Switch Theme:

Pope Francis says "Libertarian Economics Sucks!"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 cincydooley wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.

I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?

What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!


Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.

IT WAS A JOKE. How did you not get that?

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 gorgon wrote:
It often seems to me that atheists tend to proselytize more than most "religious" people.


That might be because if an atheist isn't making a big noise about it, you have no way of even learning they're atheist. Lots of atheists out there just minding their own business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
I like this pope... but, the direction of this conversation I think is being misunderstood.

If anything...his stances seems more about consumerism as opposed to the classical capitalism arguments.


I think that's probably a bit of a distinction without difference. You can't really seperate consumerism from capitalism.

The key thing here is that he’s from the crony-capitalism capital of Argentina... anyone who has paid attention to this country would tell you that... also, I think he has mistaken that what went on in Argentina... is SOP for the operation of free markets elsewhere.


I don't think he's speach shows a level of detail where that really makes that much of a difference. He's really just gone for the 'extremes' argument - that capitalism taken to its extreme begins to do harm. Which is basically a vague notion that's impossible to argue with - the question really is where extreme starts.

However, throughout history, free-market principles has been a great driver of economic growth and can be argued that its also been a great driver of a more moral society. (I know I'm opening a can-o-worms here... but I challenge you to defy it! )


Interesting argument, on the moral part. My first thought is that morality is too vague and subjective for the point to be properly for or against... but I'd be interested in seeing how you try.

That said, ultimately it kind of doesn't matter whether as individuals we are more moral. What matters is people who were poor now have access to food and shelter. Whether that's because we are more moral and give them more, or because the system can offer them a well paying job where it couldn't before, or because overall society is so much wealthier that our charitable giving becomes more substantial (even though it's the same % of our income)... the end result is a rise in the quality of life for people at the bottom.

Additionally, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a pejorative used by many to describe a viewpoint they oppose. How is it any different than those on the right referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories as well. Call it for what this is....


Trickle-down is the term given by the right to a theory they embraced (and still largely do).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 03:51:15


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.

I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?

What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!


Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.

IT WAS A JOKE. How did you not get that?


I Got that it was trying to be a joke. But jokes usually work better when they attempt to be funny and make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
It often seems to me that atheists tend to proselytize more than most "religious" people.


That might be because if an atheist isn't making a big noise about it, you have no way of even learning they're atheist. Lots of atheists out there just minding their own business.


[.


To be fair, there are plenty of Catholics doing the exact same thing. Though I'm technically a very bad catholic because I slept with my wife before we were married and don't give a gak who wants to marry who.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 03:53:50


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 schadenfreude wrote:
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.


The idea of protecting corporations makes little sense, and even less sense from a libertarian point of view. If it has a product that people want, then the jobs and greater flow on effects to the economy will happen.

The only time you'd look to change that is when you talk about start up industries or building an infrastructure base... but those ideas deal with externalities and public good concepts, and lots of other things that libertarian economics is pretty dedicated to ignoring.

The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.


While I agree that libertarians are basically a political non-presence, there's more than one meaning to the term 'libertarian'. The pope is talking about certain policies that might not meet the purity test of committed libertarians, but are still far enough along the scale of right wing economics that people can call them libertarian and most people know what's being discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.


Not really. When Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations he wasn't suggesting an idea for people to try, he was observing what had already happened. Capitalist economics were emergent, not designed.

Nor was Smith at all opposed to the kinds of things that many today on the right wing hate so much. He believed in progressive taxation, that it was a duty of those who'd received more from the system to pay back in for the public good. Nor did he lie down at the altar of self-interest that you see so much today, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Agreed. Also, even if a self correcting market were found to be true, would we really want it? I don't see anything advantageous about making an entire generation suffer while the market self corrects--if a government can help ease the pain in the interim.


"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!


Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.


There is when you have to break a picket line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cincydooley wrote:
To be fair, there are plenty of Catholics doing the exact same thing. Though I'm technically a very bad catholic because I slept with my wife before we were married and don't give a gak who wants to marry who.


