How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

What are you talking about? Even under an increasingly government regulated free market system most every product produced by the private sector has become less expensive due to competition, with the exception of government itself. Price fixing by competitors is illegal, can you provide some examples of where that is taking place?

The private sector provides us with choices, public sector does not. While the public sector can provide any product or service at a lower price than the private sector, it cannot reduce the cost of providing that product or service and therefore does so by going in debt.
Currently to the tune of $14,224,979,140,215.67.$14,224,979,140,215.67

What would be the purpose? I'm not a proponent of democracy in the way you are.

You've not made any case for my being dishonest. Perhaps you mean that I disagree with you?

How often have you told me what I think? Why should I waste words when you seem to feel you know better than I what I think?

I have done so, but you appear to be incapable of accepting that others have a right to see things differently than you.

I agree, and feel the same about government taking anything from citizens against their will and persecuting those whose view it doesn't like, both rich and poor.

And to me good governance is a government that adheres to the letter of the Constitution from which it derives its power, and allows changes to take place through the amendment process which empowers the people to make changes as deemed necessary.

I've backed them up as much as you have backed up yours, perhaps more.

Ask any of them where they disagree with Marx, you will find little deviation.

Then stop acting like an ass.

The asked question being?

I would if I knew what you were talking about.

 

fascinating the way the mind works, isn't it?

 

Why?

Do you ever take time to think on your own?

Economies adjust to failures. Look at Nations that have collapsed economically historically, yet still exist today. Life goes on.

What about the largest monopoly, government?

Yes, although I don't see why you would presuppose that to make systems worse rather than better.

What other recourse do you see?

A smaller less powerful government does not tend to support fascism, and government itself would appear to be a primary component in creating a depression.

WHY do you have YOUR views? Can you defend them against criticism rationally and reasonably? Do you just feel that a large portion of society is incapable of making decisions or providing their needs without government assistance?

We? Are you playing to an audience? I explained my views and why I have them numerous times. They just happen to be opposite of your views as I don't feel owed anything by anyone nor do I feel that I or anyone else owes others based on their relative success.

Don't blame me for a lack of comprehension.

That one is simple, I prefer choice over compulsion, more choices not less. I have a right to make mistakes, and accept responsibility to resolve where possible and/or bear the costs for any that I might make.

 

The real world is not confined to just the U.S., although that happens to be where I was born, educated, and worked. I happened to retire outside the U.S. and have allowed you to assume that it is Laos that I now reside. It is unimportant where I live as people are quite similar around the world.

And my son and daughter have kids in college.

Not quite, it depends on what you plan to do in life. Obviously there are career fields that cannot be pursued with just a basic education, and some like myself had to make use of that basic education in order to afford and pursue a higher education.

Aren't they your words (wholly and soley), based on your interpretation of what I said? Advantages and disadvantages are one thing, while behavior and or decisions both inferior and superior are something else which can be, or may not be relevant. When talking about human kind and human nature the variables are many and often too many to take into consideration in resolving problems in a way that is applicable to each and every individual with preconceived results.
,

You asked that already, read above, the same answer applies.

 

Would I?

So?

So what is it you wished to say?

Whatever.

Has this conversation been founded in a subject? As with most of your responses to my posts they have nothing at all to do with the OP, although I take time to humor you compassionately.

 

I think the answer to the question of my intent should be obvious.

When discussing items that are primarily opinions relative to the effects of dissimilar variables and circumstances, seldom is a unanimously acceptable answer possible to all questions that may arise.

I have been quite open and honest. You simply have not received answers that coincide with your biases and social perspectives.

To the contrary, I just don't agree with applying tests in a way that eliminates using a control group. In the U.S. at least which is made up of 50 States, 50 simultaneous tests can be performed, which could result in many varying levels of success or failure, but not so when a central authority mandates the same test be applied in all 50 locations at the same time.

That only demonstrates just how ignorant you are of what takes place in my mind, and perhaps that of others as well.

Perhaps you might try refining your questions rather than constantly bitching about the answers you receive to them.

And it would seem to me that you have described yourself more than me.

Keep trying, learning continues until death.

 

Minds work.

 

Indie

No - not answer a question or refusing to address something that has been raised is a dishonest way to act in a debate.

That is why I reproduced the sequence to show that you were refusing to address something that has been raised.

Can you back that up?

