How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Why are you equating foreign aid with being christian? I think I do a lot more charitable things than any christian I know.... Knowing that we just rot in the ground when we die drives me like no imaginary friend ever could, to make the very best of life for me and everyone else.

About why THEY'RE doing it, how can you be so blind? to give the US global influence and power, respect, a hand in everything, to make us important where we should not be.

The whole idea that good deeds are based on religion stems from weak people, who only do good deeds because of their religion, extrapolating this view to others.

 

Indie

Yes I know you think that - I’m asking you why you think that and can you defend it from criticism beyond just saying ‘that’s what I think’, which as I’ve pointed out many times now is not a substitute for a rational and reasonable argument.

*

We have been through this before, at some length. You didn’t seem to have a reply then, and I don’t think you have one now?

Remember when you said

 

Indie

The problem is that the policies you seem to support and encourage would only give more power and influence to wealth and mean that they would use that power to corrupt any system so that it was run in their interests – including a bastard form of Keynesianism in down turns and neo-liberalism in the up turns. Basically meaning that in the upturns most of the benefits go to a few and in a downturn most of the misfortune is suffered by the many.

So far your only reply to this is the simplistic reaffirmation that you are a Free Marketeer which as I’ve pointed out a hundred times or more is not a rational or reasonable counter argument.

Oh please – how many times do we have to go through the same stuff?
It is a matter of good government – and if a system isn’t working as if should, it is a bad system and needs to be changed.

Good governance is about balance, for example in a moneyed economy if the democratic element is working properly it should balance the influence of wealth. We’ve been through this at length indie, why not just address things rather than repeating stuff you know we have already been through?

*
But as pointed out such a system would give more power and influence to wealth which could effort to pay for services. For example in poor areas the infrastructure is normally inferior to that of more wealthy areas. If wealth had even greater control over policing, security and justice they would be in a much greater position to suppress opposition.
This is just “the old con of the self serving argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help. So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged”
So far your only reply to this so far is you assertion that it isn’t - although you have not explained why not.

Come on pull the other one - this is just a classic piece of playing dumb to evade answering a question. I know you are not dumb Indie so please don’t try this.

 

Indie

Can you back this up?

Yes I know that is your view but can you back it up?

*

Then why did you present that as what progressives would want to do? It seems to me you were trying to scaremonger rather that debate honestly.

I know this is what you think but why and can you defend it with rational or reasonable argument?

And you still didn’t answer the question.

*

Ever heard of Corporation Tax?
And they should pay taxes since they are one of the main beneficiaries’ of a society’s infrastructures.

This still doesn’t address what was said, can you please do so?

*

Can you back this up?

Many things are too big to fail, without bring down the economy – can you back up your views with rational or reasonable argument please, just saying ‘that’s what I think’ doesn’t cut any mustard.

*

As I commented in the ‘Utopia, no just Keynes’ thread –
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...2C+Keynes&f=36
“And some encouraged the idea that if things went wrong the market would sort it out, companies or banks would just go to the wall and the taxpayers wouldn’t need to bail them out. But as many people pointed out (and were ridiculed or dismissed at the time) if a crisis did happen at some point a government might have to step in or watch the whole financial system go down the tubes.

Of course the logical conclusion of neoliberal ideas would seem to say let it go, although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theories turn out to be wrong and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-Mart.”

We’ve been through this a length before, just repeating a view does not make the criticisms of it go away.

The idea that governments (and people) did not have to worry about their debts came from neo-liberal ideas, as I covered already. It was basically the con that the party would continue forever that it had ended ‘boom and bust’. Other economic thinking that said it was a con were dismissed a scaremongers, but they turned out to be right.

The problem here is that you seem to be a supporter of such neo-liberal/free market thinking.

Now I know many free marketer’s are claiming that the system that developed wasn’t want a ‘true’ free market but there never has been and never will be a ‘true’ free market so that argument doesn’t stand.
Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*

 

Indie

You said - To me ‘basic’ education or training is not going to achieve that it is more likely to limit many people’s potential which in turn is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

I in reply said - Did it - can you back that view up?

Oh come on man – self serving gossip that just happens to fit you own viewpoint is not rational or reasonable argument.

And you’ve already praised the “advancements of science and technology that have been made in the U.S. over its short history of existence”
Do you think they were all achieved by just having a ‘basic’ educational system?