My wife is technically a bad Catholic as well, what with us living together for more than a year before we married. Scandal!

And yeah, the vast majority of people of all stripes just keep to themselves. Maybe they'll talk about in conversation if it comes up, but they're not out there to force their views down anyone else's throat. The few that do look to tell everyone else their views are wrong, whether they're atheist or Catholic or whatever... the problem with those people isn't their belief, the problem is that they're jerks.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 04:44:58


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

And usually very loud.

 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






 sebster wrote:
 schadenfreude wrote:
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.


The idea of protecting corporations makes little sense, and even less sense from a libertarian point of view. If it has a product that people want, then the jobs and greater flow on effects to the economy will happen.

The only time you'd look to change that is when you talk about start up industries or building an infrastructure base... but those ideas deal with externalities and public good concepts, and lots of other things that libertarian economics is pretty dedicated to ignoring.


Corporations can make some pretty obscene amounts of money especially if you look at gross income. The first instinct of many people is to tax them and to not do so goes against instinct. Let's review what they can do with their money.

#1 Pay their CEO and upper management a huge and obscene bonus. That isn't really helping anybody but the CEO/upper management, but the pay can be taxed at a high rate as income so the government is going to get the money anyways unless the CEO takes stock options and sells it later or waits for dividends which brings me to #2

#2 Pay dividends. That's cool dividends and stock growth is what funds the 401ks of the middle class. Of course to make this work and help out the economy instead of the ultra wealthy that pay lower tax rates than their secretaries capital gains should be considered the same as income for taxes. Once again the government gets the money when it leaves the corporation.

#3 Grow the company. They can do this anyways without paying taxes but it takes armies of accountants and lobbyists and by the time the most powerful corporations are done buying politicians the government will end up paying the corporation money in subsidies.

When the government gets too much into a corporations business the corporation gets too much into the government's business. That arrangement hasn't been working out too well for us so far. It also just seems easier to me to nail the ultra wealthy by treating capital gains as normal income and increasing the alternative minimal tax, then the money corporations generate would get taxed when it goes to the stock holders.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 06:03:56


Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.

Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.

Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.

And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Haight wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
 Haight wrote:



I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
".


Why? What purpose does that serve? I never understand this attitude.


Critical of the Catholic Church ? How much time ya got ? No seriously, the history of the Catholic Church has been highly questionable for centuries. The church does some good works. It has also done some incredibly heinous things, or stood by and watched as other incredibly heinous things were done.



Torturing my bible thumping relatives ?

I won't get into a lengthy treatise about it as if i described what i've seen perpetrated in the name of catholicism, most people would figure i was lying (and given the Church's track record, i think that's saying something). Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word -- it's their choice, and though I think it's both foolish and a form of brainwashing, hey, to each their own. If the only way you can sleep at night is to believe in some invisible, unprovable anthropomorphic grand being that chose to reveal himself to his creations only during the time of illiterate bronze age technology and never once again, since. Hey... sure.

The remaining members of my family that i still have contact with deserve every ounce of Theological torture i send their way. And i delight in giving it to them. It's a testament to the nature of organized religion that most debates i have with my relatives on the topic end with "Well, i can't prove that you're wrong, but i don't have to. I have Faith.".


Carefull there...you sound like so many ex-athiests/agnostic turned Christians who used to have the same outlook, and negative view of faith. In a few years you just may be looking back and laughing at yourself at how misguided you were.

GG
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






 sebster wrote:
There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.

Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.

Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.

And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.


Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.

I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.

I also believe in a smaller military, non interventionist foreign policy, protecting civil liberties with the 2nd amendment + equal rights for gays included, and ending prohibition. For that people call me crazy, why is that? Because huge chunks of the Libertarian party are crazy and hold views that are more extremist than the tea party. Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 schadenfreude wrote:
 sebster wrote:
There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.

Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.

Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.

And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.


Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.

I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.