I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to put forward your views in a rational way, so far you have been extremely reluctant to do so. You have also been given plenty of time to defend your ideas from criticism but again you seem unwilling or unable to do so.

Both these things make it very difficult to agree with any of your ideas as they don’t seem to have any substance or standing.

But the problem as I keep telling you is that what you say doesn’t seem to be backed up by any rational or reasonable argument and you are unwilling or unable to present any.

Just saying something and then shouting that you ‘stand by it’ doesn’t make it more credible if it remains without substance.

I’m not calling you a liar, I think you do ‘believe’ in what you say I’m just asking given you inability to defend them from criticism why you believe them?

*

Yes.

But the point still remains that a lot of things have come about through government sponsorship, jet population, atomic energy, space exploration, computing, the www, later the private sector might get involved but….

Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc.

The thing is that the private sector is motivated by profit not public service, and how do you bring in ‘profit and loss’ into such things as a social worker trying to spot child abuse?

And although it is possible to turn over utilities and services over to private firms that doesn’t mean they are privately funded, which just means you are transferring public money from an accountable (and in a democracy changeable) public body to an unaccountable and undemocratic private corporation, and the costs may be not that different.

*

 

Indie

It is illegal and that is why I think government is needed to regulate and monitor trade and industry. You on the other had seemed opposed to such a role.

And as you’d know if you actually read my posts, I’m not against a capitalist market system only that I think it has to be regulated to serve all of society.

The thing is that the private sector is motivated by profit not public service, and how do you bring in ‘profit and loss’ into such things as a social worker trying to spot child abuse?

And although it is possible to turn over utilities and services over to private firms that doesn’t mean they are privately funded, which just means you are transferring public money from an accountable (and in a democracy changeable) public body to an unaccountable and undemocratic private corporation, and the costs may be not that different.

The problem with the current western debt crisis is that it is down in great measure to the neo-liberal/free market economic think that came to prominence in the last 30 years or so.

And those ideas are ones you seem to support.

Yes but the question is why and can you back up your ideas with rational and reasonable argument, so far you haven’t.

I think you are dishonest because you are not willing to debate honestly, an honest debater would not use tricks and evasion to get out of replying to answer or addressing criticisms.

Why not just tell us when asked – explain your views and why you have them?

LOL - I ask you what you think and why you think it all the time – just go and look – why would I keep asking if I already knew – because I don’t I really do want understand your position.

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

Not this again – I’ll repeat what I’ve always said when you try to pull this evasion trick – please cite where you think you have done so or re-utter it so we can all see.

Thing is I read your posts and that’s why I’m always able to quote you so easily and I’d have to say you haven’t.

You pull this trick every-so-often, I ask you to produce the evidence and you never seem able to do so, rather than pretending you have done something why not go ahead and actually do it?

But you have already pointed out that you don’t agree with democracy and have put forward the view that wealth should be given extra voting rights so they can always block the power of the majority (on top of its wealth based power and influence).

In such a system ‘the people’ would not have power, the system would be run in the interests of a few.

Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*
So you can’t back up your view

Again - please cite where you think you have done so or re-utter it so we can all see.

As to me I send you off to books and links all the time.

*

Lets look at the sequence –

Balbus - And you still didn’t answer the question.

Balbus- 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?

So basically you are saying you did reply but you don’t know to what, no wonder you couldn’t cite it?

 

Indie

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

Try reading - Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

And to repeat from just above – “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”

*

Try reading - The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan

Again with the petulant child – stop trying to be ‘clever’ you just end up looking silly.

I try to help you understand sometimes I write something here, sometimes I link to something else I’ve written elsewhere, sometimes I put in relevant quotes and sometimes I cite books. It is called debating.

I’m sorry to say but you seem to think debating is making unsubstantiated assertions or comments repeatedly without backing them up and failing to address any criticisms levelled at them.

*

To repeat - these things can have terrible and unforeseen consequences (the rise of fascism) as well as causing considerable hardship to vast amounts of people (depression).

Claiming as you do that such things just wouldn’t happen under your system is a unsubstantiated assertion that doesn’t seem to be back up with anything except you ‘belief’.

*

But can you back up your view - that ‘nothing is too big to fail’ in the context of the discussion - with rational or reasonable argument?

*

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

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”

*

Try reading -Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

*

As I’ve said just claiming that such things just wouldn’t happen under your system is an unsubstantiated assertion that doesn’t seem to be back up with anything except you ‘belief’.

*

Oh hell man why not take note of what I said the first time I mean do really need me to repeat myself all the time? OK again- I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

Criticise them I’ll defend them.

So I have to repeat myself again - I’m talking about is having fewer ‘bailouts’ either of businesses or individuals.

*

Please cite where?

*

How can I comprehend what isn’t presented?

*

I want to give the most amount of choice to the most amount of people by making societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

You seem to want to limit peoples choice.

*

So a basic education is not all that people need? We then come back to the advantage that being born into advantage brings and is it justified.

*

That just seems to mean that you think it too confusing for you to think about, so you’re just not going to.

That just seems to mean that you think it too confusing for you to think about, so you’re just not going to, you are just going to base your view on the belief that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved and so those that are in hardship deserve that hardship and those that get out deserve to get out.

Once more we are back at the old con game 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.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

 

I've attempted to answer each of your questions which do not lend themselves to correct or incorrect answers as much as you might wish them to.

Look at your responses to each and every one of my posts.

Instead of concentrating on a large volume of meaningless lines containing words that do not identify what you are talking about try posing a question that clearly identifies what it is that I am supposed to respond to. I don't go back and look through all the old posts in order to try and determine what it is you mean by "them", "it", "things", etc.

How do you see private industry to be less accountable than government? I've not proposed the elimination of government completely, but only to reduce it to those things which only government can do well, and in that end I would prefer the States over a central government to have authority in most every case unless otherwise decided by the general population by referendum in which the public is first made aware of what exactly it is they are voting on, and requiring much more than a simple majority for anything to be given to the central government for responsibility.

 

Without going into all the laws that exist to prevent unfair business practices, it doesn't require a large amount of regulations constantly being implemented which only make it more difficult for businesses to operate. The consumer is the most effective means of market regulation, and I exercise that means of regulation frequently. I'm not aware of any successful businesses that exist for long if they do not serve some portion of society. If a demand exists someone will fill it, and charitable organizations with or without government funding often work to provide solutions to problems which businesses could not afford to solve profitably as the demand is too little to reap a profit or even begin to recover the costs.

You cut the losses by eliminating the Federal government from the picture and allowing the States to provide the services picking up the costs. Too much money is transferred to the Federal government only to be redistributed to the States with the Federal government defining how the returned funds must be spent, not to mention the fact that the Federal government takes a cut of the money before giving it back to the States.

The U.S. Postal services is a fine example of a government operation that continuously runs at a loss, but continues to be funded and unaccountable.

Hard to respond without knowing what ideas it is you think I support. There may be some ideas that I support and others that I do not.

I think I've asked before, but once again just ask a simple question without pages of banter and I'll try to answer it clearly and concisely per my view, As for evidence to support my views, I cannot nor should I be expected to produce evidence which would support my view of a particular answer in each and every case to which the question might relate as there often is no one simple answer to a question relating to woes of society which is why I think the answer to such questions should be resolved as near as possible to where the problem exists rather than in Washington D.C.

 

Are you trying to make this forum my livelihood? Instead of pages of nonsensical tripe, ask a question and try eliminating the condescension.
Try beginning with the root of your premise. If we can't agree on a premise then we cannot do anything more than argue unendingly. I suspect that we will have great difficulty in finding a premise in which we can agree on in a way that we can proceed with any form of rational discussion, but if you wish to try.

 

okay

what makes you think i'd be any safer from my neighbors than from the government?

 

Aaah...Beware of the snitch . He is the original spoiled one of the big-bang golden realism.

 

I thought you where all up in arms about the constitution?

Is the supremacy clause as lost on you as it is on arizona and it's elected officials?

 

Indie

Try reading The Captive State by George Monbiot

Or read this article my him-

Private Finance – Keep Out! : As public services are part-privatised, the business of the state is being shrouded by “commercial confidentiality”

http://www.monbiot.com/2001/08/28/private-finance-keep-out/

But we have been through this more than once (try posts 75 and 80 of this thread)

Your viewpoint of how to deal with or react to situations is not going to change due to it being at Federal or State level.

We have been through that before as well – I know you are against federal social programmes but in conversation with you it’s clear you are not that interested in local social programmes either, it not where they are coming from that seems to be a problem with you.

