Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-07 12:14:05 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.


Ok.
 
2013-11-07 12:14:07 PM  

FarkedOver: 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


Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop
 
2013-11-07 12:17:26 PM  

super_grass: 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.


If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"
 
2013-11-07 12:17:36 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.


Ah now we're at the heart of the matter. You just want to be free to pursue your dreams which no one else values and expect society to foot the bill.
 
2013-11-07 12:19:44 PM  

sprawl15: 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


Until the robots rebel and nuke the planet. This never ends well.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:02 PM  

sprawl15: 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


Looking at most workers I run into, they might as well be robots for all the humanity that is both displayed by and shown to them :(.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:37 PM  

Thrag: 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?


EVEN THE VERY QUESTION IS SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA!

/furiously hand waves while constructing his strawman.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:28 PM  
Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop


Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?
 
2013-11-07 12:21:57 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Red herring, the Food Nutrition program with SNAP and WIC have the lowest fraud amount of any federal program, this includes the Department of Defense.


[citation needed]

It's true that SNAP fraud has decreased to around 1-1.3% - which is good compared to the ~10% Medicare fraud rate - but the program has a long history of mismanagement even above its flawed design.

People like to be compassionate, but they're not going to be chumps. The program not only needs to be good, it needs to be perceived as good, and that perception has to be earned over time. And oversight is never sexy. It gets cut because it gets in the way of politicians who want to be the hero on the white horse, riding in when times are tough with piles of money and few questions asked.

And then take into account that the SNAP program is nutritionally horrible.

Low-income shoppers on a constrained budget, the very group these programs target, often make the rational decision in the supermarket to buy the most energy-dense foods limited dollars can afford. And, in the American supermarket, it just so happens that you get more calories per dollar from soft drinks than fruit juice, from refined grains than whole grains, from frozen french fries than fresh broccoli.
"In other words, the foods, beverages, snacks or diets said to promote obesity were, in every case, inexpensive," Adam Drewnowski, director of the Center for Obesity Research at the University of Washington, wrote in a 2007 article in Epidemiologic Reviews. "What epidemiologic research seems to have shown, fairly consistently, is that obesity is most closely associated with habitual consumption of low-cost foods."


In other words, the food stamp program would be great if it was still 1937.
 
2013-11-07 12:23:13 PM  

hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.


Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.
 
2013-11-07 12:23:45 PM  

FarkedOver: super_grass: 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.

If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.


Well better men have tried and failed repeatedly and spectacularly. It just so happens that various combinations of private ownership and decentralized competition works better.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"

Why the hell not? I lock my doors at night and distrust abstinence only education for the same reason. I'd rather redirect human tendency towards productive ends than to fight it.
 
2013-11-07 12:25:06 PM  

lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.


Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?
 
2013-11-07 12:25:08 PM  
 
2013-11-07 12:26:28 PM  
They're certainly right about all the petty blue laws and punishments for victimless crimes we tolerate.  There are way too many doucebag authoritarians and the douches who just sit by and enable them, because it's for the children.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:28 PM  

lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?


Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up
 
2013-11-07 12:27:50 PM  

FarkedOver: super_grass: 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.

If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"


Uh, but pure capitalism DIDN'T work. It farked things up. BADLY, and lead to thinks like Standard Oil, etc. A fusion of Capitalism and socialism does seem to work the best.

I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

This is also why pure captialism/no regulations screws up too, mind. ("So what if this makes the water undrinkable 100 miles downstream, I don't know those folks! Screw them, it's cheaper to dump the waste in the river, I own the water rights for this stretch of it!")
 
2013-11-07 12:28:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?


Because there's nothing reasonable about seizing the means of production for collective ownership?
 
2013-11-07 12:28:33 PM  

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.


As always, your characterization of "the left's" position is false. If anyone have proposals to make SNAP work better to provide good nutrition "the left" would be happy to hear them. Instead of sensible meaningful reform, all we get is the desire to cut it's funding or eliminate it entirely. What you view as "the left" trying to increase benefits is not a desire to throw money at the problem, it's barely even a desire to significantly increase benefits. It's primarily a push against the constant call to cut the program to the bone.

So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?
 
2013-11-07 12:29:57 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?


Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.
 
2013-11-07 12:30:02 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?


They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?
 
2013-11-07 12:33:17 PM  

BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?

They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?


