If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"   (townhall.com) divider line 499
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 11:41:28 AM

slayer199: lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.

I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.


Problem: most of the government's power comes from the necessity of ensuring that one person or group isn't restricting the freedom of another.  When libertarians seek to remove that "power" they - unintentionally, for the most part - are working to ensure that some people don't have the same freedom as others.
 
2013-11-07 11:41:37 AM

AdmirableSnackbar: Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.

No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.

GE also doesn't seem to understand that the vaunted Free Market has dictated that poor people don't generally have access to quality grocery stores where they can purchase healthy, safe food.  For the most part they don't have the time or money to travel across town (or across the county for the rural welfare recipients) or at least out of the food deserts, to shop at a decent supermarket.


But if gummint regulations weren't so oppressive, an entrepreneur could just move to those impoverished areas and open up a low cost natural grocery store! Without zoning and health regulations and a minimum wage, that business could get started at a price that could be afforded by the people there.

Obviously since no one has poor people are too stupid to know how good natural food is and should be left to die.
 
2013-11-07 11:41:42 AM

xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.

You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.

Considering the hard-on libertarians have for free, unencumbered, unregulated markets I'd call it a pretty damn big piece. Playing "no true Scotsman" won't change the fact that, left to their own devices, companies will burn the world to the ground if it means they can make a buck.


This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.
 
2013-11-07 11:42:32 AM

skullkrusher: No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you


I'm a socialist filthy red marxist.  What I want, I will attempt to put into capitalist terms.  I want to maximize my profit.  I am effectively selling my labor power at a loss.  As a capitalist, this cannot stand.  I mention this to my other capitalist co-workers.  I let them know, we are all selling our labor at a loss.  We decide together..... (collectively, if you will...ohhh i know it's a dirty word!) that the only way in which we can stop selling our labor power at a loss is to take over the means of production ourselves.
 
2013-11-07 11:42:37 AM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.

This is the real problem with how these agencies are created.  The creation of laws should reside with Congress and Congress alone....no agency should have cart blanche to make up their own rules which have the force of law.  You can look at many federal agencies and see the same problem (FDA, FCC, etc).


That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

The reason lobbyists and life-long civil servants have such a large impact on the government is they are the only ones who actually know about their industries and sectors.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:27 AM

slayer199: lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.

I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.


The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:50 AM
Economics textbooks used to use a latin phrase "Caeteris Paribus" when talking about theoretical constructs such as the "laffer curve" (Invented by Ibn Khaldun and later attributed by Laffer to Keynes) that are not meant to be taken as a literal representation of how the world works, but rather as a device to demonstrate where the optimal tax rate is relative to the economy and government income.

The latin phrase means essentially "All things being equal." Unfortunately for libertarians, these models, just as advertised do not include the behavior of people in the real world in their calculations, and are therefore fundamentally flawed.

Being not bright enough to understand theoretical economics discussions is no basis for a system of government. Or on the other side of this argument, if some libertarian zero tax goon can prove that they have actually calculated the apex of the laffer curve, I invite them to come forward and claim their Nobel Prize in economics. Until then, I suppose, they can continue to burden the rest of us with their purely self interested quest to gargle on the ball sacks of hedge fund billionaires.
 
2013-11-07 11:44:57 AM

BMFPitt: No, I get it. You are only referring to the craziest extreme, and you would like to keep it that way.


Says the person who went "OH, so you think the government should have UNLIMITED POWER?!"

Physician, heal thyself.
 
2013-11-07 11:45:22 AM
drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up

So, a typical day on Fark?
 
2013-11-07 11:47:31 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you

I'm a socialist filthy red marxist.  What I want, I will attempt to put into capitalist terms.  I want to maximize my profit.  I am effectively selling my labor power at a loss.  As a capitalist, this cannot stand.  I mention this to my other capitalist co-workers.  I let them know, we are all selling our labor at a loss.  We decide together..... (collectively, if you will...ohhh i know it's a dirty word!) that the only way in which we can stop selling our labor power at a loss is to take over the means of production ourselves.


Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)
 
2013-11-07 11:48:13 AM

Gulper Eel: 1/10


Cute. You are a moron if you think I am arguing from a dishonest place or seeking to provoke you.

Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.


Poor people don't deserve choice, gotcha. You restate exactly what I said, your argument isn't that SNAP is flawed, it's that it doesn't punish the sin of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:49 AM

skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?


