Should i vote for Ron Paul?

No dude, all i said is that someone who is for universal healthcare COULD be a social libetarian. All the rest is inside your head. And considering that 95% of modern american liberals favours it, im not wrong. (http://people-press.org/reports/tables/242.pdf. Your spewing about crime gangs and your views about universal health care came from nowhere. Thus psycotic.

Look at what your typing:

"yes, i know you're too stupid to get it, but claiming that a libertarian may support plunder <-- Huh? Say what? -- if he simply calls himself a "social libertarian" -- is positing "thoughts about Social libetarism".

again with the demonstrably false claim. take responsibility for your words, boy. you said them. you argued (yes, argued) that a libertarian may support plunder if he's a "social libetarian". are you truly such a pussy that you can't stand behind what you say, in desperation adopting the fantasy that you uttered no opinion on the subject? you said it. stand by it or retract. lying about it's pathetic.

Where did i do that?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

So your saying that social liberals are against universal healthcare or that UHC doesn´t exist? In either case, YOU are the moron. Since you clearly stated that social liberals are using UHC like some kind of tool to enslave people.

your inability to understand plain english in circulation for well over 100 years in liberty philosophy can hardly be construed as a failure on my part. have you zero shame? unbelievable. it's as if you tout your foolishness as a virtue; the stupider you get, the more impervious as well. it's been pasted back to your stupid ass about 5 times already. you concluded, in context, that a libertarian may support plunder if he calls himself a "social libertarian". pull the wax out of your eyeballs, ess for brains

So im stupid because i made a claim that a social libetarian supports plunder, wich i have not done!? Something that you yourself claimed in your rant!



Equation:

Your calling me a moron for concluding that a social liberal is some kind of plundering murderer/criminal.

Your calling me a moron for not knowing that a social liberal IS a plundering murderer/criminal. And "proves" it to me.

Yet, i have not agreed/dissagreed with any of your views. Nor tried to define what social liberalism means. And still, you call me a moron!

Sollution: Schizofrenia!

You are arguing with yourself, and has taken two sides of a subject! You have your own defenitions on UHC and social liberalism, wich are both theories and you define them thrue practice. A practice that lacks support in reality! You belive in a conspiracy that places liberalism on the other side of the political spectrum. Thus making the progressive left side of the spectrum an impossibility and claims that the only system that exists are the totalitarian right. Wich is not logical at all! You know this, that is why you are calling yourself a moron!

You see this conflict everywhere and project it upon others. You read in things in my statements that are not there and make the assumption that the conflict itself is around you, and not within. This is very common with schizophrenic people, and is called "Association dissorder".

And too top it of your so *beep* stupid that you dont know that people knows the difference between Classical libetarism and modern! So take your slander and namecalling to schizophrenia.com and leave us normal people alone you paranoid nutcase!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Im not as old as you are, but i am in my late 30:ies. And this is where i work. http://www.skane.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=7502

I was talking about kincaid67a, moron boy. see how that works?

I see now that you have a discussion with the threadstarter. And what was his conclusion of you? Remember i said that everyone has concluded that you are deranged?

nobody could reasonably accuse me of not spending enough time drilling your dumbbell ass into the ground. on the spelling issue, let's have some fun. copy and paste, without removing relevant context, every mention of spelling i've made in this thread. i'll wait.

You mean like this?

a fool who's obviously not a primary english speaker (perhaps part of your problem when engaging those who are).
"i have not questioned your 'state' at all", that makes no sense. i am the one questioning the state, dummkopf. learn to speak english.
you've a real talent for creating in short stretches of words nearly meaningless collisions of concepts that would take 20 hours to straighten out. payoff? none. even the irrational use of the word "progressive" would take 5 minutes to refute.

And how many lines in your above post did you spend to defend you arguments and conclusions? NONE! You have not refuted a single thing i have said.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I rest my case.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Xvegasx,
A "liberal" and a "libertarian" are not the same thing. Its hard to have a debate if one the participants doesn't understand the terms being discussed.

As far as "libertarian socialism" being an oxymoron, dreckula is correct. Libertarians oppose on moral grounds the use of force by governing bodies. Socialism calls for the accumulation of power in a centralized governing body which can then use force to redistribute more evenly or fairly the wealth. It is simply not possible to have socialism without government force, which makes a libertarian socialist a "anti-force pro-force" advocate, clearly a contradiction.

You also seemed to have missed dreckula's point on UHC leading to plunder. Plunder means to take something by force. What is Universal Health Care? It is government provided care; how does the government provide this? How does it pay for this? After all, the argument against the current health care system (and rightly so) is that it is so expensive that many cannot afford it. So UHC essentially means the government pays for your, mine, and every other citizen's health care. How? The only way government can generate the financing for such an expensive system is through taxation. Taxation is by definition not optional, and therefore requires force to collect. In other words, taxes are not paid by choice. If you refuse to pay, men with government badges and guns come and forcibly remove you from your home and place you in jail. Even when you "choose" to pay your taxes, it is done so because of implied force; if you don't "choose" to do so, we'll come and get you. Thus, any program that is paid for by the government and therefore requires taxation also requires force, no matter how beneficial it may claim to be. When we talk about UHC, we are also inherently talking about forcibly taking capital from citizens to fund it, i.e. "plunder."

