Google entire Internet ecosystem

Thus, the potential financial liability of deeming broadband Title II could be on the order of tens of billions of dollars a year on major asymmetric Internet traffic originators like Google-YouTube, but also others like Netflix, Amazon, etc. That is because:

• Broadband (Internet traffic) is currently an unregulated information service.
• Title II broadband would legally and logically transform unregulated information services traffic into regulated “telecommunications” traffic with cost-based metered pricing by law (See sections 251(b)(5) & 252(d)(2)(A))
• FCC’s regulatory forbearance authority apparently does not apply to metered “telecommunications.”
• Many Internet content and apps providers originate much more traffic than they terminate.
• Unregulated peering is largely free.
• The operative “telecommunications” metered rate is $.0007 per minute or translated to bits per seconds: 18 cents per gigabit per second or $182 per terabit per second. (See the methodology for all these calculations at the end of this post.)
• Thus the potential financial liability for every one terabit per second of internet traffic asymmetry would be $5.749b per year, (if the FCC did not devise a new cost-based telecom-Internet blended bit rate.)
• This means, in particular, Google-YouTube — as the Internet’s largest narrowcaster who sends an estimated 40 times more traffic than they receive — would have a reciprocal compensation cost liability alone of between $5.7b to 16.4b per year, depending on Google’s overall ratio of originating traffic to terminating traffic.

- See more at: The Multi-Billion Dollar Impact of FCC Title II Broadband 8212 for Google entire Internet ecosystem

 

[eagle1462010]

As I said..........follow the money..............going title II allows the FCC to tax................2 articles above shows the real purpose of this bill.

Again, in the court battle I showed, the FCC couldn't even show 1 case of the abuses they say will happen if they couldn't get title II...............NOT ONE....................

It's about taxing the internet and service providers.......

NO THANKS.

 

[kaz]

My basic principle is simply 'fairness'.
According to you that makes me a socialist that advocates tyranny.

Yes it does. It's not government's job to make life fair, and they never do that. They use fairness as an excuse to commit tyranny. Democrats are not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists. Marxists. If you actually read the communist manifesto without blinders on, you would realize that you agree with it. The goals and the rhetoric to justify them. They boil down to that it's the government's job to make life fair, and they will decide what fairness is.

Thank you...summed up beautifully.
Let me paraphrase.
"**** everyone else...I'm doing OK"

BTW, **** wad, you use quotes when you are quoting me. I did not say that, stop being a dick.

Poor thing.
I've offended you.

The idealogue's Alamo.
"It's not that the Free Market has failed...it's that it wasn't free enough."
It's lucky that the evil government were able to bail out so many of the poor, oppressed free marketeers.

Fair and equal access to the market is essential for it to work properly and in the best interests of everyone.
Nothing Marxist about it.

How is it in Utopia these days anyway?

So, the "free market" has failed in that people living in free market nations enjoy better lives with better food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, and life expectancy than any humans in all of history?

My only hope is that when you trade the prospect of reward as the means to motivate people to work for the whip - since there is no other option, that your hide is the first to experience what you propose.

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Ouch, how's the butt hurt going for you? So I can either not point out you were being a dick with your lie those were my actual words by using quotes or I can keep quiet. Got it. I'll give that all due consideration. Flush. OK, done.

By "**** you" I didn't mean, I'm offended, I meant "**** you." Here's how you know. I said "**** you." Tricky, huh? Note the accurate use of quotes to indicate those were my actual words.

 

[JoeNormal]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Sustaining those who are unable to sustain themselves is a primary tenet of Judea-Christian values.
Socialism does not seek to sustain those who cannot sustain itself... it seeks to use social subsidy as a means to coerce individuals to exchange their political support for their government stipend.

Such policy neither serves the interests of the individuals being supported or the collective from which the property that is transferred, was confiscated.

What you do not realize is that where a familiar community joins in collective support, such policy may very well be perfectly appropriate and may very well work fine. But beyond the familial, accountability falls to the wayside and absent familial accountability, the tendency of human nature is to demand the subsistence as their right. The subsistence then becomes that which they depend upon, depriving them of the natural impetus to provide such for themselves, which is otherwise essential to the human spirit, thus to human health.

Therefore it becomes clear that the endless movement to carry that which is appropriate for a family, to be used as the construct of national policy, are foolish, misguided and never to be tolerated by any culture which seeks to remain viable.

