IncognitoLens
Well-Known Member
This may sound harsh, but it doesn't fucking matter. life is a bullshit storm where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so the best thing you can do is say, "fuck it," and wait until you die.
I'm feeling lost.
- Thread starter RemOfShadows
- Start date
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
That is why I support Libertarianism. Smart people get richer. Less Smart people get a little richer. Dumb people get a tiny amount richer. Smart Lazy people who produce get richer. Lazy people who do not produce "Leave the system". Everyone gets richer except people who do not produce.
xHallucinationx
Well-Known Member
And everybody is getting rich off of Chinese sweatshops. Are those people in China less of people to you to do all of your work for you? You mightaswell reword that to Smart Lazy people get richer. Lazy people die. Smart people die.
ienjoywaffles
Well-Known Member
I've worked really hard not to tell you to fuck off but you have just pissed me off beyond the point of no return. I'm the child of a disabled single mother. Do you know what that means? It means that no matter what I do, I will always be poor because I can't afford shit. I'm not poor because my family was lazy and I'm lazy, I'm poor because my parents are poor, their parents were poor, and their parents parents were poor. All you have been saying so far is that the poor can go fuck themselves. Guess what would happen if America was libertarian? I would be the one working in a sweatshop having to provide for myself and family being paid far below minimum wage while the rich exploited my friends and family.
So please, shut the fuck up about your libertarian bullshit.
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
My family is also poor. I could not take loans for religious reasons and I couldn't get grants for college because the funds were allocated to needer people. I went to my local community college to get a degree in a STEM field because I managed to get into the dual enrollment program at my highschool. I then dropped out of highschool to get a job to help my family. Walmart paid for the rest of my 2 associate degrees and my bachelor degree. I then got a job as a grad student at a nearby university to pay for my master degree. Now I work at the community college where I started my college education at teaching EE and paying a 40% tax rate (total income tax rate).
I worked my ass off for 6 years to get a education that allows me to develop technologies just to be stopped when I try to start a company that is going to produce and use those technologies and to be taxed to death because I am "rich". Sure I make more money in a year now than my family made in 3 years all of my life but I get taxed to death so I have to reach higher to actually feel that those 6 years were worth it.
I would like to start a telecom company but I can't because of pointless regulations and taxes. I would be-able to ascend to a higher class if we were a libertarian nation but I can't because the government is funding it's socialist programs using tax revenue from people like me. This is because the "1%" are able to exploit all of the loop holes in the tax law and not pay taxes because they control the government because they support the politicians who get elected (Both Republicans and Democrats) who are also in the "1%".
If we were a libertarian nation then I would not be stuck poor because my parents were poor. I would be-able to start a company and have the opportunity to become rich (and would create jobs for other people as a side-effect). Because we are a borderline socialist nation I get stopped by the hand of absolute power when I try to join the ranks of the rich.
All of us would have the opportunity to create companies that are not limited to a tiny scale of operation and be-able to get richer if we were a libertarian nation. If you don't believe me look at Facebook, Youtube, and many more. Those companies are based mostly on the internet (which is pure libertarian once you are peered in) and were able to develop in the vacuum of the internet because of this. You also don't here of any new billionaires who made there first big break from a company based in the physical world because of the fact you can't start a company on a large scale because of economic regulations and taxes.
That is why I am a libertarian.
Creeper
Well-Known Member
That's not real life, sorry.
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
That is correct in all cases except under a libertarian nation.
Under a libertarian nation if you produce something and make money, you keep it. If you do not produce anything charitable organizations take care of you at their discretion. If you do not produce and all of the charities don't want to support (Most likely wont happen unless you did something bad to those charities) you then your options are to start producing or leave the system.
This is done to reduce public expenses. In place of a higher tax rate, you give your money (amount and organization at your discretion) to a organization that you support and if they squander it away (Like by buying a new high end car for the director) you give your money to other organizations in the future.
Allimon
Well-Known Member
Sounds rather messy. Where does traditional government exist in this system?