*

Again we have been through this before (one time just above). Anyway try reading The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.
And I notice that you still don’t address what was said.
*

Again you reply is a reflection of your simplistic approach – good/bad – superior/inferior – I’ve been through this many times now – reality does not normally come only in black or white it is usually only about differing shades and hues. And people don’t always have control of events.

Can you please explain your thinking (that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved) in rational and reasonable terms?

*

Again the simplistic approach anything vaguely left wing is in your eyes really just Marxism.
Again I think this is more like some kind of John Birch Society type scaremongering it isn’t rational or reasonable.

Several and I debate constantly with other left wingers in the real world and here over these differences of opinion. They however seem much more capable of forming rational arguments to back up their views than you do.

 

Indie

What is worse - this inability to think rationally seems to have led you into seeing the deeply unreasonable as legitimate means to you ideological ends, I am talking of your seeming willingness to use the abuse of power and the torture of individuals as a way of bringing about you ideological goals.

Oh please now you are taking use for dumb.

You have repeated your ideas – enforced sterilisation, enforced adoption, etc - more than once as solutions to what you see as problems – they are definitely your views.

And remember - I can quote you

This implies that to you the U.S. Constitution is no bar in the pursuit of what you want and what you want in regard to those you dislike or to those you see as inferior is as we have seen not very nice at all.

 

.

 

So it's no longer rational or reasonable to work as a means of acquiring your needs and/or wants? Please produce your rationale and reasoning for someone to work in order to provide for the needs of some unknown persons living hundreds of thousands of miles away when you could much more efficiently provide some assistance to someone you know or are at least somewhat aware of in the area more immediate to you?

 

There is no "good" form of government or governance that is acceptable to all.

You are free to make your own determination of who is disadvantaged and provide assistance as you feel necessary. Where do you feel a right exists for government or a group of individuals to decide who should be held responsible for providing assistance to others?

 

On a case by case basis, yes. I don't travel to every community across the states or the world. But then again you can find studies and polls that back up nearly every view, so pick the ones you like.

Progressives, Socialists, Democrats, Marxists, I see little difference between them.

Only when speaking with a rational and reasonable person.

But I did.

Do Corporations think or make decisions? It is the people who run the Corporations and make the decisions who should pay any taxes or be held responsible and accountable for any wrongdoing, not the Corporation.

What was said that you feel not addressed?

That's a stupid question to ask unless you're from another planet.

What's too big to fail? Certainly the economy will be affected by some failures, but so what? Recovery begins afterwards.

I'm not a follower of Keynes.

I accept as fact that some people are just incapable of learning.

Are you trying to say that governments (and people) do not have to worry about their debts? I certainly did not say they do not.

I'm a supporter of a free market, without government controls or regulations, but at the same time support holding people fully responsible for their actions.

I look at the

If you really wish to PROVE what works well and what does not, you cannot allow a central government to make the decisions for all people across the land. You must allow experimentation to take place and those who are most successful will be copied and improved upon, just like the competition of a free market produces.
I'll take a Free market over a government controlled market any day.

 

I've found both high school graduates and dropouts to perform as well or often better than college graduates when I was getting new employees, although over time it became quite obvious that schools were not producing the same quality of graduates they once were even though schools were being funded much greater than in the past. I lived in and continue to live in the real world, and if you don't take the time to look at what is happening around you and pin down the sources of failure you will not improve anything at all.

Not all, but a great many.

As opposed to blaming those with more money than you feel adequate?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, most likely it is a duck.

I rest my case.

 

well,shit, RooR you have to draw your own conclusions...my position has been and continues to be, despite the wiki writeup, that humanism is rooted in 'the love of humanity'; the earliest vestiges of this philosophy are rooted in religion. wiki links this to islam; christianity is older than islam, and clearly sets forth a 'love of humanity' and charity to fellow man. therefore, my conclusion is those who support charity are linked to religion, whether they like to acknowledge that or not. frankly, lying to oneself is a common among humans....loving our species is another lie we toss around. foreign aid-which is presented as being a 'humanistic response', is a cynical way to manipulate opinion....but those who buy into it are religious, and, imo, are therefore incapable of both adopting a 'non-christian' position and a 'for foreign aid' position simultaneously. to do so is hypocritical and inconsistent...typically lying ass human, in fact. lying bastards, us.