In complex, rapidly changing societies like ours, individual fortunes can turn on a dime. There needs to be a way to address that and other countries (mainly in Europe) have found a way to do it. When an industry or company goes down, there should be a support system in place that keeps people afloat and safe from losing everything they've worked for. Without that, good luck convincing people to invest themselves in it. Look at the millennials. They can see the American dream is bullshit and they're generally not buying into it.

There's also a significant ramp-up time to gain entry into these complex societies. We used to subsidize universities to encourage people to invest in that ramp-up time. That'll probably be the next thing on the austerity chopping block.

I will agree that such a system can be abused. Any system can be abused. Ours is being abused by the players in our financial system, our lobbyists and our corporations. These players need to be cleaned up to a greater degree than the welfare cheats that will inevitably infest this system.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Sustaining those who are unable to sustain themselves is a primary tenet of Judea-Christian values.
Socialism does not seek to sustain those who cannot sustain itself... it seeks to use social subsidy as a means to coerce individuals to exchange their political support for their government stipend.

Such policy neither serves the interests of the individuals being supported or the collective from which the property that is transferred, was confiscated.

What you do not realize is that where a familiar community joins in collective support, such policy may very well be perfectly appropriate and may very well work fine. But beyond the familial, accountability falls to the wayside and absent familial accountability, the tendency of human nature is to demand the subsistence as their right. The subsistence then becomes that which they depend upon, depriving them of the natural impetus to provide such for themselves, which is otherwise essential to the human spirit, thus to human health.

Therefore it becomes clear that the endless movement to carry that which is appropriate for a family, to be used as the construct of national policy, are foolish, misguided and never to be tolerated by any culture which seeks to remain viable.

In complex, rapidly changing societies like ours, individual fortunes can turn on a dime. There needs to be a way to address that and other countries (mainly in Europe) have found a way to do it. When an industry of company goes down, there should be a support system in place that keeps people afloat and safe from losing everything they've worked for. Without that, good luck convincing people to invest themselves in it. Look at the millennials. They can see the American dream is bullshit and they're generally not buying into it.

There's also a significant ramp-up time to gain entry into these complex systems. We used to subsidize universities to encourage people to invest in that ramp-up time. That'll probably be the next thing on the austerity chopping block.

I will agree that such a system can be abused. Any system can be abused. Ours is being abused by the players in our financial system, our lobbyists and our corporations. These players need to be cleaned up to a greater degree than the welfare cheats that will inevitably infest this system.

Such systems not only 'can be' abused, they are DESIGNED to BE ABUSED. It is human nature TO ABUSE THEM. And why is THAT?

It IS THAT, because as you have implied above, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO USE THEM! Therefore, why would they alter their behavior, say by making concessions in Collective bargaining contracts, which would spare the 'rapidly changing, highly complex markets' to prevent the company or industry they 'depend' upon to avoid going BUST or to get help with their addiction, or to otherwise stop the behavior which is leading them directly toward calamity?

You feel that these systems are essential, I tell you that these systems are essential only to the destruction of the individual and that you conflate Entitlement with Charity. The former induces false pride, the latter humility... the former is destructive, the latter is essential to viable PROGRESS!

Therefore you're advocating for policy which is destructive to the very thing which you otherwise claim to be your goal.

 

[JoeNormal]

Are there any countries with a completely unregulated free market?

Even in the most perverse instances of Europe, the market economies have returned the best standard of living people in the area have ever experienced.

Can you point to any authoritarian/socialist system that has improved the lives of those enslaved under it?

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism. My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Nonsense.

Sustaining those who are unable to sustain themselves is a primary tenet of Judea-Christian values.
Socialism does not seek to sustain those who cannot sustain itself... it seeks to use social subsidy as a means to coerce individuals to exchange their political support for their government stipend.

Such policy neither serves the interests of the individuals being supported or the collective from which the property that is transferred, was confiscated.

What you do not realize is that where a familiar community joins in collective support, such policy may very well be perfectly appropriate and may very well work fine. But beyond the familial, accountability falls to the wayside and absent familial accountability, the tendency of human nature is to demand the subsistence as their right. The subsistence then becomes that which they depend upon, depriving them of the natural impetus to provide such for themselves, which is otherwise essential to the human spirit, thus to human health.

Therefore it becomes clear that the endless movement to carry that which is appropriate for a family, to be used as the construct of national policy, are foolish, misguided and never to be tolerated by any culture which seeks to remain viable.

In complex, rapidly changing societies like ours, individual fortunes can turn on a dime. There needs to be a way to address that and other countries (mainly in Europe) have found a way to do it. When an industry of company goes down, there should be a support system in place that keeps people afloat and safe from losing everything they've worked for. Without that, good luck convincing people to invest themselves in it. Look at the millennials. They can see the American dream is bullshit and they're generally not buying into it.

There's also a significant ramp-up time to gain entry into these complex systems. We used to subsidize universities to encourage people to invest in that ramp-up time. That'll probably be the next thing on the austerity chopping block.

I will agree that such a system can be abused. Any system can be abused. Ours is being abused by the players in our financial system, our lobbyists and our corporations. These players need to be cleaned up to a greater degree than the welfare cheats that will inevitably infest this system.

Such systems not only 'can be' abused, they are DESIGNED to BE ABUSED. It is human nature TO ABUSE THEM. And why is THAT?

It IS THAT, because as you have implied above, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO USE THEM! Therefore, why would they alter their behavior, say by making concessions in Collective bargaining contracts, which would spare the 'rapidly changing, highly complex markets' to prevent the company or industry they 'depend' upon to avoid going BUST or to get help with their addiction, or to otherwise stop the behavior which is leading them directly toward calamity?

You feel that these systems are essential, I tell you that these systems are essential only to the destruction of the individual and that you conflate Entitlement with Charity. The former induces false pride, the latter humility... the former is destructive, the latter is essential to viable PROGRESS!

Therefore you're advocating for policy which is destructive to the very thing which you otherwise claim to be your goal.

A sense of individual responsibility needs to be impressed on individuals in such a system, no doubt. There is also a responsibility for individuals to stay informed about the world they live in. Many people fall short of these societal responsibilities in at least one or the other of these areas.

I think the thing that most libertarians miss is that they themselves have benefited from the social contract. Whether through education, a complete infrastructure or a market with enough confidence to continue operating, we've all benefited from this type of system. But in their minds, whatever they have has been derived from nothing but their own effort.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not an answer.

That you cannot refute the answer is expected.

A free market, even one that is only partially free, improves the lives of those who interact with it - in direct proportion to the freedom of that market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's the thing that you and Kaz don't seem to grasp. None of us on this forum (that I'm aware of) are advocating pure socialism or communism.

Of course not - that leaves nothing to loot.

You advocate the double-standard, where men work for the benefit of those who produce nothing. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all provided limited markets and promoted black markets. Pure socialism leaves nothing but ashes, there must be some commerce allowed or those with pull will have nothing the seize.

My personal ideal would be something like Europe - basically capitalism with some social support. Absolutists like you two think that amounts to full blown socialism. Yet strangely, when it's convenient to your point, Europeans have free market economies. And neither of you can point to a pure libertarian system that has been a success. Good luck being taken seriously.

Funny that I just said the opposite - but then, you have a script from the hate sites that you argue from, you cannot actually engage in a rational conversation. You argue a caricature of what KOS defines as a Libertarian, not against my actual argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A sense of individual responsibility needs to be impressed on individuals in such a system, no doubt. There is also a responsibility for individuals to stay informed about the world they live in. Many people fall short of these societal responsibilities in at least one or the other of these areas.

I think the thing that most libertarians miss is that they themselves have benefited from the social contract. Whether through education, a complete infrastructure or a market with enough confidence to continue operating, we've all benefited from this type of system. But in their minds, whatever they have has been derived from nothing but their own effort.

"Those with vision thrive, those without perish." - Bill Gates

 

[zeke]

Such systems not only 'can be' abused, they are DESIGNED to BE ABUSED. It is human nature TO ABUSE THEM. And why is THAT?

You mean like how the bankers of the USA abused our banking system. Right? YOU are talking about the guys who collapsed the economy by abusing the system. Right. Then when they fucked up royally they got bailed out by that hated government. Who new that multi millionaires got welfare. From a Republican no less. But they did.

Now here's where you go; no Barney did it. No fannie and freddie did it no the CRA did it. Don't bother to respond. I already know what you are gonna write.