Audi
Well-Known Member
So die, basically.
Libertarianism is a joke. It's a cop-out for people who don't like paying taxes. Taxes aren't nice. No-one likes to see their momey go away. But there's a reason you pay taxes.
I live in Australia. You pay a fairly high amount of tax in Australia (including things like the Medicare levy) but there's immediate benefits.
If I get sick, I can go down to a hospital and get free healthcare. If I don't want to wait, I can go to my GP, flash my Medicare card and get as much as 70% off my bill.
The NBN is in the pipeline - quite literally - and although it's been watered down significantly by the Abbott govt, it's still pretty good. Faster internet for everyone in the country? Yes please.
Taxes pay for all sorts of things. The rich are expected to pay more taxes than others in society, but they're also the ones most capable to deal with taxes. Coming from a position of wealth (comparably), I pay a lot of taxes and I do just fine.
Without public services, the most marginalized in society become even more marginalized. Would you say to a paraplegic he should leave the system because he can't "produce"?
You're also assuming that charitable organizations would come out of the cracks and look after the marginalized. It doesn't work that way.
People act like government is a bad thing. Or that taxes are the scourge of the devil. Sure, I'd like to keep another few thpusand dollars in the bank... But if you're like me and you've lived with people in real poverty, with nowhere to turn to but the system, then you may have a different perspective.
Australia topped the OECD Life Index this year. We pretty consistently rate highly in these "quality-of-life" index things. Why?
We're a welfare state. Australians pay higher taxes and everyone benefits.
And you only hafta look at similarly well-rated nations to see a trend. Norway, or any of the Scandinavian countries? High taxes, welfare states. Canada? Like a colder Australia. The UK? They defined the term 'welfare state'.
You make out socialism to be a bad thing when it really isn't. Socialism isn't communism, it's about giving everyone in society a fair go. Your money is not being taken for the hell of it. It's being used on those who need it.
There's always going to be shitheads abusing food stamps, corporations exploiting loopholes to pay minimal tax, or dole bludgers purposely avoiding work. We don't live in a perfect world.
Regulations exist so that bad shit doesn't happen. Taxes exist so that governments can function. Helping people out is a good thing. I am happy to pay more money to help those who need it. I'm not motivated by religion. I've got no guilt or obligation.
I live in a socialist country and I have a really great life.
TL;DR Niggas be jealous of my pinko pleasure paradise
ienjoywaffles
Well-Known Member
What? I feel like you just said "I was poor and I couldn't get help because I wasn't poor".
Vorsprung summed up the rest of my responses nicely.
The only thing I would add is that in the end you say this
Taxes and regulations which both help society aren't the reason new billionaires aren't arriving. There haven't been many new ones because of mega corporations who are able to out-compete small starting businesses. They succeeded on the internet because there were no mega corporations to stop them. If you want an example of this look at Google + vs. Facebook. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. We are holding on to the idea that a free market is the best economic system, and it is, but without taxes on the rich the downside of Capitalism will be very apparent.
And yes, sweat shops are a downside of Capitalism. Don't even try to deny that.
Kris
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about politics, but I'm just going to say, wouldn't this really screw over national things such as Education and Infrastructure?
Even in place of a minimum amount you can give, I'm pretty sure people would just ride that minimum.
I may not be of working age or a tax payer, but I can say I like having roads that don't look like swiss cheese, schools with more than 3 teachers, and hospitals where needles aren't reused.
I may not know what I'm talking about, but it seems like this could cause some third world issues.
Just face it, the world sucks and no amount of rules, regulations or the lack thereof can change that.
(PS: Vorsprung, I didn't really read your post thoroughly until after I wrote this, so sorry if I just repeated what you said.
)
Creeper
Well-Known Member
I am under the impression that you do not support taxes that support others who do not "produce".
There is a reason government taxation for health care exists; young people and elderly people can't "produce". Due to laws in the majority of modern countries that state you cannot young force children and elderly weak people to work, they are benefited by the tax payer. What of the elderly citizen? Or the child? Or the disabled person? They cannot produce; do they just "leave the system"? What do you propose?
What's your point? Is this a blanket statement to accuse organizations in general being corrupt? In reality most organizations aren't big-nosed evil people who love putting money into their pockets.
xHallucinationx
Well-Known Member
You say the same story over and over. I understand you're brainwashed by the idea that you can live in some business utopia, but libertarianism is not realistic whatsoever. You are saying, we should get MORE corporations so more of these hot shot billionares like the wonky ass motherfuckers at walmart paying off court cases? (http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/walmart-busted-selling-expired-doughnuts-mislabeled/) You want a world where we have corporations rubbing the government up with money (which it already is, it will only get worse with libertarianism) so they can have their way? I say no way. We don't need sweatshops, we don't need corporations, we don't need dirtbags becoming greedy billionares further corrupting this world. I'm glad you want to be rich, so do I. But you need to work for your money. Yes, WORK for your money. Not set up a sweatshop in China to produce your product, not have tech support in India, have a REAL, LEGITIMATE business. Globalization is a curse and everyone supporting it only wants corruption.
Audi
Well-Known Member
It's also ridiculously naive.
Does he seriously expect charities and not-for-profits to look after healthcare and infrastructure?
And again it's hypocritical.
If the "point" of libertarianism is to allow businesses to function unimpeded by tax or regulation, then accusing organizations as being inherently sketchy undermines his point.
Oh wait
NGOs become corrupt when there's no effective legislation.
So maybe we shouldn't go that way?
The whole "small government" arguement is pretty dumb. There are mechanisms essential for a successful nation that just can't be handled by the private sector. Defence, for instance. For every measure of success and functionality, you need a central governing body to manage defence. Each state having their own defence force would be stupid. A bunch of small militias can't successfully defend a country's interests.
...Someone will bring up a 2nd Amendment arguement there, but living in a country with strict gun control (and a miniscule rate of gun-related crime, etc.) means I don't give a fuck.
Kris
Well-Known Member
This is a completely different argument, but I just want to say that I'm personally for strict gun control, even though I live in the Deep South where everyone shoots guns in their back yard for teh lulz. Besides, most people down here are idiots anyways. (If you're from the Deep South and on here, that means you're an exception and can successfully turn on a computer.)
The idea that with strict civilian gun control only criminals can get the guns is true, however it will lower the amount of criminals out there. It's worked successfully with almost every country that's ever implemented it. People say countries like Switzerland with really liberal gun laws have low crime rates, well they also have a lot less people and a lot less racial and ethnic diversity, which can cause a lot of disputes.
inb4 Kris you just derailed this even further, go drunk you're home
inb4 Serenity thread
inb4 No one cares what you think Kris, get back to the topic
thee_pro
Well-Known Member
Living up here in Vermont where there are very loose gun laws, the crime rate is very low. The occasional robbery at the Cumberland Farms gas station, sure, but that store is beside the river that acts as the border between Vermont and New Hampshire (who have slightly stricter laws) so its a hotspot that is easy to get away from. But other than that theres almost no weapon related crime in this area and this state in general. So stricter laws aren't necessarily better, as it depends on the kind of people who own them and how responsible they are.
Stratadon
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that Vermont is almost entirely rural, with very few to no metropolitan or urban areas, which is where the majority of crime is concentrated around the world. Vermont is a pretty poor/unrepresentative sample when looking at how gun laws impact the supply and demand of crime where it matters. In addition, Vermont is predominately white with some of the lowest poverty rates in the United States. You can't possible use Vermont as evidence that decreased gun regulation positively impacts crime.
Looking at crime from an economic standpoint, anything that increases the costs to criminals to commit a crime will decrease crime. If you make it more difficult to procure guns, that is an added cost to any criminal who wishes to use a gun to commit a crime. Information costs about where to buy black market guns in cases where gun laws are strictly increased often become the largest barrier to entry for new suppliers in the market for crime.
mountainboy965
Well-Known Member
Pure Libertarianism won't work. I consider myself a libertarian, but even I recognize that without government and a few taxes to support a functioning government simply will be the death of a nation. The Founding Fathers recognized this. But they also recognized that a huge government with draconian laws and draconian regulations would also be the death of a nation. Thus, they implemented the best system that they could come up with. A small government with appropriate checks and balances.
Is there a perfect system? No. There will never be a perfect system. The world is screwed up, and will always be screwed up. As a result, there must be laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations must also have checks and balances in place to prevent the laws and regulations from screwing over the people.
The key is "balance."
How we achieve that delicate balance is the issue.
Liberals have a valid point when they talk about the well-fare state. Everyone needs a fighting chance, so the approach of the liberals is to implement taxes and laws in order to help the poor and destitute. The problem is, it comes at the expense of other people who are not poor or destitute. I like the heart of the message what the liberals try to bring forth- Take care of the weak.
Conservatives/Libertarians also have a valid point when it comes to the free market. A person should be able to keep their hard-earned wealth, without the government coming in and taking it. The problem is, some rich folks like to spend their money on useless things rather than helping out the poor folks. I like the heart of the message of what the conservatives/libertarians try to bring forth- You reap what you sow.
I think everyone will agree with what I have said so far.
Here's where you may begin to disagree with me.
I think, personally, that America has strayed too far from the original intent and purposes of the founding fathers, and has become a draconian Big Brother state. America spends more money on military spending than the next 5 or so nations combined. Here's a nifty chart for you. We, as a nation, spend more money on military spending than all the countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa combined! Don't even get me started on the US spying capabilities.
All of this money comes from taxes, or from borrowing from other countries.
America already spends more money than any country in the world on health care (gross total, per capita, and % of GDP) (the next country is Norway). I will admit, that this money is spent mostly from corporations or the private sector, and not the government. However, with the recent implementation of Obamacare, America is poised to spend more money on healthcare than any country in the world through government mandate, control, and expenditure.
America spends more money than any country in the world on education. This is a combination of government and private spending. The public education system ranks far lower in testing than the private education. The American education system as a whole, ranks lower in the rankings than other countries. Interesting fact: Homeschooling in America is the least expensive endeavor, and yet homeschool students rank higher in testing than their public or private school counterparts. The US government spends, on average, $11,000 per elementary student in public schools, and $12,000 per student in high school in public schools, which is higher than any other country in the world.
I like the thought process behind the idea of what the government is trying to do for the public schools. Yet out of the public schools, the private schools, and homeschooling, the public school system is failing.
In each one of these categories, we've seen that when the American government (except for military spending, American military is undoubtedly the best in the world) throws money at something or tries to "fix" something, it usually is sub-par. I think, imho, that when the American government tries to do everything, it does nothing well. I prefer the philosophy of Steve Jobs- "Do a few things, and do them well!" The American government could learn from this. Rather than trying to fix everything, let's just focus on the few things that really need to be focused on (roads, military, postal, and legislative branches), and let's do them well.
Interesting fact of the day: Countries free of national debt- Macau, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Liechtenstein, and Palau. I think it would be interesting to do a study on these countries to see what kind of government they possess, how their purchasing power compares to the rest of the world, and how their economies stack against the rest of us. Perhaps there is something we can learn. Other than Palau, they seem to be in the upper echelon of the regional/world's economies. I wonder what their tax and government structures are like?
EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text.
Is there a perfect system? No. There will never be a perfect system. The world is screwed up, and will always be screwed up. As a result, there must be laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations must also have checks and balances in place to prevent the laws and regulations from screwing over the people.
The key is "balance."
How we achieve that delicate balance is the issue.
Liberals have a valid point when they talk about the well-fare state. Everyone needs a fighting chance, so the approach of the liberals is to implement taxes and laws in order to help the poor and destitute. The problem is, it comes at the expense of other people who are not poor or destitute. I like the heart of the message what the liberals try to bring forth- Take care of the weak.
