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.
I’m not a rich overlord but have accumulated a bit of wealth. I suggest those who believe capitalists get too much of the wealth copy the capitalists and get some of their own. Without capital there is little growth and little improvementsin the lot of the common man.
Wealth should be limited by ability.
If you allow it to be accumulated you allow people with power to decide who rises up (you) and who can.
My impression of Libertarians is they are smart. Their polar opposite..fiscal liberals/social conservatives have the lowest IQs. I would be a Libertarian but I disagree with them about drugs.
We can look at it at a case by case scenario or we can look at broader trends and see wanting in excess goes against the limits of human consumption. Read Epicurus, as a hedonist even he said people consume until they are full.
The excess of that consumption (besides food) comes from the endless offering of more. Your specific case could say one thing or another, but people have their own external forces. Maybe you don’t have time to eat, maybe you don’t want to eat to much, etc.
But all this is not limited or by food. Consumption is a necessary model for wealth to be sustained and therefore must be promoted.
The more I'm offered or can afford the more I stay the same or decrease consumption.
Just because I'm a hardcore capitalist doesn't mean I'm a voracious consumer. The more I make the less I consume because I cherish my freedom. And that's what wealth helps secure - my ability to be flexible which is freedom.
Food:
I'm a health nut so only eat roughly the same thing all the time. I buy all my food at the local farmer's market.
The more I'm offered or can afford the more I stay the same or decrease consumption.
Just because I'm a hardcore capitalist doesn't mean I'm a voracious consumer. The more I make the less I consume because I cherish my freedom. And that's what wealth helps secure - my ability to be flexible which is freedom.
Food:
I'm a health nut so only eat roughly the same thing all the time. I buy all my food at the local farmer's market.
and that’s the problem. If freedom is granted by wealth, it makes people a slave to money.
One problem I have with is choice.
The presence of choice while not external force, can be a negation if free will.
Capitalism promotes more consumer choice, by providing an excess of goods and options for consumers to choose from. This presence and environment can take someone who has no desire for more and put them in a situation where they consume beyond their wants and motivation to produce.
I think therefore I am ... Moody Blues, Lovely To See You (my bold for emphasis follows)
Quote:
I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
[Establishment:] Of course you are my bright little star,
I've miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer, You're magnetic ink.
I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
[Inner Man:] There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles. It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave And keep on thinking free.
Ownership? The first determination in all of this is, do we own ourselves?
When you showed me Bakunin ("facts are before ideas") meaning, people can not think for themselves, my first thought was, we may as well stick with the R & D teams we have.
2008 housing (every body should own a home, GWB) bubble, deregulation of banks, created the scenario you describe. Banks lent money to low credit applicants; then the foreclosures came. We can blame the people for not using better judgment. Or we can blame the banks, that even though they were 'freer' to lend, they could have put themselves on proper restraints.
If we own ourselves we own everything we do. (know thyself) If we do not own ourselves ... then
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
and that’s the problem. If freedom is granted by wealth, it makes people a slave to money.
Then it is a good thing a person's freedom is not determined by wealth. I could also argue that freedom is an illusion created by man ... which do you like best?
I see so much in this thread regarding economics that is just flat out wrong, it saddens me to see so many with such a pathetic grasp of economics.
As far as a Libertarian perspective goes. Thomas Jefferson rightly argued that rights are inherent in each human. They are not and cannot be a decree from government because if they were, they are merely temporary permissions granted for only as long as the grantors feel generous.
The social construct of government, as well as the purpose of government and the means to throw off bad government were all well defined in the original founding document of this once great nation, the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
I believe the most important part of that quote was when Thomas Jefferson wrote the purpose of government. He in essence stated that government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual.
So what is the ideology of a Libertarian? I believe it is to live freely to do as each individual wishes, succeeding or failing as they may based upon their own choices and deeds. I believe there are two great LAWS that one must adhere to in order to not be a criminal in a free society. These two general laws are:
1. Do ALL you agree to do.
2. Do NOT encroach upon the rights or property of another.
Anything else should be a choice for each individual to freely choose for themselves.
I read repeated claims of social or societal norms as an excuse for limiting the choice of others. Would someone please tell me by what right my neighbor might proclaim via a demand law or regulation that I must ask him for permission, pay for that permission, and can be denied permission to own a cat or dog, fix my leaky roof either by myself or with whomever I choose, repair my sidewalk, paint my home, etc. If your neighbor came over to your property and made such a proclamation you would rightly demand the addle minded fool leave your property and not return. So in a huff, that neighbor goes to government and makes some plea that he is concerned that I could have too many cats or dogs, that I might not make the best decision on how my repairs should be made and that there should be a "standard" that everyone must meet, regardless of whether or not I can afford that standard, and gets government to proclaim all these laws, regulations and ordinances... for my own good.
Our respective Constitutions, federal and of the several States, establish what permissions, authority and power We The People GRANTED our government. Each document is quite clear and can be easily understood by the typical 6th to 8th grade student yet our government, at ALL levels, refuses to operate within those specific and very limited powers. Instead of being the constitutional republic it was designed and approved to be, it has been lauded as a democracy where each voting individual can use the power of their vote to compel others to live according to THEIR ideals, THEIR will, THEIR morality and THEIR dictates, freedom, free will and LIBERTY be damned.
By what right does one person look at another and proclaim "That shalt NOT <insert action here>!" Or "Thou SHALL <insert action here>!" if a person is doing ALL they agreed to do and if they aren't encroaching upon the rights or property of another? Seriously... By what RIGHT does anyone make such a demand? By what right do people demand to use government to impose these demands when that government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual?
Societal pressures are often enough to keep people within a bell curve of normalcy. To use the power and force of government to compel that others should OBEY the ideals, will, morality and dictates of some is nothing short of tyranny.
I've even seen at least one person on this thread claiming they dread what government programs and departments a Libertarian would want abolished when in fact 99% of the government we have is unconstitutional, yet they refuse to accept that IF a government program or department is genuinely essential, all that need be done is to write an amendment to the respective Constitution, granting that power and authority to government. After all, each and every respective State and federal Constitution in the US has written in it the means and power to amend the respective Constitution, along with the instructions on how to amend it. So why has our government morphed into this out of control behemoth? The answer is quite simple. YOU refuse to ALLOW your neighbors to live as they wish as long as they do all they agreed to do and they don't encroach upon the rights and property of others. YOU insist on having a say, demanding how they can or cannot live. YOU, every last one of you who seeks to use the government to compel others to OBEY YOUR ideals, will, morality and dictates. You are the problem.
I used to be one of you. I was a die hard conservative republican who thought I had ALL the answers to everyone's life situations even though I didn't have a clue about what situations these people faced. Heck, I could barely manage my own life situations, and had to try to make the best decisions I could with what I had and knew. For me to think I could possibly have to "right" decisions for millions of others whom I didn't know was extremely narcissistic of me.
By what RIGHT do you make any demand of another if they've done all they agreed to do and they aren't encroaching upon the rights and property of another? If you genuinely believe you have this right then you believe other people are your property, your slaves... and they must do as you dictate. Is THAT what this nation was founded upon?
By what right...
Last edited by KS_Referee; 12-31-2018 at 02:06 AM..
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.
