Liberals posing as freedom fighters.

Thinking this point over: Although being within the 'grey area' might be centrist...it's still wildly divergent. It seems to me it actually means those in that grey area are moderate. But very different. Those in that area can kind of talk within the same realms of reference, but it does not mean they will agree with each other. For e.g: I like 'siq' and we can talk quite reasonably together to a certain degree. This does not mean we agree with each other. It seems to mean, we are fairly moderate and in touch with some sort of the same reality. We are in the same 'world' as each other. Although, we may disagree.

 

Good! That's a start.

Everyone does have their own ideals of freedom- however, I don't and will never believe that using government force to take others freedom, is freedom; If that's "freedom" to anyone, than they're part of the problem, not the solution.

No. I don't even kill insects. I believe in Karma and the "live and let live" principle. There is 1 exception I'd make, and that's self defense.

Oh really?
Liberals want:
Government Pre K
Government Insurance
Government Retirement
Government protection from 'bully' corperations.
Government theft from 'evil' wealthy people
Government food
Government housing
ETC

Sounds to me like Liberals want the government to be our mom! In the meantime, all this stuff is doing, is helping corperations obtain more power through government, and making it harder for small business to start up. It's also shrinking the middle class and transferring their money to the top 1% of the country.

 

If you see taxing the rich as theft, then aren't you the one who wants to give more power to corporations by allowing them to concentrate society's wealth among a small group of people?

Personally, I am in favour of government regulation and taxation to pay for social programs and really don't care if some people are significantly richer than others. Really, I don't. I just think that in a society with so much wealth, where large companies make their profits by exploiting natural resources and by paying poverty level wages to their employees, it is fair for those people to share some of those profits (which, let's remember, were created with natural resources that come from the land we all share, and by the labour of the workers) with the rest of society. I'm not asking them to give up everything and live like a pauper, but just to more fairly distribute their profits with the people who actually worked to create the wealth that they possess.

I'm not asking for communism as you seem to think, just a system that allows for a reasonable (not equal) distribution of wealth. Instead of spreading the profits from a large oil company around only to a handful of rich shareholders, I think that a portion of that profit should be given back to society (since the oil came from the land/water that we all share) and to the people who worked to make that profit possible (from the workers on the oil rigs, to the employees at the refineries, to the truck drivers who transport it, to the people who work at the gas stations that pump the gas, etc.).

 

It would be nice if whoever thumbed down my post would tell me why...

 

To me, it's not 'taxing the rich' that's the problem, it's all the taxes, for everyone. 1/5th of a paycheck, is what working-class people lose to government. I want to see every tax abolished and replaced with the "Fair Tax."

To answer your question though, no. Because in my view, Special Benefits from government is wrong and, bailouts are wrong; In my world, the 1%ers wouldn't be able to use government force to get what they want. This is the driving force that's shrinking our middle class today. Moreover, the money in taxes doesn't really get back to the people. (Unless they're government employees.)

Now you're confusing me. What about people who pull together their resources, and start their own business, with their own labor, and happen to make good money?

Furthermore, taxation and regulations are the things causing jobs to go overseas. I also personally believe that Regulations are used by Government, to hold some industries down, while boosting others up.

With regards to your statement on a society with wealth, we really don't have wealth. Our money is based on bad debt, it is no longer backed by gold (true money) and no one even knows how much gold we have in Fort Knox. When we defaulted on our gold, our paper currency dropped in value substantially. An American Silver "Dollar" is worth 40$ today, so we're actually not richer, it just appears that way.

I agree that some companies are over the top, but I think it's because they control our government, not because they aren't taxed enough. I think if a businesses has made their living off the backs of the taxpayer, they should be compelled to return every dime, but not in taxes, cause as I said, taxes don't truly get back to us. In a Libertarian society, those companies who control the government, could be tried for bribery, fraud, corruption etc. They DON'T get away scott free, like Liberals believe. In fact, we're stricter on that 1% than Liberals. (We would take away their ability to use force.)

Well, that's simply not happening; With all due respect, it wont happen under our current system. Working-Class don't receive foodstamps, and taxes don't get back to them; They are paying a large portion of their money to the rich elitists, and 'poor' people who don't work or go to school. (some states will give students foodstamps, but not big cities like NY.)

