I think I get libertarian economics now

[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.

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

As a proven congenital idiot, you

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

As the mental giant that you are, you are proclaiming the US to be libertarian prior to 1914. Which it was not, me boy. Ever heard of the

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

Again, me poor ignorant con tool, there has been no central gov in Somalia for many years. None. I know that is hard for you to understand. And again, today, there is NO LIBERTARIAN COUNTRY. Somalia tried, and blew up. It is now a war torn wreck.
So the point is, there has never been a Libertarian country, ever. Out of over 200 countries, and a couple hundred years, you would think that if Libertarianism was so great, me boy, it would have succeeded somewhere. But it always fails.
And you, and other tools who call themselves libertarians, are taken as seriously as people who think they are Klingon's. Just nut cases, with a lack of a working brain.

And saying the US was libertarian, me boy, shows your desperation. No knowledgeable source will agree with you, it simply proves your lack of knowledge of history. You need not try, me boy, we know, already, that you are a congenital idiot.

Oh, and by the way, for your potential education (you are probably too stupid to be educated) the EU is not a country. Jesus, you are stupid. It is a union of countries, me boy. All previously had and currently have governments. Dipshit. Try to get a clue, me boy. You are embarrassing yourself. And wipe that spit off your chin.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

As a proven congenital idiot, you

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

As the mental giant that you are, you are proclaiming the US to be libertarian prior to 1914. Which it was not, me boy. Ever heard of the

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
HEW
Dept of Labor
FBI
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture
USDA
Food and Drug Administration
NASA
BATF
AMTRAK
Army Corp of Engineers
Bureau of Land Management
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO
Council of Economic Advisors
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

Again, me poor ignorant con tool, there has been no central gov in Somalia for many years. None. I know that is hard for you to understand. And again, today, there is NO LIBERTARIAN COUNTRY. Somalia tried, and blew up. It is now a war torn wreck.
So the point is, there has never been a Libertarian country, ever. Out of over 200 countries, and a couple hundred years, you would think that if Libertarianism was so great, me boy, it would have succeeded somewhere. But it always fails.
And you, and other tools who call themselves libertarians, are taken as seriously as people who think they are Klingon's. Just nut cases, with a lack of a working brain.

And saying the US was libertarian, me boy, shows your desperation. No knowledgeable source will agree with you, it simply proves your lack of knowledge of history. You need not try, me boy, we know, already, that you are a congenital idiot.

Oh, and by the way, for your potential education (you are probably too stupid to be educated) the EU is not a country. Jesus, you are stupid. It is a union of countries, me boy. All previously had and currently have governments. Dipshit. Try to get a clue, me boy. You are embarrassing yourself. And wipe that spit off your chin.

There is no socialist country ever, yet you keep bleating that because there was never a country that was perfectly libertarian means that libertarianism won't work. You're too ******* stupid to see the contradiction in your theory. The bottom line is that the closer a country gets to libertarianism, the better it does. The closer it gets to pure socialism, the worse it does.

The EU is a government, and that's all the matters to blow your idiocies out of the water.

And, yes, the country was very close to being libertarian in 1914. As I've already demonstrated, the size of the federal government then was a small fraction of what it is today. How small does it have to get before it qualifies as "libertarian" in your view? Please lay out the parameters for us. And also please list the countries that are perfectly 100% socialist.

Otherwise, shut the **** up.

 

[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.

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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

 

[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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

 

[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.

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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

There's never going to be a 100% libertarian government, dude. Calm down.

 

[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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

I
It's binary, dipshit. It is either libertarian, or it is not. You don't actually get to be a libertarian with full klingon voting rights in a nation you call partially libertarian.
Ever wonder, dipshit, why those rich libertarians are trying to create an island? It is, in their own words, because they can ont find an actual libertarian country. And they want to be actual libertarians, not pretend ones. Like you, me poor ignorant clown.
For Libertarian Utopia, Float Away on ‘Startup’ Nation

 

[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.