I also believe in a smaller military, non interventionist foreign policy, protecting civil liberties with the 2nd amendment + equal rights for gays included, and ending prohibition. For that people call me crazy, why is that? Because huge chunks of the Libertarian party are crazy and hold views that are more extremist than the tea party. Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.

Umm, prohibition has been ended for almost 100 years.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, prohibition has been ended for almost 100 years.

change prohibition to "War on Drugs" and you'll get what he means. I.e. legalize the wacky tobaccy

DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 Alfndrate wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, prohibition has been ended for almost 100 years.

change prohibition to "War on Drugs" and you'll get what he means. I.e. legalize the wacky tobaccy

Well the "War on Drugs" was just really expensive grandstanding.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

Not really considering the number of people killed every year by militarized police and over armed gangs, and the billions spent on arming those cops. Especially when it has next to know measurable or for that matter, useful, results.


I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






The war on drugs is basically a statement that the government is at war with it's own citizens, which is a pretty accurate description of drug prohibition.

Our first run at prohibition lasted 13 years going from 1920 to 1933 and was an unmitigated disaster. Our second attempt at prohibition started 42 years ago in 1971 and it's turned into a larger disaster than the 1st attempt. If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. The best way to point out the absurdity of drug prohibition is to imagine if we kept alcohol prohibition going from 1920 until 1962, imprisoned 1% of our population, and created a bloodbath on the scale that we are now seeing in Mexico.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 schadenfreude wrote:
Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.


Your inconsistency is in assuming money in the hands of the middle class is somehow better for the economy than money in the hands of the wealthy. It's all money and if it goes to Steve the labourer or John the trust fund baby, it's impact on the economy is the same in almost all market conditions.

I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.


I don't think you entirely understand what supply side economics means. It isn't just tax cuts, it's an approach that says reform should make investment and production of goods easier, and then demand will look after itself.

Your points on making sure the benefits go to the middle class because they'll spend it etc... that's demand side economics.

Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.


Libertarianism won't ever get anywhere. It's a thought bubble attached to a grossly simple view of the world. It simply has no real answers for the real world because it devotees aren't actually interested in fixing the complex problems of the real world. They simply want to be self-satisfied in the purity of their own intellectual position.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
Libertarianism won't ever get anywhere. It's a thought bubble attached to a grossly simple view of the world. It simply has no real answers for the real world because it devotees aren't actually interested in fixing the complex problems of the real world. They simply want to be self-satisfied in the purity of their own intellectual position.

It has answers. You just don't like them.

And that's fine. I find your ideology remarkably simple-minded, too.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
It has answers. You just don't like them.


It isn't a case of liking or disliking the answers, as much as the answers are in such a narrow band that they end up meaningless. It's like if you're in a film group, and one guy just wants to about Godfather II the whole time. I could agree with him that it's a marvellous film, but talking about that film and no other for session after session is so narrow that it becomes a pointless exercise very quickly. Point being, there is a hell of a lot more to economics than consumer choice and an assumption that markets are perfect as long as we just pretend they are.

And that's fine. I find your ideology remarkably simple-minded, too.


I don't mean it as a personal attack. I can see why you'd take it as one, so I understand your response, but really honestly believe me when I say that I'm not trying to have a go at you or any other libertarian, I'm just trying to explain why libertarianism has never attracted much of a following, and why that isn't going to change. It's a theory that speaks to the issues of a very particular set of middle class people and no-one else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 07:02:28


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Strange that I was a libertarian when I was poor then.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
Strange that I was a libertarian when I was poor then.


Given that class is about a lot more than income, that isn't strange at all.

Nor is it strange that that's all you managed to comment on from my post. Finding one minor and unsuccessful nitpick is all too common a practice from you.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
Given that class is about a lot more than income, that isn't strange at all.

Well, if that's how we're going to play it, I know a lot of upper class libertarians, too.

Nor is it strange that that's all you managed to comment on from my post. Finding one minor and unsuccessful nitpick is all too common a practice from you.

What's the point of anything else? You're not salvageable.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
Well, if that's how we're going to play it, I know a lot of upper class libertarians, too.


