How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Those who are disadvantaged must not complain about how far behind they are. All it will do successfully is set them back as long as it took them to say it.

The rich do not care, they are in control. The people voting for a more equitable share of the wealth is the only thing that can stop them now, and that's implying that you even want to stop them. They were born and raised on the notion that whats theirs is theirs, whether it was inherited or earned. Especially earned. The problem with capitalism is that once the money ends up with the rich, it stays there. It rarely leaves and if it leaves, it doesn't go to those who need it. It goes to a gigantic debt or something that will make more money.

Eventually the financial difference between the poor and the rich will be so great that basic human greed will take over. What form it will take is a clueless subject to anyone and is purely a speculative circle that never ends until that reality arrives.

 

Indie

Replied to several times in the last few pages, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

You clearly don’t know how systems work or can work, we have been through this before.

In Laos?

Already covered several times, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

Yes you did and I’ve already replied to it, and I’m still waiting for you to address what I said.

Already replied to, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

Already replied to, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

Already replied to, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

Already replied to, please address what’s been said rather than just ignoring it.

I know that what you think - but the question is - why do you think it.

Just saying ‘I am simply against’ doesn’t explain anything.

*

Why ‘of course’?

You clearly have not been reading my posts and I’m wondering why not?

For virtually the whole of our conversations I’ve been promoting the idea of realising people’s potential. Of given people the chance to succeed, of them achieving a fulfilled and healthy life.

Once again I’d ask why you wouldn’t want that, why do you seemingly want to hold people back keep them their potential?

*

 

indie

Again I ask – why do you hold you views?

I mean clearly from the evidence of above you are unwilling or unable to address any criticisms of them and seem incapable of defending them in any honest way, so why do you continue to hold them.

Why are you a right wing libertarian?

 

Indie

Personally I’d rather live in modern London which can only function due to the redistribution of wealth rather than the filth, slums and disease of the city of say the 19th century.

But a ‘hand up’ often entails some form of ‘handout’, meaning that there is usually a financial cost even if that is hidden.

Have they?

I think things have got worse for those on middle to low incomes over the last 30 years (while getting better for those nearer the top) but that has been mainly due to the neo-liberal type policies that have been pursued in that period.

But on the whole the lives of common people have improved a lot since the 19th and early 20th century. All those public works that have done so much to improve the lives of so many paid for through taxation, the laws and regulation backed with public money that have greatly increased the quality of life of many who’d otherwise be exploited. And things like the National Health Service in the UK bought for the first time medical treatment to those that couldn’t have afforded it before.

I really think you should do a little research before coming out with such bizarre statements.

Top tax rate under Eisenhower 91% (1961)

1971 – 70%
1981 – 69%
1991 – 31%
2001 – 38%
2011 – 35%

 

Indie

This is another bizarre comment, can you tell me what’s the thinking here?

 

why is it so difficult for you to understand that america has changed in the last 200 years?

and that the world has changed in the last 2000?

are you sure you're only 75?

 

I too have already addressed all the above numerous times, and yet you continue to refuse to satisfactorily answer any questions I ask of you.

People generally do realize their potential, with or without all the help you seem to feel they require. It's a poor excuse to blame others for ones own lack of motivation, and blame all forms of failure on lack of money.

 

Why should I not hold the views I hold? Forcefully taking from one to give to another is theft, regardless of intentions.

I have addressed your criticisms, and fail to see how you might imply that I have been dishonest, although I may fail to demonstrate the level of compassion you tend to promote. But isn't that where the Liberals should focus their efforts? on those who the Conservatives allow to fall through the cracks?

 

Indie

No you haven’t, oh you claim to have, many times but whenever I ask you to point out where, you seem unable to do so.

Again you’ve claimed this before but whenever I ask you to point out where; you seem unable to do so.

How do you know this?

How do you know it is ‘lack of motivation’?

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

 

"Can only function due to the redistribution of wealth", and that's something we should strive for in a world where population grows larger each day?

On that I agree, however not being addicted to gambling I prefer to be in control of my investments and quit before losing everything.

Based on the indebtedness of both the Nation and large number of individuals, I would say absolutely.

It's difficult for "things" to get worse for those at the top in a way that affects their life in much of any way, even if the economy crashes totally. There are many things that affect those in the middle or lower incomes, inflation for example. People lose money when the inflation rate exceeds the interest rate banks pay, which government uses as a means to keep most money in circulation rather than put aside for old age.

Just think how much better and more cost effective those things could have been done by the private sector.

You're talking about the top marginal tax rate at the time, and how many actually ended up paying it? I don't still have my forms from that period to look back at. But at the same time, when JFK took office and began to reduce the top marginal rate, the government saw its revenues increase, but government always seems to find a way to spend more than it takes in and the debt has grown every year since. Government just can't seem to live within its means.

 

Bizarre? Just a suggestion of where some interesting events in history occurred that are relative to the mindset of some even still today.
To make a statement would be pointless and only lead to lengthy arguments, so I would be more interesting in responding to those who have familiarized themselves from what many scholars have written. Much of my information came from Scholars focused on societal development in the period prior to Christianity who exposed both historic facts as well as much fiction.

 

Changes take place constantly, but simply reinterpreting the words of the Supreme law under which the government operates, "The Constitution", is not sufficient to allow government to violate the intent of the law as originally written and understood. That requires amendment.

 

I accept as fact nothing I say would satisfy you.

Personal experience.

Personal experience again, and I have worked with many people who sometimes needed a little push to achieve things they simply didn't think they could do, but in the end it was their perseverance afterwards that produced the results. I've also had others who I thought had some potential, but nothing I did could bring it out, and in the end I gave up on them.

I don't buy the premise. Being born into wealth can have positive as well as negative results. It can produce a lazy individual who makes no effort on his/her own by being brought up with everything handed to them, while being born poor can produce an individual who recognizes early in life that all gains require effort.

 

In this thread: Individual explains how he wishes human nature and economics worked, and asserts that the worlds policies should reflect what he wishes human nature was.

 

Time for a tactical change? I'm open to reading your explanation of how human nature and economics work, and/or how they "should" work. Lay it on me. And rather than doing so by attempting to contrast it with what you "think" my view is, try to just stick with your own view allowing me to provide the contrast with my own. I don't care to denigrate you individually, only your views where they differ. Personal attacks tend to eliminate rational discussion.

 

I would probably be considered a socialist anarchist.
I grew up poor.

 

Indie

Don’t catch you meaning please explain?
*
But a ‘hand up’ often entails some form of ‘handout’, meaning that there is usually a financial cost even if that is hidden.

But you are not a god and cannot control everything - and that’s the same with everyone many things are out of a persons personal control.
For example as I’ve pointed out people cannot choose to whom they are born and the others views of a persons decisions can be affected by time, place, circumstance and viewpoint. For example what might seem like a ‘good’ decision and praised as such at that time may be seen later on and in hindsight as a ‘bad’ decision.
*
Have they?

As I pointed out to me the problems that the US (and UK) are facing at the moment are mainly if not wholly due to the neo-liberal type policies that have been pursued in the last 30 years or so.

But to your assertion that

I said – “But on the whole the lives of common people have improved a lot since the 19th and early 20th century. All those public works that have done so much to improve the lives of so many paid for through taxation, the laws and regulation backed with public money that have greatly increased the quality of life of many who’d otherwise be exploited. And things like the National Health Service in the UK bought for the first time medical treatment to those that couldn’t have afforded it before.”

Just saying that you think that it would have been better done by the private sector is just a biased assertion not a rational and reasonable argument and doesn’t actually counter what I said.

I mean the fact is that many public works would not have been done at all if they hadn’t been publically financed.

*

 

Indie

LOL – it seems to me that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about but you’re trying to pretend you do.

I mean you originally say “early civilization in the Middle East” and then it is suddenly ‘prior to Christianity’? Well yes the early civilisations were pre-Christian but from the Sumerian to the Roman period is around some 4000 years that’s a pretty hefty piece of history, with a very large number of diverse civilisations and cultures.

For me the best ‘general’ history of the region is Amelie Kuhrt’s two volume ‘The Ancient Near East’ it is rather expensive new (I have a second hand copy) but well worth a read.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-C3000-330-Routledge-History-World/dp/0415167620/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300188057&sr=8-2"]The Ancient Near East C3000-330 BC Vols I & II The Routledge History of the Ancient World: Amazon.co.uk: Amélie Kuhrt: Books

But for more specific detail you might want something more concentrated, if you want some suggestions I’d be willing to offer some help, since I have a number of books on the subject.

Anyway this is a real tangent - but as an example of your irrational and unreasonable approach to argument this is a doozy.

 

Indie

No you haven’t, oh you claim to have, many times but whenever I ask you to point out where, you seem unable to do so.

Again you’ve claimed this before but whenever I ask you to point out where; you seem unable to do so.

You’ve used that evasion method more than once – I’m sure I am not the only one that’s noticed you haven’t produced any evidence.
*

How do you know this?

That’s the kind of reply you get from someone who can’t actually produce a reasonable and rational argument. Can you put forward a reasonable and rational argument?
*
How do you know it is ‘lack of motivation’?

Again – The personal can be a good start but the problem with personal experience is that it is so subjective and so very limited. If all you have is ‘personal experience’ then your outlook of issues is going to remain subjective and limited.
*
The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

Just saying you don’t believe it, isn’t a rational or reasonable counter-argument. The thing is that most studies show that wealth has a more positive benefit to outcomes than being born poor.

Try reading – The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

*

 

Indie

I think we all know pretty much now what your views are – the more interesting questions to me is why do you have them and can you defend them.

From what I’ve gleamed so far the reasons for you have for holding your views is rather vague it basically comes down to – ‘because I do’ – you don’t seem able to put a coherent rational argument forward for why.

As to defending them well that comes up against the first question, if someone is unable to explain why they hold their views how can they defend them?