Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at how Nazism caught on in Germany with this type of social Darwinist. Fortunately America will likely not vote in these types of psychopaths soon, we'll get the lesser of 2 evils Hillary to follow Republicrat Obama.
That is funny. Social Darwinism does not argue for government picking the winners and losers. That is what liberals do and Hitler did.
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” Herbert Spencer
That is funny. Social Darwinism does not argue for government picking the winners and losers. That is what liberals do and Hitler did.
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” Herbert Spencer
The result of liberal polices, practically requires Social Darwinism. The only alternative to Social Darwinism in a liberal state, is voluntarily driving the entire nation into poverty.
It is sort of the great irony of the world. You start out wanting to protect those who are most vulnerable(people with low IQ's, or debilitating conditions, or physical defects, etc). And you effectively enable them the ability to breed, and because of an economic environment which effectively incentivizes those on government assistance to have multiple children. While discouraging those with higher incomes. The result is more and more people with low IQ's, debilitating conditions, and physical defects.
If at first 5% of the population is effectively disabled, and you hold in place a reverse Darwinian policy such as welfare and other government intervention. The percentage of people on disability, or in mental wards, or just who do nothing, just rises and rises. Until the percentage of people who are incapable of working rises to such a point, that those who can become so burdened, that the quality of life begins to fall.
At some point, the percentage of people not working will drive the nation into poverty.
So what should be done? No one wants the government to start dictating who can and who cannot have children. Such a system would be inherently corrupt. But, somehow, for the betterment of the quality of life of all of us, there needs to be a self-correcting mechanism. Which enables or encourages those who are most capable, to have more children than those least capable.
Libertarianism effectively does this. Not by people starving in the streets. It is basically ridiculous to believe that anyone would be starving to death. But rather, it does provide a system in which, those who do not plan may not have "food security". Where they would have to effectively "beg" for food, or go to churches, family, etc. To get the food they need.
And while that sounds cruel. What it effectively does is forces people to make good decisions. Unless there are consequences for bad decisions, then are they really bad decisions? What the liberal state tries to do, is take away basically all consequences for bad decisions. It effectively encourages people to be completely irresponsible.
The only solution that I can foresee for the current way things are going, would be genetic engineering. Something akin to the movie Gattaca is the most probable future. Just not sure how long it will take to get there. And really, the whole thought of that world scares the crap out of me.
Thank you for illustrating my point better than I did. Libertarians think of unfortunate people as inconvenient vermin. Look at how Nazism caught on in Germany with this type of social Darwinist. Fortunately America will likely not vote in these types of psychopaths soon, we'll get the lesser of 2 evils Hillary to follow Republicrat Obama.
You must be living in a state of complete denial. The policies of the "lesser of two evils" as you call them have destroyed this country. We have crippling debts, 50 million people dependent on government support, an out of control military illegally overthrowing governments worldwide, a deteriorating standard of living, a corporate owned, and controlled government, more people in prison than any other country in the world, and as a country, we are hated and feared worldwide. Hillary by the way is simply a clone of Obama, who is a clone of Bush. That is what you get with "the lesser of two evils" the same corporate run government pursuing the same corporate policies, voted for by the idiotic collective who are happy to be peasants and dwell in slavery.
What a libertarian really is depends on age. The older libertarians are basically conservatives, but are even more anti-tax. Tea partiers I suppose. Younger libertarians can vary from kids who are basically liberals but like country music, to naive idealists who lack a grip on reality, to otherwise apolitical potheads, to atheist conservatives.
None of these are actual definitions of a libertarian of course, but official definitions are lame anyway.
The result of liberal polices, practically requires Social Darwinism. The only alternative to Social Darwinism in a liberal state, is voluntarily driving the entire nation into poverty.
It is sort of the great irony of the world. You start out wanting to protect those who are most vulnerable(people with low IQ's, or debilitating conditions, or physical defects, etc). And you effectively enable them the ability to breed, and because of an economic environment which effectively incentivizes those on government assistance to have multiple children. While discouraging those with higher incomes. The result is more and more people with low IQ's, debilitating conditions, and physical defects.
If at first 5% of the population is effectively disabled, and you hold in place a reverse Darwinian policy such as welfare and other government intervention. The percentage of people on disability, or in mental wards, or just who do nothing, just rises and rises. Until the percentage of people who are incapable of working rises to such a point, that those who can become so burdened, that the quality of life begins to fall.
At some point, the percentage of people not working will drive the nation into poverty.
So what should be done? No one wants the government to start dictating who can and who cannot have children. Such a system would be inherently corrupt. But, somehow, for the betterment of the quality of life of all of us, there needs to be a self-correcting mechanism. Which enables or encourages those who are most capable, to have more children than those least capable.
Libertarianism effectively does this. Not by people starving in the streets. It is basically ridiculous to believe that anyone would be starving to death. But rather, it does provide a system in which, those who do not plan may not have "food security". Where they would have to effectively "beg" for food, or go to churches, family, etc. To get the food they need.
And while that sounds cruel. What it effectively does is forces people to make good decisions. Unless there are consequences for bad decisions, then are they really bad decisions? What the liberal state tries to do, is take away basically all consequences for bad decisions. It effectively encourages people to be completely irresponsible.
