How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by Quig, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    LOL - Back this up.



    It depends what your aim is – I would wish to raise the quality of life of everyone in society while decreasing that of very few or possibly none.

    Your aim seems to be to make a few people and institutions richer and even fewer of those vastly richer and more powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life that much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

    It seems to me that my way ‘punishes’ few if any while you ideas would ‘punish’ many.



    Again you seem to be claiming that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved, a premise you have yet to back up with anything like a rational or reasonable argument.



    Again you use self-serving apocryphal examples but that isn’t a rational argument. There are people that through no fault of their own have had to do several jobs to keep going and others who through no effort of their own don’t need to.

    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 ‘yes’ and ‘shit happens’ neither of which is a rational or reasonable reply.



    Another unsubstantiated assertion.

    *

    Once again we get the repetition of arguments that still have criticisms outstanding, that you have yet to address, and more unsubstantiated assertion.
     
  2. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    what kind of question is that?

    aren't you hungry yet?
     
  3. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Why would anyone on the right come to the defense of an example of the Left micromanagement of the economy, which rewards their supporters and punishes their opponents? Right and Left is not synonymous with rich and poor, and the rich on the left likely have little problem with being vilified in order to promote an agenda which is presented as a means of making all members of society equal, when in reality it would only produce a gap between the rich and the poor.

    In the past citizens of the U.S. were able to advance by climbing the proverbial ladder of success, which although grew taller had rungs available to those who exerted the effort to climb. The Left presents a socioeconomic view which provides its followers the belief that the wealth of the rich will be divided amongst the poor raising them out of poverty with wealth disparity contacting and providing them with the illusion that the aforementioned proverbial ladder of success will be shortened. In reality, the ladder would neither be shortened nor its growth inhibited, but instead the middle rungs would be removed creating more equality between those on the lower rungs while having little or no effect on those already at the upper rungs.
     
  4. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Forget Arizona? You brought it up.

    Read the 10th Amendment, and then read the entire Constitution. Note that the Constitution enumerates the powers allowed the Federal government beyond which the States are confined only by their citizenry. Power is intended to emanate primarily from the people or with their consent. Government is a creation of society, not the other way round.
     
  5. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    I've already had dinner, so no, I'm not hungry at the moment, and when I am hungry again I will feed myself.

    I thought you were wanting to go somewhere with your 2 persons and food statement. I'm not sure what you wish to do with it yet.
     
  6. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    it was, i believe, a question

    what would you do with it?
     
  7. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    "i was hoping to go to an idea like:

    the single thing they both wanted was enough food for one to eat for long enough that the other would starve to death

    without knowing what would happen in the future, during the eating/starving, or immediately thereafter

    or something like that "

    That was your question? I fail to see what you are asking.
     
  8. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Most frequently it can be noted by my responding to a question with a question in order to determine the intended meaning of a word or words you have used within your question.

    While that sounds like a worthy aim, "to raise the quality of life of everyone in society", it is the means of achieving the goal that I find disagreeable. While I accept sharing of wealth when done so by those who possess it, I don't accept government having the authority or power to decide how or who it should be shared with. I would promote essentially the same goal but with the means achieved not by distributing wealth that currently exists, but by the creation of new wealth which eliminates the need to oppress anyone.

    I have no problem at all with people or institutions becoming richer. A small government with limited powers, especially those which could be used to the advantage of those with money is my primary goal.

    That's just an egalitarian way of misdirecting responsibility. I don't accept the premise that wealth is accumulated by making people poor, which appears to be the foundation of your argument.

    The causes of disadvantage can be numerous, and it is the decisions we make in our attempts to overcome disadvantages that more appropriately could be judged as poor or inferior.

    Examples, none the less.

    You've asked that question numerous times, and my answer remains firmly "yes". Is it justified to give assistance to those in the developed world countries instead of those in the undeveloped world who are actually starving to death?

    With the worlds population approaching 7 billion, I'm afraid it's a fact that shit happens constantly, and will likely increase rather than decrease.