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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

I
It's binary, dipshit. It is either libertarian, or it is not. You don't actually get to be a libertarian with full klingon voting rights in a nation you call partially libertarian.
Ever wonder, dipshit, why those rich libertarians are trying to create an island? It is, in their own words, because they can ont find an actual libertarian country. And they want to be actual libertarians, not pretend ones. Like you, me poor ignorant clown.
For Libertarian Utopia, Float Away on ‘Startup’ Nation

Economic systems are never binary. Socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, communism; aspects will sneak in, "dipshit." And the US was largely libertarian in many ways for much of their history.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And I wouldn't call the corporate controlled system that will take over libertarian. Without government businesses/corporations will probably end up doing far worse and they aren't going to be elected.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

 

[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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

There's never going to be a 100% libertarian government, dude. Calm down.

There's never going to be a 100% socialist government, so why don't you tell Rshermr to "calm down?"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

because they can ont find an actual libertarian country.

So then since we cant find a perfectly libertarian, socialist, communist, or fascist country that means none of them work!! Rush has the IQ of a child!

 

[bripat9643]

because they can ont find an actual libertarian country.

So then since we cant find a perfectly libertarian, socialist, communist, or fascist country that means none of them work!! Rush has the IQ of a child!

Notice how the keep ignoring the corollary to their theorem.

 

[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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

I
It's binary, dipshit. It is either libertarian, or it is not. You don't actually get to be a libertarian with full klingon voting rights in a nation you call partially libertarian.

Wrong, douche bag, it's not binary - just as socialism isn't binary.

Ever wonder, dipshit, why those rich libertarians are trying to create an island? It is, in their own words, because they can ont find an actual libertarian country. And they want to be actual libertarians, not pretend ones. Like you, me poor ignorant clown.
For Libertarian Utopia, Float Away on ‘Startup’ Nation

How does that prove it's "binary?" When are you going to provide an example of this 100% socialist country?

 

[Rshermr]

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Homogenous cultures do better with socialism. In America it's about selling victimhood to leaches.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.

THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What the hell is a "prosperity rating?" Is that like the happiness index that measures what can't be measured? Because when it comes to material well being, Singapore and Hong Kong are rated #1 and #2.

"It encompassing traditional measures of material wealth, as well as capturing citizens’ sense of wellbeing – from how safe they feel, to their perceived personal freedom. GDP alone can never offer a complete view of prosperity.

We believe that by measuring the quality of education, healthcare, social capital and opportunity, our Prosperity Index gives the clearest view of how countries are prospering today and how they are likely to prosper in the future."​

Yep, just as I thought: it's measuring bullshit. It's a bogus metric invented by some douche bag commie professors designed to make socialism look good. Only lying commie douche bags would peddle this shit and claim it's any kind of objective evaluation.

 

[Rshermr]

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Homogenous cultures do better with socialism. In America it's about selling victimhood to leaches.

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Homogenous cultures do better with socialism. In America it's about selling victimhood to leaches.

Socialism is designed to make people into permanent working stiffs; other than the leaches that is.

REALLY, ME BOY. Have a source?? Latest prosperity ratings have Norway as number 1, and all the Scandinavian nations rated ahead of us.
THE PROSPERITY INDEX
TOP 25
1 - Norway
2 - Denmark
3 - Sweden
4 - Australia
5 - New Zealand
6 - Canada
7 - Finland
8 - Netherlands
9 - Switzerland
10 - Ireland
11 - Luxembourg
12 - U.S.
13 - UK
14 - Germany
15 - Iceland
16 - Austria
17 - Belgium
18 - Hong Kong
19 - Singapore
20 - Taiwan
21 - France
22 - Japan
23 - Spain
24 - Slovenia
25 - Malta

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked first, second and third place respectively.

In Europe, overall prosperity has risen, with the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany climbing the rankings into eighth, tenth and 14th position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations--U-S-drops-time.html#ixzz44czMizxD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Homogenous cultures do better with socialism. In America it's about selling victimhood to leaches.

And Bripat, the self proclaimed Libertarian, looks at the country prosperity rankings, and sees that none of the highly rated countries are capitalist, much less libertarian. Then, he peruses the nut case crazy conservative web sites. And does what any con tool would do, and blames the British organization doing the rating. Bripart is so predictable and amusing.
So, me boy, you must have an impartial rating showing at least a MOSTLY libertarian nation doing well!!!
But no. No mostly libertarian nations exist. Poor Bripart. Stuck trying to find some country, new or old, that could be called successful, but there are none. No country seems to be interested in saying they are libertarian, or even mostly libertarian. Perhaps, me boy, they do not understand themselves. Or MAYBE you, me boy, are a lying libertarian apologist.
Really, me boy, being a libertarian without a nation is tough. We all feel so sorry for you, me poor con tool boy.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

A much more libertarian US government virtually eliminated the debt in the 19th century. Nice try.

Unless it's perfectly 100% libertarian, it doesn't count. Of course, Rshermr won't even tell us what that means.

I
It's binary, dipshit. It is either libertarian, or it is not. You don't actually get to be a libertarian with full klingon voting rights in a nation you call partially libertarian.
Ever wonder, dipshit, why those rich libertarians are trying to create an island? It is, in their own words, because they can ont find an actual libertarian country. And they want to be actual libertarians, not pretend ones. Like you, me poor ignorant clown.
For Libertarian Utopia, Float Away on ‘Startup’ Nation

Economic systems are never binary. Socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, communism; aspects will sneak in, "dipshit." And the US was largely libertarian in many ways for much of their history.

Leaders of all countries will tell you what their economic system is. But none anywhere at any time say they ARE any of the following:
1. Libertarian
2. Mostly Libertarian
3. Partly Libertarian

So, it is binary. Each country knows what it's economy is. None believe they are even partially Libertarian. And none take seriously proclamations of self proclaimed Libertarians, nor Libertarian apologists. Socialist, yes. Communist even. Capitalist, yes. Libertarian, NO.
Libertarianism economies are not simply failures. They are total train wrecks. So, no, they do not become mere successful as they become more libertarian. That, of course, is just your delusion. They implode well prior to any real success.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Don't be absurd. Here are just a few government agencies that didn't exist in 1914:

EPA
Dept of Education The original Department of Education was created in 1867
Dept of Transportation Was in most states prior to then, consolidated as a cede, agency later. SO?
Dept of Energy
HEW. FORMED UNDE REPUBLICAN PRES EISENHOWER IN 1953
Dept of Labor The law creating a U.S. Department of Labor, signed by President William H. Taft on March 4, 1913. OOOOOPS.
FBI The bureau was established in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation (BOI). Its name was changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935.
CIA
NSA
Dept of Agriculture On May 15, 1862, Abraham Lincoln established the independent Department of Agriculture
USDA usda, me boy, is an acronym for THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. You have it listed TWICE.
Food and Drug Administration Though FDA can trace its origins back to the creation of the Agricultural Division in the Patent Office in 1848, its origins as a federal consumer protection agency began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act.
NASA. UH, ME BOY, THERE WAS NO AERONAUTICS OR SOACE TRAVEL PRIOR TO 1914.
BATF
AMTRAK. UH, THERE WAS NO AMTRAC IN 1914.
Army Corp of Engineers The history of United States Army Corps of Engineers can be traced back to 16 June 1775, when the Continental Congress organized an army with a chief engineer and two assistants.[7] Colonel Richard Gridley became General George Washington's first chief engineer; however, it was not until 1779 that Congress created a separate Corps of Engineers.
Bureau of Land Management The history of United States Army Corps of Engineers can be traced back to 16 June 1775, when the Continental Congress organized an army with a chief engineer and two assistants.[7] Colonel Richard Gridley became General George Washington's first chief engineer; however, it was not until 1779 that Congress created a separate Corps of Engineers.
CDC
Civil Rights Commission
CBO The CBO is not a department, me boy.
Council of Economic Advisors AH, NOT AN AVENCY, ME BOY. THE WORD COUNCIL SHOULD GIVE YOU A CLUE.
Yada
Yada
Yada
. . .​

There are literally thousands more. None of these agencies existed before 1914.

All these agencies are making regulations and spending the taxpayer's money. The claim that the USA had "lots of government" before 1914 doesn't pass the stupid test. By what standard? Is 1000 times less government still "lots of government?"

Somalia has no central government, but then neither did Europe a couple of decades ago. Does that mean Europe had no government before the EU? It has plenty of government, and so does Somalia. The latter has a particularly brutal and oppressive kind of government.

ME BOY, THE EU IS A UNION. NOT A NATION. NOW, LET ME EDUCATE YOU AGAIN. UNIONS DO NOT AND CAN NOT HAVE ANY ECONOMY.
The countries in the EU have had economies, some for decades. Sorry you missed that.
Another swing and a miss, me boy.
Really, me boy, you are a simple liar.