How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

bill gates "creating" a product, huh, some might laugh at that, anyways -

there is something wrong with enjoying great wealth while others starve; especially when the hungry are those who labored for your success

and even more wrong with enjoying that wealth specifically because others starve; i.e., creating the starvation through speculation

imho

as regards george soros, he's like a clown who occasionally does a trick that you might enjoy, occasionally one that i might enjoy

 

i draw a very sharp line between hating a person who was born looking differently than i, and hating a person who has decided to cause me to suffer in some way

 

Oh, I guess he got rich by robbing the poor and homeless?

What is wrong? In the case of Microsoft, a large number of its employees have been made wealthy. People most often today are paid when they work, and a good many are paid much more than they are worth, thanks to labor unions.

Then start doing a little speculation of your own.

Both Gates and Soros are supporters of the Left and you have little good to say about them? What about Oprah Winfrey? or Nancy Pelosi? Both quite wealthy and Left wing.

 

Who actually has caused you to suffer in some way?

 

retreating, tired [again] of the disingenuous responses

 

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

 

i'd refer you to a dictionary to look up the definition of "disingenuous" but i suspect that you see everything exactly as you expect to

[no need to reply, i already know the answer]

 

-rep for dishonest debate, Individual.

What you're doing is like a matador sidestepping a bull and then claiming to have grabbed it's horns and broken it's neck.

 

I had assumed that your usage of the word was in relation to fairness, or more directly 'unfairness', based on my unwillingness to accept government as our proxy in taking from those who possess what we we want or even need and view it as just or right. Was your usage based upon a different sense of the word?

We each see the world through our own eyes, and should learn to extrapolate the facts that exist using our own brains.

The Left concentrates totally on what each individual has, promoting the achievement of social utopia through the equal distribution of the production while ignoring the facts that make this an impossible task to accomplish without use of force.

 

Sorry, I forgot that you were in the peanut gallery.

 

Indie
LOL - Back this up.

LOL - no you most frequently ask questions as a means of evasion – that’s why you do silly ones on what is meant by ‘it’ or pointing out spelling mistakes or just asking the same question that has been put to you, parrot fashion.

I have plenty of examples of these, in fact this reply seems to be more about evasion I mean is doesn’t actually answer the question now does it?

Again you ask me why I think you a dishonest debater and troll and this reply is a perfect example of why.

I’m still not sure of your aims – I mean you say they are ‘essentially the same’ but they can’t be given the policies you would wish to impose (not to mention such things as enforced sterilisation or enforced adoption.)

But you do - you have already said many times that in your model citizens would be obliged to pay taxes and government would have the authority or power to decide how or to whom it should be shared.

But the policies you have promoted so far don’t seem aimed at those goals – That’s the problem you make assertions but you don’t seem capable of defending them from criticism – If you cannot defend your ideas from the criticism that they’re useless and bad then those criticisms stand, no amount of repetition will erase them.

But the problem is that you don’t seem capable of defending your assertions from the criticism that they’re useless and bad and so those criticisms stand.

Please put forward a rational and reasonable argument as to why you think that?

Try reading – A brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.

Again making assertions is useless and meaningless since you seem incapable of backing them up.

But the point being that they’re of unusable provenance, because no one can say if they’re true or not.

Can you back up your assertions with actual rational and reasonable argument?

Which as I’ve pointed out many times is not a rational or reasonable argument; it seems to be a religious reply not a political one, in other words it seems to be about ‘faith’ not rather than reality.

One of the reasons why I’m a supporter of world governance is that the benefits of globalisation are more evenly distributed.

But a lot of the problems that have recently been experienced in the ‘undeveloped’ world have come about as a result of neoliberal policies often imposed on them by the west.

Try reading – Globalisation and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz

Not a rational or reasonable argument.

More evasion – I mean this doesn’t give any substance to your assertion.

More evasion

Just ignoring criticism does not make it go away.

 

Indie

Still we get no rational or reasonable arguments being presented, just more evasion and more assertions.

If you cannot back up your ideas in any rational way and you cannot defend your ideas from the criticism that they’re useless or bad then why do you have them.

I mean spreading such ideas when you know they’re useless and bad seems like the actions of a troll.

 

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere

in my dictionary, the example used is your post about bill gates, but they had quite a number to choose from

i guess there is always the other option: you simply do not know anything about business paractices, and are talking out of your ass

[why am i responding? the first step is recognizing that you have a problem]

 

The fact that your presentation is an emotional one precludes any acceptance of rational or reasonable response.

Who is the troll? I simply respond to a thread question and you magically appear in tears demanding justice for those you feel to be underprivileged.

 

So you chose to ignore the rest of my post?

My definition of disingenuous is "Unfair; not open, frank and candid; meanly artful; illiberal; applied to persons.", but using yours, a more modern definition, I fail to see why you feel justified in applying it to anything I've written.

Bill Gates was selected only because he is so well known, and supposedly the second richest person in the world. I didn't feel it necessary to list the over one thousand billionaires in todays world.

I've achieved adequate success in business to satisfy my needs, and if you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable then why aren't you employed and making a killing? I quit working when I felt I had all I needed to live out my remaining life happily, and made my job available to some young college graduate to do the same.

Now that you have recognized you have a problem, what do you intend to do about it?

 

Indie

More evasion

In what way is my argument ‘emotional’?

I’ve explained at length why I have my views and backed those views up with arguments you seem to find hard to criticise (other than just saying you disagree with them).

On the other hand when asked to explain why you have your own views your answer is usually along the lines of ‘because’ and if asked to back them up with rational and reasonable argument, your response is to refuse or evade.

Are you saying that you think justice is not worth striving for?

 

Only in response to more asininity.

By your ploy of basing the application of justice in relation to what one has versus what another needs or wants.

Then you either ignored or avoided reading my criticisms.

You claim you "want to make societies fairer", and in effect you would do so by redefining fair to accomplish your goal.

Without knowing 'your' definition of justice, I must withhold answering that question. And that's not evading your question, but simply withholding an answer until I am certain of how you would define justice.

 

Indie
In what way is my argument ‘emotional’?

I’m not sure what you mean? It certainly doesn’t seem to be a rational argument but just more of you just disagreeing.

Not this again – ok same reply as the last time and the many times before that.
Please cite where I’m supposed to have ignored your rational and reasonable criticism?
Problem is that you never seem able to produce anything.

And in what way am I supposed to be ‘redefining’ fair?
We had a long discussion about fairness or the lack of it when you said ‘lifes unfair’ in relation to people being born into disadvantage through no fault of their own.

LOL – But it was your definition of justice

You said that I demanded “justice for those you feel to be underprivileged”

Meaning that you feel you know how I defined as ‘justice’

And anyway we have been through all this when we discussed ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’, and as said you think ‘life isn’t fair’, it is not about trying to achieve justice or fairness it is what is, is.

But again that isn’t about bringing about a better world it is about accepting injustice or making it worse.

And yes again I think this is more about evasion.

 

Indie

Again I’ll ask why -

I’ve asked it maybe a hundred times or more times now and so far all I’ve got is…well very little really. Usually all I get in return is yet more assertions of you belief or yet more sloganizing and once and awhile a simplistic ‘because’ without any explanation.

In debate ‘why’ is as important as ‘why’ is in the investigation of a crime, why is about motivation, about the aim, about what the person want to achieve.

Many times you’ve tried to get out of answering by using that age old childish trick of throwing the question back I presume in the hope that I’d find it as difficult to reply to it as you do, the problem is I can reply and have done every time you’ve asked.

This seems like a rational and reasonable aim, I mean nobody in their right mind it would seem to me would want to aim for a worse society a place were most people’s quality of life was lower and where most people had even a less of a chance to be happy or satisfied.

But in discussion with you it seems that is you aim, it would seem that all your ideas are designed to make most peoples life worse. True they would make a few people and institutions richer and even few of those vastly more rich and powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

I’ve pointed this out time after time explaining often in detail why and how your ideas would have an adverse effect on society, but you seem unwilling or unable to address these criticisms of your views, and so I’ve wondered often and openly why you have these views.

You once said that “Sometimes things must get worse before they get better”

I would have liked you to have expanded on that to explain why you thought your ideas would make things worse and why you thought they’d then make things better, but you wouldn’t, at the time.


So why?

What is your motivation what are you trying to achieve what are you aims?

Once we have that maybe it would be easier to look at the ‘how’ - at how you think your ideas could bring it about

Last time you could only come up with the feeble ‘Why not”, but maybe you could do better this time.

 

"who's a troll?

*classic trolling emotional personal attack designed to frustrate and raise blood pressure*"

If everyone gives up on this thread, it doesn't mean you win, it just means you hid from questions so long everyone realized it was an utter waste of their time.

I encourage the rest of you to boycott this thread and this douchebags pseudo-logic.