I mean you view seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.(post 75)

*

your viewpoint seems to be opposed to, is biased against, the idea of social provision, I mean your view seems to be that you think people in hardship (seemingly even those born into it) have brought that situation on themselves, and so you seem to think it simple - why should help be given to ‘inferior’ decision makers that you consider as having little or no value to society.
And that point of view is very much going to colour what kind of provision you think should be provided.

You might prefer a local system to a national one, or a charity based system to a tax based one but your basic viewpoint on social provision doesn’t seem to change.
What I’m trying to determine is why you have such views and if you can defend them (post 80)

*

 

Indie

So you do think the regulation and monitoring of business is necessary? I ask because in the past you have seemed to be opposed to it.

The thing is that laws are brought in when they are thought to be needed and things change. I’d be the first to say they needed to be reviewed regularly but you should never throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Beyond your own personal opinion can you back this up?

Because it doesn’t seem to fit in with the historical record. Most people haven’t the time, knowledge or inclination to make the best choice or judgement. They can be manipulated and swayed by ‘experts’ (some honest some not) or by a ‘hard sell’.

For example many ‘brought into’ the neo-liberal ideology because they were bamboozled by a hard sell that said everything was fine, the ‘new’ economic model they were pushing was able to take on any ‘shock’ and survive.

This led to the idea among some that having a huge national debt during an up period was ok because there wouldn’t be a ‘down’ of course if a down turn came and a bail out was needed it would vastly balloon that debt.

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 many people pointed out (and were ridiculed or dismissed) that at some point in a crisis a government might have to step in or watch the whole financial system go down the tubes.


The fact was that neo-liberal economic has no mechanism to deal with a crash that is why when it inevitably causes one, Keynesian ideas are turned to.
Try reading -Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...2C+Keynes&f=36



*

But one day’s ‘successful business’ can be the next day’s disaster. Many of the financial institutions that were seen as shining examples of a successful business, turned out to be anything but.

That is why in my view government needs to regulate and monitor institutions and be able to step in to do such things as break up monopolies and curtailing 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 that were in the Glass-Steagall act.
The thing is that some businesses are honest and some are not and society through the mechanisms of government often need to protect themselves from such dishonesty.
As for ‘charity’ we have been through that and historically it was never able to provide the means to bring people out of disadvantage the way social assistance has.
*

 

Indie

I don’t think I’ve asked you for Yes or No answers (although you have demanded it of me several times). You see I don’t think yes/no replies are the best way too enlightenment they’re just a beginning.

So in an honest debate answers are an opening for explanation for example someone might say ‘yes I think X is right because….’ followed by an explanation of why or ‘no that isn’t what I mean, my position is….’ followed by an explanation of their position.

Too often you evade answering something and when (or if) you do it is often little or nothing in the way of a rational or reasonable explanation it is something along the lines of ‘yes, because I do’ and if I then ask you for a rational or reasonable explanation I just get more evasion I just get this same type of evasion.

This is an evasion trick you’ve often used.

You claim to have replied to something, I ask you to produce it, and you reply what is - ‘it’.

Remember Indie this is me the person that reads all your posts, who knows them so well he can quote things you said a year ago.

As to giving you something to respond to, I try and what I get for my pains is evasion tricks like this.

*

And yet more evasion trickery - the sequence in question was about Keynesian ideas compared with those of free market ideas and you are a confessed supporter of the free market, but to evade you take it out of context and dribble ‘Hard to respond without knowing what ideas it is you think I support…..’

I you wonder why I call you dishonest?

*

More evasion – you demand that I ask a “simple question” but then you come back with “there often is no one simple answer to a question relating to woes of society”

I don’t think I’ve asked you for Yes or No answers (although you have demanded it of me several times). You see I don’t think yes/no replies are the best way to enlightenment they’re just a beginning. So in an honest debate answers are an opening for explanation for example someone might say ‘yes I think X is right because….’ followed by an explanation of why or ‘no that isn’t what I mean my position is….’ followed by an explanation of their position.

Too often you evade answering something and when (or if) you do it is often little or nothing in the way of a rational or reasonable explanation it is something along the lines of ‘yes, because I do’ and if I then ask you for a rational or reasonable explanation I just get more evasion.

 

Indie

What we are getting from you is the repetition of arguments you’ve presented before that still have criticism outstanding and yet more evasion.

Why don’t you simply address the criticisms, I mean if you spent as much time on doing so rather than trying to get out of doing so, we could have a much more enjoyable and interesting discussion.