Shared ideology, cultural norms, centuries of legal precedent and philosophy?

I mean, there's no inherent thing called "human rights", it's just something that people universally agree on and have some utilitarian value. Kind of like the concept of right and wrong.
 
2013-11-07 12:33:46 PM  

skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?

Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up


Which doesn't answer my question. Why is the government, which is concerned about social welfare and not profit, taxing the moral equivalent of theft? We can argue just how much the government should intervene, but specifically why is taxation the moral equivalent of theft?
 
2013-11-07 12:35:53 PM  
Libertarians are authoritarians.

They just think that they should be the authority.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:06 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?

Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.


There are more than two choices, you do understand that, right? Hell, let's talk small-scale nitty gritty: Why not restructure the system of tax incentives to promote worker ownership? Why not remove the huge anti-labor legal infrastructure and promote unionization instead of attacking it? Why not give traditional banks the legal limitations that credit unions have and deregulate them instead? I think that a large-scale collectivist anarchism is practical now, but even if we're just talking "moderate compromise", why is that "moderate compromise" in actuality so immoderate and tilted toward the capitalist class? It doesn't have to be that way, and the welfare state is not the only or the best way out.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:34 PM  

Thrag: 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?


What happens over time is that any government program of a certain size ends up with its own industrial complex - in New York that'd be the health-care-industrial complex, thanks to a Medicaid program that's grown to be almost half the state budget.

The question for New York is not whether to change, but how they're going to change before the change is imposed by Washington in a way New York is not going to like at all. Members of Congress do not like to be embarrassed, and when it was found out this year that New York had overbilled Medicaid by $15 billion over 20 years for care for the mentally ill - most of it at a handful of hospitals - even the libbiest libs on the oversight committee thought that was a bit much to skim off the top, and thus Congress ordered the state to make at least partial restitution and spread some CYA around for all concerned.

There's more of that coming for New York, which made the mistake of being too obvious about treating Medicaid as a vote-buying/check-cutting program rather than a program to pay for care of the poor.

In other words, tearing down the program and starting over may be a best-case scenario, if the ham-handers in Washington handle things in the usual way.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:39 PM  

super_grass: Why the hell not? I lock my doors at night and distrust abstinence only education for the same reason. I'd rather redirect human tendency towards productive ends than to fight it.


Because the human nature argument is pure bullshiat.  Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human.  Further, I have never seen a great definition of human nature laid out by capitalists.

I like the definition that human nature is merely how human beings adapt to differing social circumstances.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:41 PM  

BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?

They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?


You're intellectual superiors who had both the means and the interest in making a better world. Before the enlightenment, you were a ward of the sovereign and existed at it's pleasure. This, in fact, is still true today. Bush was right, the constitution is just a piece of paper.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: There are more than two choices, you do understand that, right? Hell, let's talk small-scale nitty gritty: Why not restructure the system of tax incentives to promote worker ownership? Why not remove the huge anti-labor legal infrastructure and promote unionization instead of attacking it? Why not give traditional banks the legal limitations that credit unions have and deregulate them instead? I think that a large-scale collectivist anarchism is practical now, but even if we're just talking "moderate compromise", why is that "moderate compromise" in actuality so immoderate and tilted toward the capitalist class? It doesn't have to be that way, and the welfare state is not the only or the best way out.


Oh, I'm sorry. I am not disagreeing with you. I would love to reform society to be a fairer one. Our problem is the inertia of a working (however dysfunctional) system. However, people refuse to wake up to the fact of just how raw a deal they are getting in our economy. The best I can hope to accomplish is for my government to pull out a paddle to nudge the titanic's direction.
 
2013-11-07 12:42:31 PM  

Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?


Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.
 
2013-11-07 12:43:18 PM  

FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human


There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.
 
2013-11-07 12:44:12 PM  

super_grass: There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.


Self interest is staying alive.  Having food, shelter, water, etc.  Self interest is not the same as greed.
 
2013-11-07 12:45:12 PM  

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Better yet, instead of handing out subsidies to farmers to grow food only to let it rot, you can redirect that money towards handing out produce that won't clog your artery/colon.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:35 PM  

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Who do you think would get the contract for providing that food?  I'm sure it would be some super-reputable upstart who cares about the best interests of the recipient and certainly not some MegaCorp that greases the wheels and does things on the cheap and provides food that over the years would end with the recipient in diabeetusland.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:37 PM  

lockers: skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?

Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up

Which doesn't answer my question. Why is the government, which is concerned about social welfare and not profit, taxing the moral equivalent of theft? We can argue just how much the government should intervene, but specifically why is taxation the moral equivalent of theft?


I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer
 
2013-11-07 12:47:01 PM  

FarkedOver: super_grass: There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.

Self interest is staying alive.  Having food, shelter, water, etc.  Self interest is not the same as greed.


That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:  nursingcrib.com
 
2013-11-07 12:48:38 PM  

super_grass: FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human

There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.


Let's agree that human self interest is universal.  Food is in the self interest of man.  There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet.  Why do we not feed every person on the planet if this is a universal need?
 
2013-11-07 12:49:28 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


"I am a proud conservative and brony--"

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-07 12:50:25 PM  

super_grass: That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:


Everything hinges on food and water.  If you don't have those you won't have anything else for very long.
 
2013-11-07 12:52:10 PM  

skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer


I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!
 
2013-11-07 12:53:57 PM  

FarkedOver: super_grass: FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human

There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.

Let's agree that human self interest is universal.  Food is in the self interest of man.  There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet.  Why do we not feed every person on the planet if this is a universal need?


Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:15 PM  

skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer


Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:36 PM  

skullkrusher: ... Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same.

...


Capitalists profit by:

- identifying an unmet or undermet consumer demand
- analyzing the availability and prices of all of the various factors of production, as well as the market for the good to be sold
- organizing the financing, production and marketing of the good or service
- producing the good efficiently
- adapting to constantly-changing circumstances in all involved markets (suppliers, labor, the good sold, etc.)
- taking the risk that the venture will fail, in which case there is no profit, and the capitalist does not get paid for his work

These tasks have economic value.  These tasks are difficult.  They require skill.  The person who does them well should be paid well for doing them.  Some people are better at doing them than others.  The people who do them better than others should get paid more than others.  We call this type of compensation "profit," but it's really just the name given to the way that the person who performs the entrepreneurial functions of a business gets paid.

The fact that you believe that the entrepreneur profits by merely skimming the "excess value" created by the laborer demonstrates that you have (a) read too much Karl Marx, and (b) that you have no experience whatsoever in actually producing valuable things for others.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:43 PM  

FarkedOver: super_grass: That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:

Everything hinges on food and water.  If you don't have those you won't have anything else for very long.


Well yeah. And once you get those, you move up to bigger things.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:29 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
2013-11-07 01:01:42 PM  

Phinn: skullkrusher: ... Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. ...

Capitalists profit by:

- identifying an unmet or undermet consumer demand
- analyzing the availability and prices of all of the various factors of production, as well as the market for the good to be sold
- organizing the financing, production and marketing of the good or service
- producing the good efficiently
- adapting to constantly-changing circumstances in all involved markets (suppliers, labor, the good sold, etc.)
- taking the risk that the venture will fail, in which case there is no profit, and the capitalist does not get paid for his work

These tasks have economic value.  These tasks are difficult.  They require skill.  The person who does them well should be paid well for doing them.  Some people are better at doing them than others.  The people who do them better than others should get paid more than others.  We call this type of compensation "profit," but it's really just the name given to the way that the person who performs the entrepreneurial functions of a business gets paid.

The fact that you believe that the entrepreneur profits by merely skimming the "excess value" created by the laborer demonstrates that you have (a) read too much Karl Marx, and (b) that you have no experience whatsoever in actually producing valuable things for others.


Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties
 
2013-11-07 01:04:20 PM  

lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.


I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho
 
2013-11-07 01:04:47 PM  

skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties



I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:13 PM  

lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.


We could do like the US did and just declare that nothing BTR was owned by anyone. Then it's not stealing! The doctrine of discovery provides such a nice precedent.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:19 PM  
FTA - "Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government pushing the idea that oil companies shouldn't have to deal with any environmental regulation because asshole cops in Podunkville, Indiana shut down a kid's lemonade stand...  which was also stocked with nachos, hot dogs, popcorn, candy, and commercial containers of about six different beverages and happened to be set up just outside of a car show in which vendors had paid a pretty hefty fee for the privilege to peddle their refreshments)

Oh, and did we mention that Reason is bankrolled by billionaire oil magnates?
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report