    Just look at the U.S., or many of the EU countries, including your own.

    About the only thing that has been substantiated so far is that some people have greater wealth than others.
     
  9. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    34,844
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    A SMALL GOVERNMENT, WITH LIMITED POWERS,ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT COULD BE USED TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE WITH MONEY IS MY PRIMARY GOAL.

    Half your goal has been achieved,for those with money have most of the advantages already: the ability to avoid taxes, the power to start wars and make money off them,the power of money to influence elections,the worry-free life of not being affected when prices rise on anything whatsoever. The industrial revolution has brought many worthwhile advances in medicine and science--to SOME,but I believe that the way that capitalism has been/is used to enrich some beyond all belief while others starve to death in this land of plenty and around the world,will be considered an aberration so weird ,that whomever is left on this earth in the future ,will understand that to have continued this path to destruction of resources and neglect of our fellow humans is a one way street to chaos. The big picture. Empathy is a virtue. Is greed?
     
  10. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    I see you either failed reading comprehension in school, or just prefer to promote baseless argument in order to have a say at all.

    You fail to see the connection in how things work in a free society, and present an argument from socialist view. The industrial revolution did indeed bring about many great advances which made many products available to a much greater number of people, increasing the wealth of all those involved, some much greater than others of course.

    Capitalism is an economic system, and most often we refer to money, dollars, Euros, etc. as a form of capital which is used as a means of exchange. If money was eliminated entirely it would not make everything available for free, and we would still use some means of exchange in acquiring the things we want or need. In my youth we often traded eggs for flour, sugar, and other things that we didn't produce at home and lacked the money to purchase. Money is much easier to use in exchange transactions, and in either event some labor is performed in producing the goods or the money which is used to procure the items or services desired. In a free society a vast number of products and services are made available with costs which vary primarily related to their cost of provision, while also controlled by the consumers acceptance and willingness to pay the price they are made available. Price the product or service too high and no profit can be made and therefore few or no sales result in bankruptcy. That along with competition allows others to enter the market and compete based upon price, quality, or other aesthetic differences used to attract a customer base. Jobs are a result of a free market system, which provides income for those who have innovative ideas, invest in the creation of the business, as well as those who ultimately provide the labor, and even those who sell the product. Profit is a great incentive, and most everyone I know looks to reap the greatest profit possible with the least effort possible. And that's true of both those at the top as well as those at the bottom.

    I am waiting to see the photos of those who have starved to death in the U.S.

    Empathy might be seen as a virtue, but it can also be put to use as a tool in order to perform acts which are not virtuous. While I would not define greed to be a virtue neither would I define envy to be a virtue.
     
  11. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    okay, you have done nothing

    the stronger of the two people has kept all of the food, the weaker has died

    this is a result of bad government, most likely identical to the result of no government, and has resulted in the death of 50% of your population

    is there anything else you'd like to [not] do?
     
  12. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    That's one possible scenario, but then suppose I was the one who had no food. I would find something I could do or create that could be used in exchange for some agreeable portion of food from the one who possessed it all, and if that were impossible I would move on to where additional food was available. I would not starve, and the one who had all the food could sit and watch it decay and become useless to him.
    If on the other hand I was the one with all the food, I might offer some to the other for a period of time of my choosing. All this would be done without need for government, which in this case could not achieve a majority decision of what to do.
    In any event the American form of government is not one in which it is the responsibility of government to assure the equal distribution of goods or wealth, but primarily to assure that the life, liberty, and legally acquired property is protected from others.

    I'm curious that the OP question is posed to those who might identify themselves as Libertarians, yet most all the comments appear to be from those who are most definitely NOT Libertarians.
     
  13. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    there's only one food cache, and i'm not sharing, i'm bigger than you, sorry

    a mistake of recent conservative economic thinking is using game theory scenarios which rely on "rational actors" - i am human and thus will often reject rationality
    thank you, now the food is divided in half and we will both starve to death in half as much time - ?
    there really aren't that many libertarians in here, plus i suspect that the ones we do have were lured to it by the "no wars, legalize drugs" message and are finding themselves somewhat bewildered by the broken promises and draconian stupidities of the victors in the recent teabag revolution
     
  14. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    How am I to respond without knowledge of all the facts prior to making a response? If there is only one food cache, then the starvation of both is imminent, therefore the only thing in question is does the possessor of the food cache wish to have a compatriot to the end or not.

