Koch Brothers - Libertarianism In Practice

[Aeris]

28 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

No, this is more of a bullshit excuse just to take someone's money. Like a mugger would think that since his victim would part with the the content of his wallet anyway by buying something, then how is it worst if the mugger takes it?

how so?

It is not distribution - it is engaging is wealth creation and it is fair, because both parties voluntarily agree on the conditions.

 

Do you think people are efficient thinker and creator' of value when they are born in a fucked poverty ?

The only way you think like this is by never having know what poverty is about. There is no self détermination when all your neighborhood have guns and your mother inject opiate to forget about her reality.

Letting people being helpless and finger point them by sayin : they should have work instead of being stupid.

Are you serious or just a 15 years old kid ? Giving chance for people to handle themself and be efficient for society as a whole is not a total socialism. In the end human psychology makes you work. But that's too hard to explain I'll not fucking start here to explain it. 

In the end the goal is to all be richer ( if we don't die from cancer and lack of proper oxygène )

Edited August 30, 2019 by Aeris

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I don't think that taking other people stuff is a good idea.

Your views of how government and capitalism work are very naive.

Capitalism IS a redistribution of resources to giant corporations and the most powerful and manipulative people, which undermines democracy. Social democracy is a check on that redistribution of wealth to elites. Elites use capitalism to extract massive amounts of wealth from the rest of society regardless of the damage it causes.

Democracy + capitalism is a contradiction. There is no such thing. If you have capitalism you have anti-democracy because money buys all politicians. This leads to corporatism, plutocracy, and corruption. Corruption is not a function of evil people doing bad things, it's a function of money infecting the democratic process in a systemic way.

[Andrew Rogers]

Well, being a clueless 15 yo kid in a bad hood, with opiate-injecting mother certainly does suck. No doubts about that.
By the same token, giving a drug addict money usually leads to counterproductive results. Look at cities ran by socialists/democrats, like Chicago, Baltimore, San-Francisco, those are the ones with such rat-infested neighborhoods and hobos shitting on the street.

While if such kid would live in rural Alabama, he might work as a farmhand or at a 7-11, listen to Jordan Peterson, clean his room, study, work out, get into college and build a reasonable career.

I would assume the problem is in the culture, not money. If a poor kid is told that his poverty is someone else' fault and he can not do anything about it - he will stay aimless, poor and angry. If the culture tells his that his poverty is his own responsibility, that he has to pull himself by the bootstraps, well, at least he will have an aim to strive for.

[remember]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

No, this is more of a bullshit excuse just to take someone's money. Like a mugger would think that since his victim would part with the the content of his wallet anyway by buying something, then how is it worst if the mugger takes it?

how so?

It is not distribution - it is engaging is wealth creation and it is fair, because both parties voluntarily agree on the conditions.

 

well yeah, wealth can not be created - only value can.  wealth sometimes creates terrible value.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Democracy + capitalism is a contradiction. There is no such thing. If you have capitalism you have anti-democracy because money buys all politicians. This leads to corporatism, plutocracy, and corruption.

Yes, money can buy politicians, but in the same time politicians will attempt to buy votes by offering free ( i.e. stolen ) stuff to their voters. So it sucks both ways. A better solution - a limited government, where politicians can not bribe voters with stuff, nor they have any power to give privileges to corporations, so corporations won't have a need to buy them.

 

Quote

Capitalism IS a redistribution of resources to giant corporations

It does seem like a linguistical manipulation. You are using the word 'redistribution' as if it is something arbitrary, like a CEO would suddenly decide to take all the profits to himself. Also wealth is not distributed - it is created. For example, a cook sells his time to the restaurant, which then sell a steak to a customer, who eats, paying with money that he got for doing something productive. So it is creation and exchange, not arbitrary distribution.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, remember said:

well yeah, wealth can not be created - only value can.  wealth sometimes creates terrible value.

Lol, if wealth is not created, where does it come from them?

That's California over a 100 years ago - no wealth. How did the current wealth appear?

[Aeris]

22 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Well, being a clueless 15 yo kid in a bad hood, with opiate-injecting mother certainly does suck. No doubts about that.
By the same token, giving a drug addict money usually leads to counterproductive results. Look at cities ran by socialists/democrats, like Chicago, Baltimore, San-Francisco, those are the ones with such rat-infested neighborhoods and hobos shitting on the street.

While if such kid would live in rural Alabama, he might work as a farmhand or at a 7-11, listen to Jordan Peterson, clean his room, study, work out, get into college and build a reasonable career.

I would assume the problem is in the culture, not money. If a poor kid is told that his poverty is someone else' fault and he can not do anything about it - he will stay aimless, poor and angry. If the culture tells his that his poverty is his own responsibility, that he has to pull himself by the bootstraps, well, at least he will have an aim to strive for.

I m talking from a France perspective America is capitalist at the Rootcore. Having a tentacle who try to escape his body. Inefficient, clueless socialisms. No real 'social order'. dividing social vs capital. ( But even France is corrupted with alter capital mondialism ).

You don't know how the human mind work and focus. You have no clue. That's the job of politicien to provide a stream for self détermination ( what you talk about ) even that is not easy' you don't start by cleaning your room'.

that's why you can't understand why this Magic story of self détermination is a part of the american-propaganda. it isn't real at a larger scale. It happen only to the one with opportunity.

I m for equality of opportunity not giving monney to people to inject drug that's a possibility of course. But that's why I won't talk more about politic there is too much I already thinked about. Andrew yang talked a lot my view - watch him on Joe rogan he talk about this subject of ubi and I m close of his view.

I m for a meritocracy

Edited August 30, 2019 by Aeris

[remember]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Lol, if wealth is not created, where does it come from them?

That's California over a 100 years ago - no wealth. How did the current wealth appear?

it looks like it grew out of nowhere. but i don`t see dollar notes, i see trees.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, remember said:

it looks like it grew out of nowhere. but i don`t see dollar notes, i see trees.

That's because people created it. dollar notes are just representation of their creation.

[remember]

18 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

That's because people created it. dollar notes are just representation of their creation.

yes we are talking about the proportion of values.

[Leo Gura]

43 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

You are using the word 'redistribution' as if it is something arbitrary, like a CEO would suddenly decide to take all the profits to himself. Also wealth is not distributed - it is created.

You are very naive about how corporations do business & about white collar crime.

The entire political system is deliberately designed to redistribute wealth upwards to the most powerful. There is nothing arbitrary about it. That is right-wing trickle down economics.

Weakening the government by going the "limited government" route will only make this problem worse.

There cannot be a limited government when greater levels of social organization require massively complex management systems. You cannot have all of today's modern technological luxuries while also organizing government via caveman politics.

With caveman government you get caveman lifestyle.

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

Weakening the government by going the "limited government" route will only make this problem worse.

There cannot be a limited government when greater levels of social organization require massively complex management systems. You cannot have all of today's modern technological luxuries while also organizing government via caveman politics.

With caveman government you get caveman lifestyle.

I don't see how it might correspond with reality. What is the need for government to engage in some sort of massively complex management systems?

Are our needs more complex then in, say, Roman empire? I don't think so, plus we have modern technologies, which replace most of the bureaucrat.

 

[Paulus Amadeus]

13 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I don't see how it might correspond with reality. What is the need for government to engage in some sort of massively complex management systems?

Are our needs more complex then in, say, Roman empire? I don't think so, plus we have modern technologies, which replace most of the bureaucrat.

 

Ofcourse the needs are way more complex now. Now there is the internet, a truly global economy, rapid changing technology, much more people with very different ideologies and different levels of development, global warming, way more infrastructure, space travel etc etc etc. 

And yeah, it's really really necessary to not just let everyone run around and do whatever the fuck they want. So you need a massively complex management system. 

I live in the Netherlands and the gouvernement is waaaaaayyyyyyyy more progressive and left here than the US gouvernement is. And I can tell you, life is a lot easier here for the average person. Gouvernement get's involved in a lot of stuff, and  usually it works pretty well. 

And our gouvernement isn't even half-way to becoming a truly conscious gouvernement. But compared to the US, it's a political paradise here. 

 

 

[Revolutionary Think]

@Leo Gura Libertarian nightmare 

 

  

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Paulus Amadeus said:

Ofcourse the needs are way more complex now. Now there is the internet, a truly global economy, rapid changing technology, much more people with very different ideologies and different levels of development, global warming, way more infrastructure, space travel etc etc etc. 

And yeah, it's really really necessary to not just let everyone run around and do whatever the fuck they want. So you need a massively complex management system. 

And our gouvernement isn't even half-way to becoming a truly conscious gouvernement. But compared to the US, it's a political paradise here. 

Wants are not needs.

Yes, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want.  As long as they not harming anyone.  Government in the U.S. was put in place to protect the people, and that's all.  We are truly messing things up though.

I noticed the word freedom was left out of your comments.  We still have freedom here in the States.  That is, until the liberals prevail.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

Yes, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want.  As long as they not harming anyone. 

The key term here is "harm". You seem to assume that there is an objective, universal thing called "harm". Harm is a relative term. What you consider to be harmful, another person may consider to be beneficial. Yet if one assumes their idea of harm is objective and universal, they will not be able to understand another perspective. This creates a limited, contracted state of mind that is present in the universal objectivism of Ayn Rand and libertarian philosophy. . . A major part of self actualization is to expand one's consciousness out of such contracted states.

It is unwise to concede this point to a libertarian unless they offer an objective, universal construct of "harm". Conceding this point allows a libertarian to frame the narrative in such a way that they gain grounding within groundless assumptions.  As well, this framework allows a dominant group with majority power to maintain that power - by defining what counts as "harm". The group with power will often define "harm" from their perspective, not from the perspective of the minority group with less power.

[Paulus Amadeus]

29 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Wants are not needs.

Yes, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want.  As long as they not harming anyone.  Government in the U.S. was put in place to protect the people, and that's all.  We are truly messing things up though.

I noticed the word freedom was left out of your comments.  We still have freedom here in the States.  That is, until the liberals prevail.

You will find that if you are poor or lower middle class in the Netherlands, you have a lot more freedom than in the US. For instance: you can afford to travel, you are not enslaved by debt if you have to need surgery, you can study even though your family has little money.

sounds like more freedom to me!

And i agree, people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone. But you need a lot of laws and government to carefully and thoughtfully enforce that. Also government should do way more than that! Like help out people in need, educate, make sure people have decent opportunities in life, create roads, create a sewer system, etc etc etc.

[Andrew Rogers]

2 hours ago, Paulus Amadeus said:

Ofcourse the needs are way more complex now. Now there is the internet, a truly global economy, rapid changing technology, much more people with very different ideologies and different levels of development, global warming, way more infrastructure, space travel etc etc etc. 

And yeah, it's really really necessary to not just let everyone run around and do whatever the fuck they want. So you need a massively complex management system. 

I live in the Netherlands and the gouvernement is waaaaaayyyyyyyy more progressive and left here than the US gouvernement is. And I can tell you, life is a lot easier here for the average person. Gouvernement get's involved in a lot of stuff, and  usually it works pretty well. 

And our gouvernement isn't even half-way to becoming a truly conscious gouvernement. But compared to the US, it's a political paradise here. 

 

 

But you understand that to play around with all those things, the government takes money from the people. And it is not know, maybe people would be able to fix their issues on their own with that money.

Yet anyway, Netherlands certainly has the best government in the world, that's for sure. Not for the things it does, but for not sticking its nose into people lives. You know that I mean.

[Andrew Rogers]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

 We still have freedom here in the States.  That is, until the liberals prevail.

No you don't. Try to openly use psychedelics and see what happens.

 

Quote

You seem to assume that there is an objective, universal thing called "harm". Harm is a relative term. What you consider to be harmful, another person may consider to be beneficial.

The criminal code is a pretty good measure. Murder, assault , rape, theft, robbery, larceny, arson, etc. is harm. All those "oh, I feel offended" is bullshit.

 

Quote

For instance: you can afford to travel, you are not enslaved by debt if you have to need surgery, you can study even though your family has little money.

Its kinda of a con-game - government creates hidden taxes to take money from the people unnoticeably, then gives part of it back flamboyantly.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Andrew Rogers

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Well, being a clueless 15 yo kid in a bad hood, with opiate-injecting mother certainly does suck. No doubts about that.
By the same token, giving a drug addict money usually leads to counterproductive results. Look at cities ran by socialists/democrats, like Chicago, Baltimore, San-Francisco, those are the ones with such rat-infested neighborhoods and hobos shitting on the street.

While if such kid would live in rural Alabama, he might work as a farmhand or at a 7-11, listen to Jordan Peterson, clean his room, study, work out, get into college and build a reasonable career.

I would assume the problem is in the culture, not money. If a poor kid is told that his poverty is someone else' fault and he can not do anything about it - he will stay aimless, poor and angry. If the culture tells his that his poverty is his own responsibility, that he has to pull himself by the bootstraps, well, at least he will have an aim to strive for.

You are seeing this from a privileged perspective. You have the privilege of not seeing it through another's perspective that has to carry the burden. You have the privilege of sitting at your computer and pontificating about how others should just take responsibility and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. If that is how you want to express your privilege, that is your right. Yet I think it's a self-centered low conscious expression of privilege. Yet you cannot help it, since your perspective is contracted into your own experience and beliefs - which have been conditioned into you. And you are not aware of this. It is subconscious.