The best way to help everyone like you want to do, is to let them keep the money they earned. It'd be over 100$ per paycheck, which in turn, would go back into the economy when the people spend it.

We agree that the people have gotten a shitty deal, the only difference is, I think we pay too much for government, and get hardly anything back. (unless you Lobby the government, or you don't work.) It's not near fair, even if you add more taxes and more government programs, it wouldn't help any of those people you mentioned, it just places a bigger burden of debt onto them.

Btw, oil companies are bad, but Banksters are much worse. They shouldn't have the power to wage wars, control our money or, government. This is the biggest problem in our country, taxing them more wont help. They got all their money from taxpayers. If that money went to us, it'd be 20K each, and that would've helped the economy, more so, than giving it to banks who stockpile money and refuse to give out loans.

I'm glad we can actually converse now. I know I was a jerk to you when I first came here, and I'm sorry for that. But, I could feel the animosity when you'd reply to my post. I don't hate Liberals, I just don't think they're tackling the right problems...

 

For the record, that wasn't me. (I did reply to the post though on the last page, check it out)

 

There's at least one person who essentially thumbs down any post that is left of center. You'll see it in all the political threads.

 

How are you going to stop the rich and powerful from doing whatever they want if you don't allow government to regulate the market at all?

I know that a lot of your tax dollars don't get back to the people in your current system, but I'm describing my idea of an ideal system, not working within the current US system.

I was not talking about small business owners with no employees, but large corporations, as I stated. I'm talking about people who are able to make large profits by reducing the wages paid to their employees to the point that they are in poverty.

I disagree. Greedy people and a system that values the maximization of profit over all else is the reason that jobs are going overseas. If a company can't make a profit without taking advantage of weak, powerless people in third world sweatshops, they shouldn't be in business.

If you don't think that the US is one of the wealthiest societies in the world, I don't know how to change your mind, but it clearly is. I'm not saying that the government is one of the wealthiest, I'm talking about the society and the total wealth of that society.

They could be tried for all of those things under the current system as well, but they aren't. Why would libertarians be more likely send the people bribing them to jail than anyone else?

In what ways are you/libertarians "stricter on that 1% than Liberals"?

In this scenario, how do roads get built? How do you make sure that food is safe for consumption? How do you make sure that everyone receives access to clean drinking water?

Again, I'm talking about what I see as the ideal system, I'm not saying that your current system is working. I'm saying that the concept of government funding programs with social benefit through the collection of taxes is a system that has merit and can (and does, in many countries across our world) work. Just because your government is full of corruption does not mean that the whole concept of government is fundamentally flawed.

I think this is a prime example of why people get very frustrated when debating with you. You acknowledge what I was talking about (in this case, my example of an oil company) but then start talking about whatever it is that you want to talk about without actually responding to my point. I at no point said that I think the currently banking system or "banksters" were good, but you respond as if I did, therefore making it look like I am taking a position that I actually disagree with.

How do you expect people to act when you're an asshole to them just because they disagree with something that you say? I generally find that you get back what you put out there.

 

On average, for every $1 of tax collected from the bottom 50% of those who actually pay income tax, the top 1% pays $815. Corporate and other tax returns amount to an additional average of $64 for each $1 collected from the bottom 50% of taxpayers actually having to pay taxes. In addition, a large number of filers pay no tax at all, receiving a refund of all their withholdings, and in some cases more than was withheld.

The empowering of a central government over the Nation as a whole creates a source from which power can be accessed, bought and exercised most efficiently and effectively by those with great wealth. Take the power of a central government away and let them instead spend their wealth on the products and services made available by a competitive free market system instead. As it stands now, our politicians are marketable items as are a large number of voters. We need to move people to work for a living rather than vote for a living.

Maybe you should take a closer look at the debt owed and the future liabilities yet funded before making a claim as to how much wealth exists in the U.S.A.

Until government began providing social programs which people can access to provide their needs, labor was the source of each individuals profit.

I believe in paying people an amount commensurate to the value of the labors they are performing. Sadly, in many instances the labor value an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week produces is inadequate to provide for the needs much less the wants in this day and age. Our government seems to believe that because of this, IT should, and has, become the source of charity in addition to its' rightfully enumerated responsibilities, which has had and continues to have catastrophic effects economically.