    Placing economic decision making in the hands of but a few, or just one individual, greatly increases the consequences of any and all irrational decisions made.

    Did I say I would divide the food in half? I only said that I would share what I felt necessary and for as long as I saw it to have a positive effect. If there was no way to produce additional food for future consumption, then the only decision left would be related to the amiability of the person who had no food. Would it be preferable to starve in peace or in constant bickering?

    The Tea Party is made up of those with greatly varying political beliefs, while sharing a common economic goal. Taxed Enough Already. They appear to recognize that increased taxes and/or government spending is not the route to prosperity, and that only by decreasing both government size and spending can the problem be solved. Looking forward to trillion dollar deficits for the next decade and beyond should not be considered a desirable form of progress, especially for those who are just reaching the age of majority.
     
  15. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    well, facts develop, depending on how people behave, perhaps there are many things you don't know - as an individual person with limited perspective

    now there's the best argument against small government i've heard in a while . . .

    see, i'm not the only non-rational actor - the smaller person may also be smarter, and he/she may know something

    so far all they seem to be doing is shifting money - tax cuts for the wealthy, benefits cuts for the poor - the deficit remains, the government remains [with some job losses for clerks]

    fortunately the strategy seems to be backfiring - the people are not liking what they're seeing

    shoulda voted mccain in 2008 - he'd've done as bad of a job or worse, and we'd have a new new deal in 2012 for sure . . .
     
  16. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    ^^^ should add that the so-called "libertarians" in my state have done everything they possibly can to shut down the largest "growth industry" [for lack of a better term] in the state, something that was actually about to bring entrepreneurs and new businesses even to forlorn eastern montana

    first they tried to kill the voter-passed referendum on medical marijuana, now they're simply trying to make it impossible for most [over 90%] patients to be approved

    considering the signs at the rallies . . .

    [and don't get me started on libertarians and abortion rights]
     
  17. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    So I act where I have the ability to gather the relevant facts and judge the effectiveness of the results produced. Government can't do that any better than I and numerous other individuals who can avail themselves of the facts first hand.

    Yes, misery loves company.

    Getting back to Darwin, and Spencer's use of "Survival of the fittest", brains have often proven to be the greatest weapon used to prevail over brawn.

    Currently the Tea Party exists only as a minority within the majority, and only in the House.

    Actually from what I've seen in the polls it may be the old school politicians in both Republican and Democrat parties that a majority of people are not liking. We'll know for certain in 2012 after the elections.

    Actually I'm glad Obama won, maybe he's what was needed to open peoples eyes.
     
  18. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    you always go back to that old chestnut, and i can only ask you if you've ever met any of the x% of people in the world who can't do any better than government at making decisions?

    funnily enough, i'm not particularly interested in the federal government at this point in time - it's my state government [and that of other states] that's shitting on everybody and everything after their big "win"
     
  19. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Perhaps they're Libertarians depending on the issue at hand. I personally have difficulty in trying to identify myself concisely in relation to each and every issue. I have no idea what the largest growth industry in your State might be.

    The Libertarian platform as I understand it supports the legalization of drugs, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, and gambling, with the elimination of government control and repeal of all laws of prohibition thereof.

    So Libertarians are ALL pro-life? and Democrats are ALL pro-choice? Who the hell cares what the Republicans think as they are simply a wing of the Democrat party. The original agenda was to infiltrate one or both parties, and although the Democrat party was fully taken over the Republican party was a close second. What is really needed today is the emergence of a strong opposition party.
     
  20. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    yep, and i'm sure that's what the dupes who vote for 'em think too

    so far they've proven themselves to be very firmly for the reintroduction of spear hunting
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice