The Pet Rock is more popular than Obamacare

[desert dude]

Yet capitalism preserves inequality, no it does more than that, it expands inequity. It was the market that enslaved black people, the gov't just sanctioned it. The gov't didn't do it. I agree that the state should be color blind, but the same inequity that has been around for centuries now is preserved by capitalism. It was a few left wing presidents like Lincoln and FDR who created opportunities for them (and for everyone). Financial help, relief and particularly food and education should be provided for anyone who needs it, not just minorities.

So, we all need to be commies because... slaves.

How do you separate those who need help from those who simply want help? If you subsidize laziness do you think you might get more of it? If "all your income are belong to us", do you think people are likely to be energetic and productive? Communism and socialism are failures, at least by comparison to capitalism, for a reason.

 

[abandonconflict]

So, we all need to be commies because... slaves

No, be what ever you want. Not sure how this came from what I said, but logic is not your strong point. No, that's not what I said. I said that the gov't didn't enslave black people. The market did. Oh that doesn't mean the gov't is off the hook. No, you see the gov't was just doing the bidding of the ruling class. The state exists to protect private property and to serve the interests of the ruling class. Don't blame the gov't for the problem, blame the ruling class. They own the gov't. I'm just setting you straight, so you can understand, the state is an outgrowth of capitalism. Being opposed to capitalism does not a statist make, no matter how much you abuse the definitions of words like Communist and Socialist.

 

[althor]

^Wow, I think you should spend some time researching the history of slavery.
There have been slaves (even black ones) long before there was an America, American government, or American Market.
Before there was a "market" there were tribes who enslaved other tribes to do the work they themselves didn't want to do.
Even in the animal kingdom there are species that subjugate others and force them to do the things they choose not to do.

While Roots was a pretty good movie, there were never a bunch of white dudes running around the jungles of Africa capturing slaves with nets.

 

[abandonconflict]

^Wow, I think you should spend some time researching the history of slavery.
There have been slaves (even black ones) long before there was an America, American government, or American Market.
Before there was a "market" there were tribes who enslaved other tribes to do the work they themselves didn't want to do.

I have researched well the Atlantic Slave TRADE.

 

[desert dude]

No, be what ever you want. Not sure how this came from what I said, but logic is not your strong point. No, that's not what I said. I said that the gov't didn't enslave black people. The market did. Oh that doesn't mean the gov't is off the hook. No, you see the gov't was just doing the bidding of the ruling class. The state exists to protect private property and to serve the interests of the ruling class. Don't blame the gov't for the problem, blame the ruling class. They own the gov't. I'm just setting you straight, so you can understand, the state is an outgrowth of capitalism. Being opposed to capitalism does not a statist make, no matter how much you abuse the definitions of words like Communist and Socialist.

Is Government only corrupted and owned by capitalists, or are communist/socialist governments also owned and controlled by a ruling class? Do you think communist/socialist societies have no ruling class?

Why don't you say what you are, instead of what you aren't? You have made it clear that you hate capitalism with a white-hot fury. You have hinted that you are a socialist or communist.

 

[ginwilly]

Is Government only corrupted and owned by capitalists, or are communist/socialist governments also owned and controlled by a ruling class? Do you think communist/socialist societies have no ruling class?

Why don't you say what you are, instead of what you aren't? You have made it clear that you hate capitalism with a white-hot fury. You have hinted that you are a socialist or communist.

I believe human nature leads to these abuses. People who seek power generally acquire power be it in the government or private sector. Limiting that power is the simple solution but to achieve these limitations, we need those same people who seek power to do the limiting. Gonna be an uphill battle.

 

[althor]

I believe human nature leads to these abuses. People who seek power generally acquire power be it in the government or private sector. Limiting that power is the simple solution but to achieve these limitations, we need those same people who seek power to do the limiting. Gonna be an uphill battle.

Exactly.

I am not a Republican because so many of their characteristics are archaic.
I am not a Democrat because classroom politics never seem to factor in human nature.

When the world matures to a point where people are born more concerned about everything and everyone around them more so than themselves, Democratic policies might actually work. Until then it is an uphill battle that never hits a peak.

 

[ginwilly]

Exactly.

I am not a Republican because so many of their characteristics are archaic.
I am not a Democrat because classroom politics never seem to factor in human nature.

When the world matures to a point where people are born more concerned about everything and everyone around them more so than themselves, Democratic policies might actually work. Until then it is an uphill battle that never hits a peak.

It's tough identifying with a political party today if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You will be painted as racist or extreme by one side or the other. It's odd.

 

[desert dude]

Exactly.

I am not a Republican because so many of their characteristics are archaic.
I am not a Democrat because classroom politics never seem to factor in human nature.

When the world matures to a point where people are born more concerned about everything and everyone around them more so than themselves, Democratic policies might actually work. Until then it is an uphill battle that never hits a peak.

Or to simplify things: never. It isn't the world that needs to change, it is human nature. Human nature is the product of evolution. No group of humans is going to work for the state.

 

[desert dude]

It's tough identifying with a political party today if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You will be painted as racist or extreme by one side or the other. It's odd.

That is my definition of Libertarian, and that is my political philosophy.

 

[ginwilly]

That is my definition of Libertarian, and that is my political philosophy.

So you are a racist extremist then? You probably even support the constitution you radical. (sarcasm is heavy here)

Yes, I identify with libertarian or even better, the classic liberal defines my position. I love the Tea Party for the uproar to the establishment they are causing but I hate that the Koch Brothers and Sarah Palin types are using the platform for personal gains. I also blame the Tea Party knee jerk reaction for helping get Harry Reid re-elected.

I would love to see a 3rd party of libertarian thinking candidates, but with our two party system, I believe the best bet is take the republican party back from RINOs like McCain and Graham and Boehner and replace them with the Cruzes, Pauls and Lees of the world.

 

[abandonconflict]

Is Government only corrupted and owned by capitalists, or are communist/socialist governments also owned and controlled by a ruling class? Do you think communist/socialist societies have no ruling class?

Why don't you say what you are, instead of what you aren't? You have made it clear that you hate capitalism with a white-hot fury. You have hinted that you are a socialist or communist.

You finally start making good points, thanks. I knew you had it in you.

Yes, there are also authoritarian socialist states. Yes they are in many cases at least as evil as the capitalists if not worse. Authoritarian socialism such as a dictatorship of the proletariat or the extreme form in North Korea are definitely socialist and definitely authoritarian. So is Cuba and so is China, but China has had some significant privatization so it is hard to call China socialist and they are definitely moving right, toward capitalism.

The US has always been capitalist but it has not always been so authoritarian as it is becoming, but it has never been socialist. There have been few short forays into economic policy left of center, but it has always been capitalist. Think of right vs left as an axis perpendicular to the up and down axis of authoritarian vs libertarian. If you think that socialism is synonymous with authoritarianism, you are incorrect. Authoritarianism can thrive on either side. Authoritarian capitalism is fascism and is not a form of socialism.

Revisit the terms socialism and capitalism to see that those words describe who owns what. Capitalism is private ownership of production and resources. Nothing in the definition of capitalism suggests liberty. Socialism is more of a vague term to define, but I find that the only thing which all definitions of socialism have in common is opposition to privatization, particularly in regards to resources. This includes Gov't ownership of resources, which is called totalitarianism.

However, there are socialists who oppose authoritarianism. Anarchists.

 

[abandonconflict]

That is my definition of Libertarian, and that is my political philosophy.

That is a terrible definition of the term. Words have meanings, don't just take words in the corner to mouth fuck them.

 

[Bombur]

That is a terrible definition of the term. Words have meanings, don't just take words in the corner to mouth fuck them.

So libertarians are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal? How so?

 

[UncleBuck]

So libertarians are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal? How so?

how many social liberals hate birth control and want to outlaw abortion?

how many social liberals oppose the part of civil rights that allows black people to sit at the same lunch counter as whites?

how many social liberals are opposed to marriage equality?

because most "libertarians" are. see the rawn pawl revolution.

 

[abandonconflict]

So libertarians are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal? How so?

Capitalized Libertarian refers to the party. The improper noun however is antonymous with authoritarianism.

In the strictest sense libertarianism is defined as the doctrine of free-will and the advocacy of liberty.

What I find ironic is that so many American social darwinists call themselves libertarians but actually advocate racism and inequality. They only shill for liberty insofar as they wish for a return of the liberty to infringe upon the liberty of others.

 

[ginwilly]

how many social liberals hate birth control and want to outlaw abortion?

None, how many are against forcing people to pay for others against their beliefs? All

how many social liberals oppose the part of civil rights that allows black people to sit at the same lunch counter as whites?

Libertarians don't believe in protected classes as we should ALL be equal under the laws. Any law that allows discrimination to some but not to others is not an equal or just law.

how many social liberals are opposed to marriage equality?

All of them or none of them, irrelevant. Libertarians believe the government has no business in marriage.

because most "libertarians" are. see the rawn pawl revolution.

You have to misrepresent the positions to criticize them, that's telling.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[UncleBuck]

Libertarians don't believe in protected classes as we should ALL be equal under the laws.

that's what civil rights does, actually.

do you think civil rights only protects blacks? last time i checked, it protects everyone.

You have to misrepresent the positions to criticize them, that's telling.

i did not misrepresent a goddamn thing, but you sure did.

 

[ginwilly]

that's what civil rights does, actually.

do you think civil rights only protects blacks? last time i checked, it protects everyone.





i did not misrepresent a goddamn thing, but you sure did.

dude, you said libertarians are against birth control, marriage equality, do I need to elaborate more?

You were referring to title II of the civil rights which states we can't discriminate based on x,y,z. It still allows discrimination based on d,e,f. Not an equal law and is based on moral opinions that one discrimination is better/worse than another. It perpetuates the mentality that hatches something called hate crimes, where murdering you because you suck cock is somehow worse than murdering you because somebody stole my parking spot and you looked at me funny.

I know you are all for hate crimes, so I don't expect you to understand that it's wrong to discriminate no matter how it's done, but freedom comes with costs and people suck, and for everyone to be equal under the law, the laws need to be blind to emotion. When you grow up and join society you'll get a better feel for what I'm trying to explain.

Yours is the mentality that brings us such great thoughts that we need one size fits all central planning to insure diversity...