Wealth is most efficiently and fairly distributed through employment, NOT welfare redistribution. Non government charitable organizations are the best means of caring for the poor and/or needy, and would likely greatly reduce much of the corruption and waste contained in government run agencies who now provide such services, not to mention more reasonably and rationally decided elections of politicians as they would lose the ability to buy large blocks of voters in return for what they promise to give them.

A good investment returns something more than the original amount invested. An investment which only returns the amount originally invested is not good, but not bad. A bad investment is one in which some or all of the amount invested is lost. It concerns me that many today vote based on which candidate will support the greatest number of bad investments.

 

My point was that the top 1% generally makes their money by exploiting people and natural resources that should belong to all of the people in a society. Therefore I do not see a large amount of their wealth as theirs, but as something they have unfairly taken from society.

Without a functioning government (which you clearly do not have in the US right now), what is to stop the same people buying the power now from just taking it? They have the resources and the power, what is to stop everyone in the oil industry, for example, from getting together and artificially raising prices to extract greater profits?

And before that we operated in small groups that worked together to ensure the needs of everyone in the community were met. Capitalism is by no means the 'natural state' of human beings.

As mentioned in my last post, I think that we need regulations to make sure that full-time jobs do provide wages that provide compensation adequate to provide for basic human needs. If a company can't make a profit by paying their employees enough for them to survive, then I don't think that they should be in business.

I also disagree that private charities are the way to care for the disadvantaged. Government programs, when properly run (as they are in many countries around the world), run much more efficiently and more cost-effectively than a large number of small groups providing those same benefits. To be clear - I'm not arguing that this is happening in the US right now, just that it is possible.

This only applies if you think of the well-being of the members of your society as business transactions instead of people.

 

This line of thought, IMO, is dangerous and goes against the fundamental ideas of private property and free will.

 

I have no issue with private property, but I don't think that public property should be leased to corporations for a small price for the purpose of resource extraction. I think that a much larger portion of the wealth extracted from our public land should go to benefit society in general, not just the few lucky enough to be in a position to own the corporations.

I say lucky enough, because it is clear that not everyone is born into a position to be able to realistically hope to gain that sort of wealth in their lives, regardless of their intelligence or their effort. In general, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

 

I don't see why you would feel that the natural resources should belong to all the people in a society. If you purchased land and happened to discover gold on it would you distribute it to all the people of the nation equally? Why are those who work for the so-called 1% not seen as exploiting the business and natural resources which provide them with the profits of their labor? You seem to imply that natural resources are taken from where they exist with no payment. The extraction of many natural resources is quite labor intensive and it is my understanding that those who own the property from where the resources exist are paid to enable access and extraction, and those who perform the work in doing so are also paid, as well as those who are employed in creating the products from those resources. I prefer to see things from a much different perspective, that much more is being made available to our societies today with much less labor than in the past, and much more affordable to a much greater number of people than ever in our past history.

 

We are not without government right now, and at worst, perhaps it should be seen as best?, we have a limited functioning government.

How might you see the people who buy power of the government simply taking it?

Even if the Federal government was to shut down, we still have State and local governments, and the people (consumers) have power to exercise if they wish. Just raising prices does not guarantee greater profits as at some point consumers will reduce their consumption, and as long as there are competitors in the marketplace, someone is likely to see an opportunity to increase their profits by cutting their prices to a level which would attract an increase in their consumer base. The free market works wonderfully when competition exists.

 

If I recall correctly I fell pretty much exactly there on the libertarian side and one or two squares right from where yours is... but that is very close to mine. I'll have to take it again then, though.

 

And just when was that?

The ONLY problem with capitalism as it exists now is what we call money. Up until the creation of the Federal reserve system and later removing the backing of the dollar with gold/silver, our money had some value. Today our moneys value has dwindled to nearly nothing, just numbers on pieces of paper, and our Federal governments existence depends greatly on it continuing to diminish in value in order to produce economic growth, a growing GDP, increased tax revenues even without increasing tax rates, and keeping debt repayable by allowing it to be cents owed on the dollars borrowed.

Just what would you define as the 'natural state' of human beings? When very young I remember going with an older cousin on horseback, to get some things for my Great Grandmother at the local store, and money was not necessary, but something of value to trade was. As capital, eggs, vegetables, chickens, or something else was used, but nothing given resulted in nothing received.

Today the needs of persons are little different than those of persons who lived many generations before us, the only difference is that the knowledge of how to provide many needs exists today which did not in the past. The only problem is that most of the needs exist only as a result of the labors of many persons all of whom expect some remuneration for their part in the production/provision.

 

I agree that SOME regulations are necessary, but wages should be commensurate to their value, regardless of their adequacy in providing for the basic human needs.
Of course companies can, and perhaps even should, move abroad where people can earn enough to survive on the wages the company is willing to pay and the workers are willing to accept, which in the end eliminates low paying jobs in one place but also allows the products to be acquired at a lower cost when brought back to where they were once produced.

 

Companies are liable to consumers. If a product gets you sick, they can get in serious trouble.

Ok, but still, alot of things you think are for the "greater good," I disagree. I can't say if we were under a perfect government, it would be that way, but that is way too idealistic to me, because that power and greed will always be there.

I'm not saying 'small' businesses; I meant someone who made their own fortune, selling a product. They don't deserve their money because they actually contributed something to society? The whole idea of Liberalism is skewed. Companies work for profit, there's nothing new there. We're not FORCED to work for 7.50 an hour, we can walk out of any job we'd like.
The problem with poverty in our country, is not people getting paid too little, it's people being overtaxed. You say it just be on the employer to pay more, but you don't see the fallacy in making poor people pay an extra $100 a week to government??

People want quality products cheap and, companies need to make money, or they'd go out of business. It sounds more and more like you're supporting communism, where government has ALL the money and resources, and people can't tap into them. You're gonna shut down businesses like Coca Cola, because they're trying to make a profit? People are not weak and powerless; you make a choice to work somewhere or not- you make a choice to support a company or not. No one is holding a gun to your head FORCING you to buy coca cola, on the other hand, you're actually advocating government force, to hold guns to our heads, and force us to pay for programs we may not even want or need! This is the skewed logic of Liberals.

Paper money isn't wealth. We've obtained our "wealth" through extensive military intervention. We can use as much fiat money as we like, cause it's based on nothing but debt. Evidently you don't understand "Fractional Reserve Banking"

They're not tried now, cause again, corperations control our government. Without government control, they wouldn't have the pwer they do now (to take our rights away, wage wars, regulate their competitors etc. Libertarianism shrinks government power majorly, leaving the corperations with little government power. They don't get bailouts, they don't get government protection and, they'd be liable to the people, NOT government, who easily overlook their crimes.

We'd have to live within our means, and cut many useless government programs. (almost all of them; ) The fair tax would be more than enough to build roads. Futhermore, I think we should allow private roads aswell.

It wont work in America. What you support is government force, and government control. People have fallen for the lie that we "need" government, or society will cease to exist. We don't need near as much government as we have. I believe government should protect Life, LIBERTY and, property and that's all. That doesn't mean paying everyone's bills, it means taking the very minimum from us, and staying out of our lives otherwise.

I didn't say anything in support of the oil industry; but that's one thing in the Military-industrial complex. Liberals say you're against bankers, but how would you stop them? tax more? They run the Federal Reserve, and print money as they please, taxing more creates more printing, which does nothing but delays the blow.

I was talking about when I first got here. I've tried to be polite with everyone since that. Liberals just loath hearing alternative opinions

 

We've been around for 200,000+ years and have been capitalist for a very, very small percentage of that. To assume that free market capitalism is natural for humans seems to be quite a stretch.

I'm not going to bother responding to any of your other posts, because I don't really appreciate being talked down to, and would rather spend my time responding to other people.

Cheers.

 

And I disagree with that. Private charities, also when properly run, have to exercise greater care than government does in controlling waste and corruption, and to continue to receive funding by the individuals who choose to support them.
Personally, I think separation of charity and State is as necessary, if not even more so, than separation of Church and State. In my opinion Socialism is little more than just another form of religion, simply lacking of a perpetual God.