I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:56 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

It's totally different than the old systems of nobility, though. In theory the old nobles had significant responsibility to the people and the country. In Libertarian Land they would be constitutionally disallowed from having or demonstrating anything of the like, which is better because potato.


Worth mentioning most libertarians misuse the word authoritarian, which is not just any authority.  Authoritarians are ends in themselves, and thus illegitimate.  Strong men and the like, not democratic governments.    What they're really talking about is totalitarianism, which is legitimate power but oppressive, which democracies can certainly become..  Authoritarian powers can be benevolent for example -- and they often are with their tribe or kin group that underpins their power.

Libertarians like to pretend it's the opposite of authoritarianism, but it's really not.  Indeed the unrestrained struggle for indivudal power is often the root of authoritarian systems -- be it Henry Ford or Saddam Hussein.  Everyone is an underling in service to their ambitions.  Totalitarian systems like the Soviet Union are much more nebulous and bureaucratic and pretty much quash everyone and everything within it.  Even its leaders are subservient to the internal logic of the system.
 
2013-11-07 11:49:45 AM

skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)


I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.
 
2013-11-07 11:52:58 AM
Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB
 
2013-11-07 11:53:19 AM
EWreckedSean:

This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

Libertarianism leads to corporatism, numb nuts.  Without a strong government, it cannot stand against against even more powerful influences, namely the wealthy capitalists and corporations, which then have undue influence in government via either campaign contributions at the top, or influence over the populace.

A political and economic system can be judged on how resilient it is to corrupting influences and decay by those who don't give a shiat about sustaining it.  Libertarianism, both big and little 'l', fail miserably at this metric, and is only pushed either by those who know this, and want to corrupt the system further, or the naive.  Which are you?
 
2013-11-07 11:53:21 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.


That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.
 
2013-11-07 11:53:22 AM
Has anyone mentioned that the author stands on the sidelines and complains about how libertarians stand on the sidelines and complain?
 
2013-11-07 11:53:48 AM

skullkrusher: Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.


When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.
 
2013-11-07 11:53:57 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.


I believe money=money and should have no impact on political power and that pains must be taken to avoid undue influence short of confiscating that money. You could have the decency to at least dust off the facts about me that you're pulling from your ass, son.
 
2013-11-07 11:54:55 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.


Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.
 
2013-11-07 11:55:57 AM

lockers: When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.


Sure it does.  You just haven't read enough Marx.
 
2013-11-07 11:56:50 AM

vygramul: I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.


From an exchange with a Teahadist, responding to my suggestion that the obvious solution for the GOP is to pull farther right:

"And [redacted], my learning disabled friend. You are so right despite your own sarcastic tone. Kuccinelli, you would agree, was way farther to the right than Romney and performed way better than Romney did against Obama, despite the fact that he ran a much worse campaign than Romney and Obama ran a much better campaign than Mcauwful.

And what's farther right than a conservative? A libertarian... and between the crazy right wing conservative, Kuccinelli, and the even crazier libertarian, the right pulled in 53% of the vote to the Democrats 47%.

So yeah, you're actually right for once. The farther right we go, the better we perform in elections!"


The GOP's loss was immediately spun into a victory. Delusion is a hell of a drug.
 
2013-11-07 11:57:38 AM

lockers: skullkrusher: Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.

When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.


Barriers to entry are an issue but for the majority of people, their employer is small business. Not everyone works for a defense contractor or Walmart. Working in an industry with high barriers to entry is a pretty poor moral justification for stealing, however.
 
2013-11-07 11:57:51 AM

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.

Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.


Wait until they start using kitten blood, farkers will be anti-capitalists then!
 
2013-11-07 11:58:36 AM

AdmirableSnackbar: ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.

That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.


It's capitalism as an integrated political/economic philosophy. Much as Marxism and in particular Marxism-Leninism presents an integrated political and economic philosophy with "socialism" as the heart and soul, libertarianism presents one with "capitalism" as its heart and soul. Given that capitalism is inherently hierarchical and oppressive, this should be heart-stoppingly frightening.
 
2013-11-07 11:58:55 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.


Look up "Moorish".
 
2013-11-07 11:59:11 AM

FarkedOver: lockers: When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.

Sure it does.  You just haven't read enough Marx.


I stopped at Animal Crackers. His schtick gets old
 
2013-11-07 11:59:22 AM

Katolu: Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.

Look up "Moorish Moopish".

 
2013-11-07 12:00:26 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.

Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.

Wait until they start using kitten blood, farkers will be anti-capitalists then!


Alas Lhota was gonna be our kitten blood supplier and he lost to the commie
 
2013-11-07 12:01:24 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB

Gulper

  is reacting to a straw man.  Industrialized food production was the future of convenience and efficiency not too long ago.  Housewives wouldn't need to do dishes anymore!  etc.    The very idea of "healthy" being "non processed" foods is a very new one.

Therefore his whole point is nonsense.  Would we design SNAP today the same way?  No, but that comes with quite a bit of hindsight.   The promise was convenience and efficiency for a modern world, not carbed up fatties eating the cheapest stuff we could make.  And like all bureaucracies, they're hard to change once they're entrenched -- especially when no one wants to pay for these healthy alternatives when sugar water is so cheap.  No 'big agra' conspiracy required.
 
2013-11-07 12:01:30 PM

Katolu: Look up "Moorish".


My comment was referring to this survey.

Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.
 
2013-11-07 12:01:36 PM

skullkrusher: Barriers to entry are an issue but for the majority of people, their employer is small business. Not everyone works for a defense contractor or Walmart. Working in an industry with high barriers to entry is a pretty poor moral justification for stealing, however.


I don't agree with stealing from mom and pop stores, as those are typically family owned and operated.  They are working just as hard as the person working for MegaCorp.  Inc.  The issue is how hard and how much their personal time both of these types of workers have to forfeit in order to merely survive.

I bet if we calculated the amount of hours worked and the amount of time spent at a work place I think we would begin to see how much of our time the capitalist system we have in place wastes.  This some base and superstructure shiat here lol
 
2013-11-07 12:02:42 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: AdmirableSnackbar: ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.

That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.

It's capitalism as an integrated political/economic philosophy. Much as Marxism and in particular Marxism-Leninism presents an integrated political and economic philosophy with "socialism" as the heart and soul, libertarianism presents one with "capitalism" as its heart and soul. Given that capitalism is inherently hierarchical and oppressive, this should be heart-stoppingly frightening.


It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.
 
2013-11-07 12:02:48 PM
There's definitely a problem with people calling themselves libertarians who aren't -- but that problem is people like Gary North, not Bill Maher.
 
2013-11-07 12:05:13 PM

super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.


Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.
 
2013-11-07 12:05:52 PM
DarnoKonrad:
Would we design SNAP today the same way?  No, but that comes with quite a bit of hindsight.   The promise was convenience and efficiency for a modern world, not carbed up fatties eating the cheapest stuff we could make.  And like all bureaucracies, they're hard to change once they're entrenched -- especially when no one wants to pay for these healthy alternatives when sugar water is so cheap.  No 'big agra' conspiracy required.

Healthy alternatives aren't even more expensive, they just don't taste as good. You could be the picture of health on eggs, oatmeal, milk, the occasional mcdouble for cheating, and a multivitimin. Of course his concern with the health of snap participants is of the troll variety.
 
2013-11-07 12:06:25 PM

FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.


So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.
 
2013-11-07 12:06:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Katolu: Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.

Look up "Moorish Moopish".


I LOLed and funnied. Thanks!
 
2013-11-07 12:07:27 PM
FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:07 PM

karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.


Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:39 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.


The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:39 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.


well in a utopia we'd have robots (minorities?) doing all the labor for us so we wouldn't need a job at all and would just engage in whatever stimulates us creatively
 
2013-11-07 12:09:57 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.

Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.


Capitalism is no different than Democracy:  If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack.  See:  The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration.  They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.
 
2013-11-07 12:10:59 PM

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?
 
2013-11-07 12:12:09 PM

FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.


After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.
 
2013-11-07 12:12:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.


Another issue with capitalism is that you would think that technological progress wouldn't result in more unemployment but would rather create an easing of the burden of work for all.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:18 PM

Rwa2play: Capitalism is no different than Democracy: If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack. See: The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration. They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.


Communism, socialism, anarchism are no different than democracy either..... I hope you are aware of that......
 
2013-11-07 12:13:22 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.

Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.


And if I entered in a one-man race, I'd be first and last place at the same time. The other economic systems that have been attempted on a large scale have been, shall I say, "suboptimal".

And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:31 PM

karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.

After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.


We get it, you really don't like it when people don't match up to your assumptions of them, it harms your little worldview-bubble.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report