You may agree or disagree with the principles of libertarianism, but you should at least understand them first.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It is not a contradiction since libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since they view capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as inconsistent.
However, the association of socialism to libertarianism actually predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States. As Noam Chomsky put it, “a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”.

And you might argue that taxation is plunder. But never UHC. And if you think about it, none is holding a gun to your head when you buy a high-taxed pack of smokes.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

How exactly would you suggest UHC work? I'm not being antagonistic, I genuinely want to know. How would it be funded if not through a direct tax?

"And you might argue that taxation is plunder. But never UHC. And if you think about it, none is holding a gun to your head when you buy a high-taxed pack of smokes."

True, but I would argue that by placing a "sin tax" on certain goods that a select few label as "vices," the government is enacting blatant morality-based discrimination. If the government placed a 30% tax on all korans and prayer mats sold in the US, and justified it with the excuse that "you don't have to practice Islam, no one is putting a gun to your head," the tax would no doubt be shot down immediately as discriminatory against Islam (and rightly so). Why is tobacco any different? You have just as much a right to choose to be a smoker as you do to practice the religion of your choice. There is no hierarchy of freedoms; the freedom to practice any or no religion of your choosing is no more or less important than your right to choose what substances to put into your body; they are manifestations of the same right -- the right to choose how to live your life as you see fit. Yet not many people seem too riled by the government's open targeting and singling out of a specific group of people choosing to carry out a specific action (smoking). I want a government that protects my individual rights, not that tells me how I should live my life through "gentle" persuasion, such as enacting punitive and arbitrary taxation.

As far as wage slavery; that is a Marxist myth. It spawns from taking a literary metaphor too far. A slave has no other options to bondage than death. A worker may be in a bad situation, but in a free society that worker has the option not to work for any particular employer; he is never legally or physically forced to work for a specific employer (unless he has freely entered into a contract requiring specific terms of labor), and if he is, then it is by definition not a free society. Certainly, he is "forced" by financial or economic necessity -- he has to eat, and if he is very poor then he cannot afford to not work and therefore not have money for food. But this a natural coercion, caused by the unavoidable fact that in all environments at all times, resources are limited. This is not a problem to be solved but a fact to be accepted. So the worker may metaphorically be a slave because his options are very poor and therefore de facto non-existent; however, it is not the same as actual slavery. A slave cannot choose to stop working for his owner and simply choose to take his chances without provisions. The master would use legal and physical force to the point of death to force him to submit again. On the other hand, the worker may have poor options that only a moron would choose, but he still has the options. He can quit his job and attempt to pursue other options, which in a free society will almost always (but not always) be present; working for a competitor, starting his own business, etc. Having limited options due to an unavoidable fact (limited resources) is not the same thing as having no options at all due to man-made coercion (true slavery).

Furthermore, it perpetuates the myth that capitalists, in the Marxist sense of those who own the capital, are not producers. They in fact are. They are both providers and producers of capital, which is itself a commodity. The worker may be a very skilled craftsman, but without the needed capital (money to pay for raw goods to make a product from, necessary tools, access to markets, etc.) he could not produce on the same scale, and in some cases, he could not produce the product at all. Both capitalist and worker provide necessary components to the final product, thus, both are producers. Bill is offered a job in a factory, which he can accept or reject. He accepts, and he and his employer agree to a rate at which he will be reimbursed for his labor. If at any point he feels he is not receiving enough pay, he can demand more or threaten to leave, or simply leave. At what point exactly does he not "freely" enter into the labor, and at what point is he no longer "in control" of it? He can choose to stop providing his labor which means he controls it; a slave on the other hand cannot make this choice, or he will be beaten, jailed, or executed -- thus he does not control his labor. There is a clear difference between the two.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

HanktheHobo wrote:

I would argue that by placing a "sin tax" on certain goods that a select few label as "vices," the government is enacting blatant morality-based discrimination. If the government placed a 30% tax on all korans and prayer mats sold in the US, and justified it with the excuse that "you don't have to practice Islam, no one is putting a gun to your head," the tax would no doubt be shot down immediately as discriminatory against Islam (and rightly so). Why is tobacco any different? You have just as much a right to choose to be a smoker as you do to practice the religion of your choice. There is no hierarchy of freedoms; the freedom to practice any or no religion of your choosing is no more or less important than your right to choose what substances to put into your body; they are manifestations of the same right -- the right to choose how to live your life as you see fit. Yet not many people seem too riled by the government's open targeting and singling out of a specific group of people choosing to carry out a specific action (smoking). I want a government that protects my individual rights, not that tells me how I should live my life through "gentle" persuasion, such as enacting punitive and arbitrary taxation.

Very good and I agree right up to the point

He accepts, and he and his employer agree to a rate at which he will be reimbursed for his labor. If at any point he feels he is not receiving enough pay, he can demand more or threaten to leave, or simply leave. At what point exactly does he not "freely" enter into the labor, and at what point is he no longer "in control" of it? He can choose to stop providing his labor which means he controls it; a slave on the other hand cannot make this choice, or he will be beaten, jailed, or executed -- thus he does not control his labor. There is a clear difference between the two.

A person chooses to work freely and willingly for an agreed amount of exchange with which I agree, however that person cannot choose to have taxation not withheld from their wages. This scourge is what is in question and not whether working is slavery, cause that’s just screwed up logic. I work cause I love my job and would do it for free if I had no-one willing to pay me for it but that would also mean that I will rapidly place myself in a very dangerous position of not being able to provide for myself and family.

The USFG has seen it can derive an income from the everyday necessity for existence by humans. They have created a wealth of income for themselves from the plundering of its citizen’s labor.

Technically, I cannot engage in any form of commerce in this country without the USFG/IRS becoming a silent partner in my ability to create wealth for myself and others and only when my silent profit taking partner/un-claimable dependent has taken their mafia (extortion racketeering)dividend do I enjoy the freedom to do what I want with my earnings . In the extremist sense just like a master had the ability to execute their slaves for misbehavior we have a mafia kingpin (Mr IRS) with a gun to your head if you choose not pay them and threat to extinguish your life should you choose to resist.

So your notion of slavery is total control over the subject where as a gentler/kinder degree of totalitarianism doesn’t constitute slavery. Your fundamentally bickering that partial enslavement doesn’t constitute slavery. “Bravo” you just got owned by the USFG scam.

Passive income is the holiest of grails of any businessman/capitalist. Where as they contribute something of value to citizens of the country and planet, the USFG contributes very little (proportionally) for the enormous revenue it ceases yearly from its citizens.

The crime syndicate, ( as drecula refers to them) mandated itself the ability to arbitrarily rape your earnings from you each and every year simply because you need to exist.

I don't believe I have seen a tax on existence as mandated in any part of the constitution that I have read, however the government may have a second copy of it with an extra page in it where it gives them that ability which I haven't sighted as of yet.


Truth passes through 3 stages. 1st-ridicule, 2nd-violently opposed, and 3rd, it's accepted as fact.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"So your notion of slavery is total control over the subject where as a gentler/kinder degree of totalitarianism doesn’t constitute slavery. Your fundamentally bickering that partial enslavement doesn’t constitute slavery. “Bravo” you just got owned by the USFG scam."

mr5150,
Read the posts again. You obviously misunderstood what was being argued by Xvegasx and his Noam Chomsky quote. I was responding to the claim credited to Chomsky that capitalism is non-compatible with individual liberty because of "wage slavery." I was explaining that capitalism IN A FREE SOCIETY does not lead to slavery in any true sense of the term. I certainly was not defending taxation; if a governing body uses force to take a portion of someone else's capital, obviously that is not a free society, is it?

Furthermore, I am most definitely not arguing that "a gentler/kinder degree of totalitarianism doesn’t constitute slavery;" re-read the post. I argue that lack of options due to a man-made force (laws, government, people with guns threatening to shoot you) is akin to actual slavery, whereas lack of options due to natural facts of life (limited resources -- if I don't eat I die, and there's only one job in town) is unfortunate, but by no means "slavery." We weren't discussing taxes at all in that particular round, but common sense would tell you that taxes collected forcibly through the threat of jail or physical harm would fall into the "man-made" lack of options, hence slavery.

Read some of my earlier posts on this thread, I make it pretty clear that direct taxation is plunder, therefore not compatible with individual liberty. For example, this taken from a response to Xvegasx on Universal Healthcare:

"The only way government can generate the financing for such an expensive system is through taxation. Taxation is by definition not optional, and therefore requires force to collect. In other words, taxes are not paid by choice. If you refuse to pay, men with government badges and guns come and forcibly remove you from your home and place you in jail. Even when you "choose" to pay your taxes, it is done so because of implied force; if you don't "choose" to do so, we'll come and get you. Thus, any program that is paid for by the government and therefore requires taxation also requires force, no matter how beneficial it may claim to be. When we talk about UHC, we are also inherently talking about forcibly taking capital from citizens to fund it, i.e. "plunder.""

Hmmm...sure sounds like the "USFG" has fooled me...

Bravo, you just got owned by your poor reading skills.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My Sincerest apologies and must confess that upon reading the previous posts carefully, your logic shines through as someone who understands and craves liberty.

You are correct.

Silly me! Time for some humble pie…doesn’t taste too bad…..LOL


Truth passes through 3 stages. 1st-ridicule, 2nd-violently opposed, and 3rd, it's accepted as fact.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No worries, I've eaten plenty of humble pie myself. I take my mine with a side of foot.

reply share

add reply

formatting help