Conservatives/Libertarians also have a valid point when it comes to the free market. A person should be able to keep their hard-earned wealth, without the government coming in and taking it. The problem is, some rich folks like to spend their money on useless things rather than helping out the poor folks. I like the heart of the message of what the conservatives/libertarians try to bring forth- You reap what you sow.
I think everyone will agree with what I have said so far.
Here's where you may begin to disagree with me.
I think, personally, that America has strayed too far from the original intent and purposes of the founding fathers, and has become a draconian Big Brother state. America spends more money on military spending than the next 5 or so nations combined. Here's a nifty chart for you. We, as a nation, spend more money on military spending than all the countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa combined! Don't even get me started on the US spying capabilities.
All of this money comes from taxes, or from borrowing from other countries.
America already spends more money than any country in the world on health care (gross total, per capita, and % of GDP) (the next country is Norway). I will admit, that this money is spent mostly from corporations or the private sector, and not the government. However, with the recent implementation of Obamacare, America is poised to spend more money on healthcare than any country in the world through government mandate, control, and expenditure.
America spends more money than any country in the world on education. This is a combination of government and private spending. The public education system ranks far lower in testing than the private education. The American education system as a whole, ranks lower in the rankings than other countries. Interesting fact: Homeschooling in America is the least expensive endeavor, and yet homeschool students rank higher in testing than their public or private school counterparts. The US government spends, on average, $11,000 per elementary student in public schools, and $12,000 per student in high school in public schools, which is higher than any other country in the world.
I like the thought process behind the idea of what the government is trying to do for the public schools. Yet out of the public schools, the private schools, and homeschooling, the public school system is failing.
In each one of these categories, we've seen that when the American government (except for military spending, American military is undoubtedly the best in the world) throws money at something or tries to "fix" something, it usually is sub-par. I think, imho, that when the American government tries to do everything, it does nothing well. I prefer the philosophy of Steve Jobs- "Do a few things, and do them well!" The American government could learn from this. Rather than trying to fix everything, let's just focus on the few things that really need to be focused on (roads, military, postal, and legislative branches), and let's do them well.
Interesting fact of the day: Countries free of national debt- Macau, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Liechtenstein, and Palau. I think it would be interesting to do a study on these countries to see what kind of government they possess, how their purchasing power compares to the rest of the world, and how their economies stack against the rest of us. Perhaps there is something we can learn. Other than Palau, they seem to be in the upper echelon of the regional/world's economies. I wonder what their tax and government structures are like?
EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text.
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
First, mountainboy965 makes some very good points in his post so please feel free to read it.
Our Founding Fathers gave us a Framework of a functioning Pure Libertarian Government. We just have not been using it since the late 1800s. It worked for at-least 100 years without economic issues. The only economic issues the US had during this time were caused by using slave labor and wars.
Some people in this thread are using Anarchy and Libertarianism interchangeably. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!! Anarchy is no government control and does not work for long. Libertarianism is what the Founding Fathers gave us. A Pure Libertarian Government has a group of independent sub-governments (States) being under sovereignty of a larger government (Federal Government). The independent governments (States) can do what ever they want. The Federal Government can only provide Courts (Contract Enforcement and Law Enforcement), Defense (Military, Diplomacy, and Intelligence), and Interstate Commerce (Air Band Management, Orbit Management, Money, and Infrastructure) Services to the states and citizens under its sovereignty using federal tax revenue. The states are responsible for managing all other departments and services with their own tax revenue.
One thing that is done in a pure libertarian government is that the Legislative Branch of the federal government has to directly manage federal policy and can not allocate policy decisions to agencies (Like EPA regulations, IRS regulations, and FCC regulations). States are still free to do whatever they want to do with their tax revenue except print federal currency.
xHallucinationx
Well-Known Member
Libertarianism is Anarchy with globalization. AKA the quitters way when they give in to corporations.