blind? do you not recognize a rhetorical question when one is posed? for example, how do you KNOW we rot in the ground when we die? are you your body? is that the only identification your consciousness can cling to? "oh, hep me! i'm going to die! therefore, i must make this experience the best it can be for everyone!" perhaps you do not see the contradictions of assumption in that position? for example, 'why must this be the best experience it can be for everyone?';

'what happens if it is a shitty experience for some that you cannot help? why do you not help everyone? if you are going to play ruler or god, you must extend this effort to all to be fair.';

'what if others really would prefer you let them the hell alone to have a crap experience if they want one?'. some may say, 'damn meddlers...sticking their nose in my business, telling me to have a nice day! sticking charity up my nose telling me my life is better for their piddly involvement! hypocrites! leave my standards alone as i am the judge of what experience i want to have!'.

to me, other peoples' experience is generally their experience. if they want to have a shit life and attitude, who am i to interfere? have a crap day, and enjoy the hell out of it...i am not a humanist, meddling, telling others they must have a lifestyle and experience that meets my standards.

you, Roor, can toss that crap about 'weak' around all you like. i know myself well, and i'm not weak. you can deny your religious roots in your humanism all you like. they're there. western philosophy is reflected in historical writing, all the way back to greece. to me, the position that 'charity is NOT rooted in religion, but in my own fear of death because this is all there is' is hilarious. when you decide to be honest with yourself about charity...and 'species love' (which is discrimination against other species, in fact), perhaps you will have a modified view.

 

I only seek to fulfill my personal ideological goals which impose nothing upon others, unlike your ideological goals.

"Taking use for dumb"?

Not my views, just some possible solutions to what YOU see as problems.

I did so under Johnson (D), and would have no problem doing so if the need should arise in the future.

The Constitution is the primary bar upon which the authority of the U.S. government is constrained. Sadly activist Judges have denigrated it immensely over the last 150 or so years. Laws are meaningless if the law itself has to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

 

Indie

This is an example of why you are not honest.

Let us look at the sequence

You said if someone earned the money they should have it, but I pointed out that someone born into advantage didn’t earn that advantage - so is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

So far your only reply to this is a simplistic – yes – which as I’ve pointed out a hundred times or more is not a rational or reasonable argument

Your reply this time was –

To which I said - Yes I know you think that, I’m asking you why and can you defend it from criticism beyond – that’s what I think – which as I’ve pointed out many times now is not a substitute for a rational and reasonable argument.

And you reply –

You know what was said so this is clearly you being dishonest – it has nothing to do with the sequence it is just you making an accusation that has nothing to do with it.

Please try and be honest.
*

As with a lot of your thinking you take a simplistic approach.

Lets just pick one of your examples - the first one – automobiles.

This was a development going all the way back to the age of steam rather than a single person’s creation.

No one stepped forward and designed a Bugatti Veyron from scratch, on one person created all the parts and components that make a up an automobile, wheels, tires, pistons, gears, etc were all in existence already.
Yes some people got the patents for things first, but the elements were already in existence and a number of people were working on putting them together.

But then what are cars without roads? And as I’ve already pointed out (I do wish you’d read my posts) – “Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc”

The thing is that most roads are public works along with the bridges, traffic control systems etc.

I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has often been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History".

*

 

Indie

Again to quote Adam Smith – “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”

Again this just comes across as the same old simplistic thinking –black and white – private good, public bad. We’ve been through this before and yes this is your opinion – now can you please present a rational argument to back it up?

,
Again you confuse plutocracy with democracy again try reading Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*

You mean I can ask you to be honest but you reserve the option of not been?

I ask you a question and you refuse to answer and then tell me I should know what you reply would be. Come on man – that must be the lamest piece of evasion, I’ve ever heard.

You then go on to make a bunch of assertions that once again you don’t back up, and if your past history is anything to go by you will not do so even if asked.

Why is it you can’t just explain your ideas in straight forward rational and reasonable way?

*

Well I think a government that abuses its power by forcibly taking children away from their parents, sterilising people against their will, and persecute those whose view it doesn’t like, is a bad government, but that is the kind of things you have said you want from government.

To me ‘good’ governance is about governing in and for the interests of all the people being governed.

*

So you can’t back up your view – so why do you have them?

*

Yes I know this is what you think but why and can you defend it with rational or reasonable argument?

*

Oh dear you’re turning into the petulant child again. Stop trying to be ‘clever’ it doesn’t work you just come across as silly.

*
And you still didn’t answer the question.

This is me indie, I go back and check and no as far as I can tell you haven’t -but if you think you have please cite what you said?

*

 

Indie

They use a society’s resources and infrastructure and they need to be regulated and monitored.

Again your view comes across as simplistic even naive as if you have no experience of working in that kind of environment or are ill informed about it.
Try reading - The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan

*

Many things are too big to fail without bringing down the economy – can you back up your view - that ‘nothing is too big to fail’ in the context of the discussion - with rational or reasonable argument?
In my view things shouldn’t be ‘too big to fail’ and that is by government needs to regulate and monitor institutions and be able to step in to do such things as break up monopolies and curtail bad practise. For example in the financial system there should be a split between the gambling part of finance (which often gets into trouble) and the depositor section. Similar to the provisions of the Glass-Steagall act.

You seem to prefer deregulation, with less governmental control which would seem to make such systems worse rather than better.

*

So what?
Can you give a rational and reasonable argument for this view?
I mean these things can have terrible and unforeseen consequences (the rise of fascism) as well as causing considerable hardship to vast amounts of people (depression).

*

I know – but the question is why do you have your views and can you defend them against criticism?

*

I know this already, I think we all do by now, but the question is why do you have your views and can you defend them against criticism?

So far you’ve refused.

*

Oh hell, yes I know you would – but the question is why do you have these views and have you any rational and reasonable arguments to defend them from criticism.

 

Indie

You have been ‘living in the real world of the US’ while actually living in rural Laos? How do you do that?
I live in London and have a six year old girl in school so education is rather an immediate issue.
Anyway what you have produced is personal assertion based on a biased viewpoint of events that just happens to fit in with what you think - it doesn’t seem to back up what you said - that a ‘basic’ education is all people need.
*
Can you please explain your thinking (that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved) in rational and reasonable terms?

Once again can you please explain your thinking (that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved) in rational and reasonable terms?

 

Indie

But if you could you would like to forcibly take children away from their parents, sterilise people against their will, and persecute those whose view you don’t like.

As I’ve said your personal ideology doesn’t seem very nice.

*

Oh you sweet petulant child, Indie we all make spelling mistake, including you, do point them out to you in this silly adolescent way, no, because this is just a bit of fun on the internet and mistakes are bound to happen, so making stupid pedantic points that are more about juvenile point scoring than rational debate is rather dumb.

*

No they definitely are you solutions to the disadvantaged that you’ve repeated several times now – and as well documented by solutions involve trying to help the disadvantaged not in punishing them for their misfortune, you are the only one here who has suggested that.

*

Lets look at a sequence once more to gauge your honestly

You said

I said -

This implies that to you the U.S. Constitution is no bar in the pursuit of what you want and what you want in regard to those you dislike or to those you see as inferior is as we have seen not very nice at all.

And your reply is –

Trying to change the subject - in other words, misdirection.

So why are you misdirecting people? Could it be because you don’t like people to know that you would like to forcibly take children away from their parents, sterilise people against their will, and persecute those whose view you don’t like?

 

Indie

Do you mean yourself or me?

To me one of the greatest ways of learning is through debate were ideas are presented to see if it stands up to scrutiny. In an honest debate people answer questions and address the criticisms of their views in a rational and reasonable way.

But so far rather than address you critics and answer questions openly and honestly what we’ve had from you is mostly evasion.
Learning is about testing and you don’t seem to want to test your ideas at all.

Learning is about having an open and questioning mind however your views seem dogmatically locked.

To the question of why you hold your view we get ‘because’ with little or no explanation, when asked to back up your ideas with rational argument we get instead just more dogmatic assertion.

It seem to me that you ideology is a hollow shell a crumbling façade held up by nothing more than a blinkered, bitter and biased mind.

In other words there doesn’t seem much to learn although I do wonder given its lack of substance why anyone would want to hold such views?

*

 

Posing a question is now an example of dishonesty?

Okay.

I believe what I said was essentially that the money earned by someone is their right to dispose of as they see fit.
"Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn't earn rather than share them with others who no blame of their own are disadvantaged?" Absolutely!

You tend to see anything and everything that disagrees with you as being not rational or not reasonable. Why do you feel that way?

Are you calling me a liar? I STAND BY WHAT i HAVE SAID.

All government projects are funded by taxpayers, and government is but a middle man.