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.
"Feed me for simply existing"
"No, but I'll offer you a job"
"Omg I'm being exploited by these greedy capitalists"
No, it is voluntary. If you have a problem with the fact that you need to do something to survive, talk to Mother Nature.
Cool story, bro...
But it actually went like this...
California Landowner: "I know that you pickers have been getting $2.00 per bushel picked, but I'm lowering the price I'll pay to $1.25 per bushel."
Farm workers: "But you promised us $2.00 per bushel when we traveled hundreds of miles to get here. $1.25 per bushel doesn't earn us enough money to enough food to keep from going hungry. And prices for the produce we pick have been going up - you don't need to lower our wages to keep competitive."
California Landowner: "See those people outside the gates? They haven't had anything to eat in a week. They're more than happy to pick at $1.25 a bushel. Now either get into the fields now and start working, or I'll have my hired security workers kick you off of my property. So, what's it gonna be?"
In the libertarian viewpoint, the Landowner is the one in the right.
Wall Street is a never ending complaint of "Feed me".
I'm not one to defend Wall Street, for the record, but as far as tax cuts go, they aren't the same as "feed me". Wanting to keep your own money =/= asking for money.
You made an appeal to nature its not natural for the poor to be taken care of. I provided a counter argument that showed your idea leads to revolution.
No, I never said that. I said the fact that humans need to work to survive is a fact of nature, and you took that as "let the poor starve".
I'm not one to defend Wall Street, for the record, but as far as tax cuts go, they aren't the same as "feed me". Wanting to keep your own money =/= asking for money.
Lazy piles of crap that do NOT want to actually pay for the things they demand to keep the markets inflated, like the wars. No tax cuts are not OK when you have drove us 20 trillion in debt. Bunch of dead beat leeches.
I said the fact that humans need to work to survive is a fact of nature
Yes some humans do. If we lived in a utopia where everyone had jobs that would be great. The fact is we have more than enough machinery and progress to allow less people to work and still produce just as much. This is a problem though since food and resources are not equitably distributed.
Its not voluntary if you under threat of starvation or homelessness.
Threat of starvation is a function of biology. That's why survival occupies the first and largest strata on the hierarchy of needs. A 100% free society does not change human biology, nor does the 100% oppressive society. All the society does is change how an individual goes about procuring or trading for the means of survival.
Food does plant, grow, harvest, package ad then distribute itself. Human labor does all of that. Shelter does not plan and build itself, human labor does that. In any society, you either grow/harvest your own food and build your own shelter, or you do something to trade for these things. All the free society advocates for is making trade and associations voluntary instead of coerced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
Libertarian society benefits the masters people who own the capital and disenfranchises working class individuals. Libertarians would make it so public services like schools roads and everything in between be privatized this creates a massive burden on the poor. Libertarian society will lead to serfs and masters.
Spoken like a well indoctrinated Marxist. People who own capital are nowhere without trade. These caricature robber barons in your imagination are not farmers, scientists, doctors, carpenters, engineers, chefs, etc. They have a slew of needs, survival among them, that they trade for same as anyone else. And your serf/master thing is one of those funny analogies used by people who only have a bumper sticker knowledge of the Middle Ages of Europe. For one, the "masters" were the government, just more directly accountable to the people (serfs and peasants) because they were all on the same land. They weren't just "owners of capital" they were the government and were granted their authority under divine right backed by the might of a monarch.
Funny thing though, in the Middle Ages, 10% tithe (tax) on the labor of serfs and peasants was average, and >15% rates were typically cause for revolts. When the nobility acted capriciously, there were revolts, destructive protests and just plain old walking off the land and seeking a better boss. The serf of the Middle Ages had better representation and lower taxes than a modern day American, and their "representative" lived under a pretty serious threat. Not a threat of direct force really, since disarming the non-nobility was a safety measure that was wildly popular, but all that land doesn't work/farm itself, and while nobles had great power and wealth, that doesn't make food magically appear at table, it does not spin thread and make clothing, it does not tend animals, etc.
Now to how privatization disenfranchises. First let me say...ROFL. Now, how does privatizing a school disenfranchise the poor? Competition among providers almost always lowers prices for a specific good or service, so why would school be any different? And privatization does not necessarily mean "corporatization" it means "not run by the state." A community could decide to have their own school (think rural communities of old with the one room schoolhouse, or the community schools of pre-1964 Harlem that were the 2nd highest achieving schools in all the 5 Burroughs), as can a family, or a small business, etc. Charter, magnate, parochial, etc. Lots of ways to educate that don't require $15-20k per student to get further and further behind the rest of the world in achievement. But explain how privatization disenfranchises exactly, by all means.
Name one aspect of your life, one thing you do from the time you get up in the morning until your head hits the pillow at night that the government does not attempt to control, regulate, legislate, tax or otherwise stick it's nose into in some way.
Now.....justify all of that government control piece by piece..
I'll wait.
7 am: I slept peacefully in my bed all night thanks to the Big Evil Government police and criminal justice system, which discourages crime. I took my heartburn medication which is safe to take because of the Big Evil Government FDA.
7:30 am: the breakfast I ate was safe to eat because of Big Evil Government FDA and USDA regulations on food and agriculture.
8:00 am: I drive to work and arrived in one piece thanks to Big Evil Government automobile safety regulations. Big Evil Government made sure that the bridges I crossed underwent regular safety inspections and maintenance.
8:30 am: I arrive at work, where my boss is not allowed to abuse me thanks to Big Evil Government labor laws. The building is safe because of Big Evil Government building codes. The town surrounding the plant is livable because of Big Evil Government EPA regulations.
12:00 pm: I eat lunch at Joe's Dinner, and the food was safe to eat because of the Big Evil Government health department. The employees were paid enough to survive because of Big Evil Government minimum wage laws.
1:00 pm: Back to work, where my boss was forced to stop sexually harassing one of the female employees under his supervision because of Big Evil Government laws against sexual harassment.
5:00 pm: I drove home and stopped for gasoline, which was safe to put in my tank thanks to Big Evil Government regulations. The Big Evil Government bureau of weights and measures made sure that I really was getting a gallon of gas when the pump said I got a gallon of gas.
5:30 pm: I arrived home safely because of Big Evil Government traffic laws that discourage reckless driving and drunk driving.
6:00 pm: My steak is safe to eat because it was inspected by the Big Evil Government USDA. My gas grill doesn't explode because of Big Evil Government consumer protection laws.
7:00 pm: I get on the internet, which was made possible by Big Evil Government research during the Cold War. I turn on my satellite TV service which was made possible by the Big Evil Government space program. My lights work because of the nuclear power plant in town, which was made possible by Big Evil Government research on nuclear fission. The nuclear plant is safe because of regular Big Evil Government NRC and EPA inspections.
10:00 pm: I turn up my heat because I know that tonight will be cold, thanks to the Big Evil Government Weather Service.
11:00 pm: I go to bed for the night, worrying about how the Big Evil Government is destroying my freedom.
California Landowner: "I know that you pickers have been getting $2.00 per bushel picked, but I'm lowering the price I'll pay to $1.25 per bushel."
Farm workers: "But you promised us $2.00 per bushel when we traveled hundreds of miles to get here. $1.25 per bushel doesn't earn us enough money to enough food to keep from going hungry. And prices for the produce we pick have been going up - you don't need to lower our wages to keep competitive."
California Landowner: "See those people outside the gates? They haven't had anything to eat in a week. They're more than happy to pick at $1.25 a bushel. Now either get into the fields now and start working, or I'll have my hired security workers kick you off of my property. So, what's it gonna be?"
In the libertarian viewpoint, the Landowner is the one in the right.
Why would a dishonest statement be an example? An agreement was made for $2 a bushel. Breaking an agreement somehow means one is a libertarian? It means you don't care about the truth
Lazy piles of crap that do NOT want to actually pay for the things they demand to keep the markets inflated, like the wars. No tax cuts are not OK when you have drove us 20 trillion in debt. Bunch of dead beat leeches.
Are you claiming the US has a libertarian form of government? Our wars violate the Non-aggression Principle. Taxes violate private property rights and the NAP, you can't get tax cuts without taxation, government can't subsidize industries if they don't have the income (or ability to borrow) through taxes to subsidize.
Libertarians and their principles didn't get us where we are, it was the state that we're disgusted and horrified by that did.
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.