The only solution that I can foresee for the current way things are going, would be genetic engineering. Something akin to the movie Gattaca is the most probable future. Just not sure how long it will take to get there. And really, the whole thought of that world scares the crap out of me.
What liberals cannot or will not see is that Libertarian system always eventually prevails. Either by the logical choices of the people, or by the inevitable reckoning of the illogical choices of those who think they do not have to abide by natural laws and principals which govern everything.
When our present system collapses from the unsustainable policies we see all around us, what will remain are the laws of survival of the fittest. It is ashamed that it must come to that, but as history teaches, when a civilization refuses to acknowledge reality, it is reality which prevails.
The problem is that, you aren't really talking about interest rates as an absolute cause of companies not investing money. But rather, you are talking about interest rates only in the correlation that the current low interest rates help to worsen the appearance of instability in the market. And that instability is causing companies to not feel confident investing their money. Thus, the relationship between low interest rates and low rates of investment is not causal. For instance, interest rates were low most of the early 2000's, and there was plenty of investment.
I understand what you are saying, but the early 2000's and today were very different environments. The targeted fed funds rate in early 2000's was not anywhere near a zero level. Additionally, the fed's balance sheet wasn't levered nearly to the point it is now, and it had no risky assets as it does today. The fed today is even paying interest on excess reserves! This puts the effective fed target rate to be a negative value. That is vastly different from the early 2000s.
Quote:
Thus back to my point, and that is that, the reason people aren't investing their money is because of the actions of the government, and the actions of the Federal Reserve, that are creating "uncertainty" in the market. Which leaves people with very few options to invest, except in markets that are basically "untouched" by the current instability.
This is why companies such as google and microsoft have stock prices that are seemingly so "inflated". Because no one is putting money in commodities or equities. Both of which have been hammered because of the uncertainty caused by the Federal Reserve(especially equities).
I agree this is a major part of the problem. I didn't mean to say a zero bound was the only reason people are not investing. Both of these are very valid reasons people are not investing. The promise of future taxes flowing from Obamacare is another very good reason why companies are not investing (regardless of how a person feels about health care from a personal standpoint). The fact that the fed is so political today also is not helping anything. We don't have a fed operating truly independently like we did in the Carter administration under the Volcker fed.
Quote:
If there was no Federal Reserve, especially a drastically over-leveraged federal reserve, still routinely buying up hundreds of billions in government debt, and sitting on it, while somehow also paying out billions in interest on Federal Reserve deposits from the banks, in which they loaned the money to begin with. You would have far more market certainty, and thus far more investment.
If the government can stop manipulating the economy through the Federal Reserve, and stop threatening businesses with tax increases and more and more regulations. You would see a stable environment in which companies would invest their money. Although, I do admit there would be a short-term "correction", for a long-term solution. They are basically trying to soften the problem, but they are ultimately just prolonging it.
No argument from me on this part. The only way a central bank can hold a growing economy is if people have faith that it can control inflation and maintain market price stability. That is far from the environment we are in today.
Just for the record, Libertarianism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. As long as coercion is absent, Libertarianism is equally compatible with both Scrooge-like Social Darwinism and extreme generosity towards the poor, so long as both are voluntary on the part of the wannabe giver or the wannabe Scrooge.
Although this outcome is quite rare, there is nothing stopping a free market from being dominated by non-profit and/or charitable organizations - many corners of the Internet are like this now. As a matter of fact a non-profit organization created the browser I'm using to post this message.
I first heard about libertarians from a talk radio host out of Philadelphia. I used to listen to him afternoons after school when I'd be with my dad in the family car. Yeah, I was way ahead of the curve even in junior high politically. Although I will say you really don't begin to get your head on straight until your in your mid 20s and when they do a local radio show with teenagers discussing issues on Saturday I have to smile at their enthusiastic naivety. But Oh, well.
Irv Homer was his name. World War 2 bomber pilot, bar owner, very well spoken outgoing guy, did Sunday news roundup back in the 90s in Philadelphia. Very intelligent, very world wise. He had a report with people from all walks of life and covered many topics. He was known as Evil Irv because he'd rile people up and get them venting and would tell people what he thought. He was a libertarian because he became disgusted with both parties.
So I thought if a guy with so much common sense and wisdom and who was so on top of things in so many areas was a libertarian, it must be a party worth looking at. I was an independent before but finally switched to libertarian about 20 years ago. I don't agree with every one of their party platforms, but who believes in every one of their party's platforms? Mindless drones, that's who.
Liberal atheists are often pragmatic in their thinking while libertarians often think in ideology. Liberal racism is closeted. They don't believe in racist policies. They don't believe in discrimination. Racist libertarians often advocate for discrimination and segregation.
Not true, most libertarians want government out of our lives to include gun control, forced mandates, laws against individual choice, and any forced discriminatory practices. No specific group should get special treatment from the government. We are constitutionalists.
On average, libertarians are usually smarter than their conservative and liberal counterparts. They're well versed on economics and government. However, many of them have ill agenda. Their proposals and views on what should happen are often destructive.
Explain how they're destructive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