Yes, we're going to play it so that words are used as per their common meanings. Breakthrough concept for the internet, but I reckon we can handle it.

And I know a millionaire socialist. Lives down the road. His dad used to own the market garden that my house is now built on. But that doesn't mean socialism isn't primarily a middle class concern, because I understand that one example doesn't discount a rule, and that any look at a group of libertarians will find a bunch of people who's biggest concern in life is being unable to leverage their personal incomes to their own benefit as much as possible.

What's the point of anything else? You're not salvageable.


You could try and explain how a focus about freedom of choice built around an assumption of a perfect market is in fact a message with potential for a broad appeal, enough to make it politically relevant. Or you could keep pissing about on nonsense and taking this whole thing as a direct personal attack if you want, I'm not the boss of you.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
Yes, we're going to play it so that words are used as per their common meanings. Breakthrough concept for the internet, but I reckon we can handle it.

And I know a millionaire socialist. Lives down the road. His dad used to own the market garden that my house is now built on. But that doesn't mean socialism isn't primarily a middle class concern, because I understand that one example doesn't discount a rule, and that any look at a group of libertarians will find a bunch of people who's biggest concern in life is being unable to leverage their personal incomes to their own benefit as much as possible.

See? This is what I mean. You honestly believe that's the grand sum of libertarianism. You've decided to remain willfully ignorant, in this as in so many other things, so what, precisely, is the point?

You could try and explain how a focus about freedom of choice built around an assumption of a perfect market is in fact a message with potential for a broad appeal, enough to make it politically relevant. Or you could keep pissing about on nonsense and taking this whole thing as a direct personal attack if you want, I'm not the boss of you.

Nor anyone, I would suspect. But no, that message would not have the potential for broad appeal. It involves people losing.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
See? This is what I mean. You honestly believe that's the grand sum of libertarianism. You've decided to remain willfully ignorant, in this as in so many other things, so what, precisely, is the point?


It isn't the grand sum, but its a cornerstone on which much of the rest is dependant. It's kind of bizarre that you can't see that, to be honest.

Anyhow, you were right about this being a waste of time.

Nor anyone, I would suspect. But no, that message would not have the potential for broad appeal. It involves people losing.


Yeah, you've claimed that before, to which I responded, and the whole thing ended up much like nonsense, with you giving pithy little non-answers and me trying to get some kind of substantial comment out of you. That was a waste of time, and as you've already noted, this is shaping up to be a waste of time as well. Because you self-identify as libertarian, and get pissy when someone points out a problem with libertarianism while talking to a different poster... but you don't actually want to defend your beliefs. Waste. Of. Time.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
It isn't the grand sum, but its a cornerstone on which much of the rest is dependant. It's kind of bizarre that you can't see that, to be honest.

Well, I think the disconnect may be occurring in that I know what I'm talking about, and you fervently believe you do.

Yeah, you've claimed that before, to which I responded, and the whole thing ended up much like nonsense, with you giving pithy little non-answers and me trying to get some kind of substantial comment out of you. That was a waste of time, and as you've already noted, this is shaping up to be a waste of time as well. Because you self-identify as libertarian, and get pissy when someone points out a problem with libertarianism while talking to a different poster... but you don't actually want to defend your beliefs. Waste. Of. Time.

Oh, this is far from pissy, my friend. This is just trying to help the ill-informed and ill-educated along against my better (and earlier) judgment.

Tell you what. When you want "substantial commentary," you're welcome to go actually learn about what it is you're trying to discuss. Sweeping in with vague, half-assed generalizations like, "Libertarianism doesn't answer any questions, hurrrr" isn't exactly fertile grounds for serious discussion. There's no point in me wasting good material clubbing a baby seal. Until you have half a clue, it'd just be pearls before swine.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Oh you two. It's like a make cute scene from a RomCom!


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)







I think we're done here.


In the future, best to keep quote debates to PM--and keep them a bit friendlier (or simply use the ignore feature if your views are so dramatically opposed).

Thanks,

Ryan

Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: