The libertarians should shop around for a service provider that offers only what they want. Would you go into a McDonalds and demand they stop selling fries because you don't like them? No, you wouldn't, you'd shop someplace else rather than imposing your view on others. I hope.
Welfare reform has not taught us anything of the sort, nice Reagan worshiping historical revisionism, next you'll be claiming trickle down economics worked, too.
People capable of working will not choose to rely on free handouts, people want status and you get status by contributing to society. You want good mates, you don't take handouts.
Your bleak and violent view of human nature is false. Human nature is certainly bleak and violent, given the wrong circumstances, but it is also cooperative, reciprocating, and fair, given the right circumstances. People are generally only selfish when they must be, to protect themselves. People who feel strong and confident are generous and kind. Only the weak are selfish. Being generous is a brag, it says "look at how successful I am. I'm so good, I can give it away." Look up the peacock principle.
In Rand's world, the only legitimate function of government is protecting the property of the wealthy from the poor. Corporations and the wealthy bandits who run them want "less government" so there will be "more desperate poor people willing to work for peanuts." They control government, government does what they say. Get rid of the social safety nets? You betcha!
Sire, I will not stand by while you insult biscuits. Biscuits are perhaps the most delicious bread-stuff ever invented. Especially the ones from Popeye's Chicken made entirely out of butter. Those are some earnest biscuits, let me tell you.
No, people do not have to work to get things and gain benefits. People in America do not have to work to get things and gain benefits. We have a social safety net of sorts, and charities. Yet, people would rather work than sit on their ass. Why is that? Human nature. Humans want status. Status comes from the respect of your peers. You get respect from contributing. Humans want to contribute, in order to gain status, and increase their potential mating pool.
In societies like soviet Russia, where it was obvious to the populace that they were still being taken advantage of an elite, of course people didn't want to work. But that s not the general case. Humans may be lazy creatures, but our desire for status outweighs our laziness.
Like AC current? Oh wait, That wasn't Edison, Edison electrocuted a freaking elephant using AC as a publicity stunt to try to make it seem dangerous. Edison was a con man, huckster and a thief who stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla.
One requires a kernel patch. One uses functionality already present in the kernel to do the same thing. Testing reveals the one that doesn't require a kernel patch is more responsive. You tell me which is best.
It means different things in America than in the rest of the word, where it is just another term for 'anarchist.' Here in America, it means "Individualist free market anarchist," and implies a belief in absolute property rights.
I would wager that I know quite a bit more about libertarians and the history and philosophy of anarchism than you do, in fact, it is because I know what anarchism is that I hate libertarians. American libertarians are basically nothing more than closet fascists.
Regular folks emphatically do not like capitalism better. The poster boys for capitalism, Wall Street CEOs, are amongst the most loathed figures on the world scene today. And in any case, do try to compare apples to apples. People in first world European socialist democracies wouldn't trade places with Americans for anything, most of the world looks at us as ruthless barbarians who don't give a fuck about the poor. but more and more Americans are emigrating to these socialist democracies. Now, try to find me a capitalist state that went from subsistence level farming to being an industrial powerhouse in under fifty years, Like the Mondragon Cooperative did. You can't.
None of those are socialist states. I suppose you think the United Soviet Socialist Republic was a Republic, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, because they call themselves such? Grow up.
We do want socialism in the US. Look at medicare, medicaid, the military, police, fire departments, public schools, public libraries, public roads, social security, the list of popular socialist endeavors is quite long.
In a pure Capitalist state, anyone with property dominates, controls, and enslaves anyone without income producing property. Libertarians define aggression as a poor man stealing an apple from a rich man, but when the rich man offers the poor man an apple in exchange for a life of slavery, that is a fair deal.
When your life is on the line, any deal is a fair deal. Libertarians don't want people to band together to protect themselves from oppression, they want the powerful to be free to oppress the weak. Libertarians are almost all social Darwinists who think the weak should just die to make more room for the rest of us, or at best roll over and do whatever their betters tell them to.
The State is just the weak banding together to protect themselves from oppression by the strong. The idea that some individual should have control over natural resources, property, the means of production, while other people should do what the owners tell them, is tyranny.
You still want a state. You just want the state to be nothing more than your hired guns, to keep the poor from taking back what you stole from them.
All societies force you to share the products of your labor. It is the cost of membership. You are paying for the benefit of being a part of society. Libertarians want the benefits, but they don't want to pay for it.
If you don't pay, you don't get to be a member. If you don't like the deal offered by one society, do what you do in the free market: shop around. No one I know goes into a McDonald's, asks for a Whopper, offers to pay $0 for it, then gets incensed and starts whining about their rights being infringed when everyone laughs at them. Yet that is exactly analogous to what libertarians do. You do not like the deal society offers you, you do not want to pay, therefore, your rights are being infringed.
Most libertarians, like Rand Paul, would argue that a store owner should have the right not to serve a black man if they don't want to. Well, our mutual benefit society doesn't want to serve freeloaders. You do NOT have the right to demand free services. You do NOT have the right to demand that other people do things your way, and whining about your rights does not disguise the fact that simply you want other people to change to suit you.
You imply that rhetorical questions have no earnest purpose?
I am implying that they are not earnest questions, as they are not questions, but statements disguised as questions. Nothing could be less earnest than something pretending to be something it isn't.
Wrong, as I explained, labor doesn't get you a portable, tradable, universal, and everlasting unit of wealth exchange, it gets you products.
Here's capitalism: A man knocks on your door with an offer, you get to continue top breath his air and eat his food if you suck his cock.
It is not stealing if you get something in return, and you freely accept the exchange. If you don't like what is offered by society, don't live in society. You have the choice not to play, you can live as a hermit and no one will bother you. But as long as you would like to be a part of our mutual benefit society, you will pay the membership dues.
Without society, those Amish have no ability to trade in money. They can barter, using whatever of their perishable crop survives, directly for items from others. They have every right to keep the direct product of their labor, the food and goods they produce. If they want to use currency, they need to be part of a society. And if they want to be part of a society, they need to pay he membership dues.
Libertarians want to be members of the club, they just don't want to have to pay to be members of the club. Which makes libertarians no good freeloading leaches.
Slashdot Mirror
The libertarians should shop around for a service provider that offers only what they want. Would you go into a McDonalds and demand they stop selling fries because you don't like them? No, you wouldn't, you'd shop someplace else rather than imposing your view on others. I hope.
Welfare reform has not taught us anything of the sort, nice Reagan worshiping historical revisionism, next you'll be claiming trickle down economics worked, too.
People capable of working will not choose to rely on free handouts, people want status and you get status by contributing to society. You want good mates, you don't take handouts.
Your bleak and violent view of human nature is false. Human nature is certainly bleak and violent, given the wrong circumstances, but it is also cooperative, reciprocating, and fair, given the right circumstances. People are generally only selfish when they must be, to protect themselves. People who feel strong and confident are generous and kind. Only the weak are selfish. Being generous is a brag, it says "look at how successful I am. I'm so good, I can give it away." Look up the peacock principle.
Look up the Mondragon Cooperative. Interested yet?
In Rand's world, the only legitimate function of government is protecting the property of the wealthy from the poor. Corporations and the wealthy bandits who run them want "less government" so there will be "more desperate poor people willing to work for peanuts." They control government, government does what they say. Get rid of the social safety nets? You betcha!
In bed with corporations? Check.
Sire, I will not stand by while you insult biscuits. Biscuits are perhaps the most delicious bread-stuff ever invented. Especially the ones from Popeye's Chicken made entirely out of butter. Those are some earnest biscuits, let me tell you.
It's your head, hang it however you like. Maybe you could explain to the rest of us why you thought it was funny?
There is a long history of Christian Socialism. By most accounts, Christ was a socialist.
No, people do not have to work to get things and gain benefits. People in America do not have to work to get things and gain benefits. We have a social safety net of sorts, and charities. Yet, people would rather work than sit on their ass. Why is that? Human nature. Humans want status. Status comes from the respect of your peers. You get respect from contributing. Humans want to contribute, in order to gain status, and increase their potential mating pool.
In societies like soviet Russia, where it was obvious to the populace that they were still being taken advantage of an elite, of course people didn't want to work. But that s not the general case. Humans may be lazy creatures, but our desire for status outweighs our laziness.
Like AC current? Oh wait, That wasn't Edison, Edison electrocuted a freaking elephant using AC as a publicity stunt to try to make it seem dangerous. Edison was a con man, huckster and a thief who stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla.
One requires a kernel patch. One uses functionality already present in the kernel to do the same thing. Testing reveals the one that doesn't require a kernel patch is more responsive. You tell me which is best.
It means different things in America than in the rest of the word, where it is just another term for 'anarchist.' Here in America, it means "Individualist free market anarchist," and implies a belief in absolute property rights.
I would wager that I know quite a bit more about libertarians and the history and philosophy of anarchism than you do, in fact, it is because I know what anarchism is that I hate libertarians. American libertarians are basically nothing more than closet fascists.
Regular folks emphatically do not like capitalism better. The poster boys for capitalism, Wall Street CEOs, are amongst the most loathed figures on the world scene today. And in any case, do try to compare apples to apples. People in first world European socialist democracies wouldn't trade places with Americans for anything, most of the world looks at us as ruthless barbarians who don't give a fuck about the poor. but more and more Americans are emigrating to these socialist democracies. Now, try to find me a capitalist state that went from subsistence level farming to being an industrial powerhouse in under fifty years, Like the Mondragon Cooperative did. You can't.
None of those are socialist states. I suppose you think the United Soviet Socialist Republic was a Republic, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, because they call themselves such? Grow up.
We do want socialism in the US. Look at medicare, medicaid, the military, police, fire departments, public schools, public libraries, public roads, social security, the list of popular socialist endeavors is quite long.
In a pure Capitalist state, anyone with property dominates, controls, and enslaves anyone without income producing property. Libertarians define aggression as a poor man stealing an apple from a rich man, but when the rich man offers the poor man an apple in exchange for a life of slavery, that is a fair deal.
When your life is on the line, any deal is a fair deal. Libertarians don't want people to band together to protect themselves from oppression, they want the powerful to be free to oppress the weak. Libertarians are almost all social Darwinists who think the weak should just die to make more room for the rest of us, or at best roll over and do whatever their betters tell them to.
The State is just the weak banding together to protect themselves from oppression by the strong. The idea that some individual should have control over natural resources, property, the means of production, while other people should do what the owners tell them, is tyranny.
You still want a state. You just want the state to be nothing more than your hired guns, to keep the poor from taking back what you stole from them.
All societies force you to share the products of your labor. It is the cost of membership. You are paying for the benefit of being a part of society. Libertarians want the benefits, but they don't want to pay for it.
If you don't pay, you don't get to be a member. If you don't like the deal offered by one society, do what you do in the free market: shop around. No one I know goes into a McDonald's, asks for a Whopper, offers to pay $0 for it, then gets incensed and starts whining about their rights being infringed when everyone laughs at them. Yet that is exactly analogous to what libertarians do. You do not like the deal society offers you, you do not want to pay, therefore, your rights are being infringed.
Most libertarians, like Rand Paul, would argue that a store owner should have the right not to serve a black man if they don't want to. Well, our mutual benefit society doesn't want to serve freeloaders. You do NOT have the right to demand free services. You do NOT have the right to demand that other people do things your way, and whining about your rights does not disguise the fact that simply you want other people to change to suit you.
It doesn't work any better the second time. Repeating something stupid does not make it clever.
Thank you captain obvious for explaining my attempt at self deprecating humor.
I almost hate to ask, but what exactly is a logical phallacy?
You imply that rhetorical questions have no earnest purpose?
I am implying that they are not earnest questions, as they are not questions, but statements disguised as questions. Nothing could be less earnest than something pretending to be something it isn't.
Wrong, as I explained, labor doesn't get you a portable, tradable, universal, and everlasting unit of wealth exchange, it gets you products.
Here's capitalism: A man knocks on your door with an offer, you get to continue top breath his air and eat his food if you suck his cock.
It is not stealing if you get something in return, and you freely accept the exchange. If you don't like what is offered by society, don't live in society. You have the choice not to play, you can live as a hermit and no one will bother you. But as long as you would like to be a part of our mutual benefit society, you will pay the membership dues.
Without society, those Amish have no ability to trade in money. They can barter, using whatever of their perishable crop survives, directly for items from others. They have every right to keep the direct product of their labor, the food and goods they produce. If they want to use currency, they need to be part of a society. And if they want to be part of a society, they need to pay he membership dues.
Libertarians want to be members of the club, they just don't want to have to pay to be members of the club. Which makes libertarians no good freeloading leaches.
Marxism and socialism aren't the same thing, either. But please, if you have a refutation, proffer it.
Very nice explanation, thank you.
Damn it. My brain ain't working good today.