| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| I guess if you're so against 'socialism' then you must also be against bailing out private companies with public money, right? . |
Absolutely. Let them fail.
|
That'll be a problem, then, when they bring down the whole economy with them.
Failure of companies like AIG, Fannie and Freddie would have been a disaster. |
You know, the ironic thing with this outcome is if the whole economy falls, what do libertarians think will happen? Will people form a more libertarian government out of the rubble of a liberal capitalist democracy? Will they believe the only thing that was wrong was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I highly doubt that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason why the libertarian position falls short is they fail to realize that the "market" is itself a political construct. Coercion decides what is "owned", who "owns" it, the means by which the "property" may be transfered, the legal mechanisms for resolving disputes, which corporate structures are recognized as legal entities and so forth. In doing so, they go a long way to deciding who the winners and losers will be in the future. All this is necessary for markets to existi in the first place. Hence the notion of "non-intervention in the market" is a contradiction in terms.
Markets are really just a type of rationing system. The money people have should not be thought of as "their" money but money the sytem has given them. If the sytem gives them too much and wants to take some of it back, then this is no more "stealing" than the initial allocation was in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cornfed wrote: |
| The reason why the libertarian position falls short is they fail to realize that the "market" is itself a political construct. |
Stop right there. You've already constructed a libertarian strawman for yourself.
Many soft libertarians understand that the market exists only within a system that allows for a rule of law. But that doesn't necessitate price controls, regulations stating what should be labelled and how, or even traffic lights. Everything should be considered, and the burden is on the government to show its regulations are useful. If they are, that is great.
Libertarians aren't anarchists. You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| doc_ido wrote: |
Canada is conservative.  Maybe you could move before Obama starts redistributing your wealth to the proletariat? |
Redistribute my wealth? Might as well. When the liberals have their way, we'll be taxed so much, it would be better to stay jobless and collect welfare. |
The conservatives tax the poor by cutting services, and handing huge subsidies to the ultra-rich business interests. Just to let you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Cornfed wrote: |
| The reason why the libertarian position falls short is they fail to realize that the "market" is itself a political construct. |
Stop right there. You've already constructed a libertarian strawman for yourself.
Many soft libertarians understand that the market exists only within a system that allows for a rule of law. But that doesn't necessitate price controls, regulations stating what should be labelled and how, or even traffic lights. |
My point is that prices, wages etc. are in fact to a large extent indirectly set just by the structure of the market that the regime establishes. Hence passing a new regulation to correct imbalances that arrise from that structure is no more or less interventionist than not doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'The Soviet States'...y'mean like Iraq and Iran and other places are going to be satellite republics?
I hope you are wrong! That is so 2005  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't think this thread would last this long.
Here are my 2 cents:
If the far left (such as groups like MoveOn.Org) gain control over the Democrat party, then we WILL BE THE Soviet States of America.
The thing that gives me hope are the "Blue Dog" Democrats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever happens, I'm willing to bet nothing will be worse than the last 8 years.
And it seems the electorate has agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
I didn't think this thread would last this long.
Here are my 2 cents:
If the far left (such as groups like MoveOn.Org) gain control over the Democrat party, then we WILL BE THE Soviet States of America.
The thing that gives me hope are the "Blue Dog" Democrats. |
MoveOn.com control the Democrat Party? How would it be possible? They have no politicians that represent them. Blue Dog Democrats are actual positions of some Democrats based on what they stand on.
MoveOn.com is just a fundraising machine that raised immense money and supported Obama over McCain. They don't have political influence, or are even lobbyists. They just fundraise very very well from the grassroots, that's it. They aren't an affiliation of something or another, or represent a certain type of politician, like neocon or something.
I can see why massive fundraising might make someone worried, but it isn't anything like 'blue dog democrat' or 'obamacan' or whatever else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the ultimate moment of irony, Joe the Plumber, the McCain surrogate posing as an independent voter who spouted occasion libertarian views, is against welfare, WHICH HE HIMSELF HAS BEEN ON BEFORE!
Joe the Plumber admits being on welfare
The McCain campaign is the greatest political joke on Earth.
Nonetheless I look forward to returning to the United Socialist states of America in 2010 or so. Where's that theme song at? Oh here it is
Communist Mario Bros |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moosehead wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
There will be no new ideas and very little change at the political level during the next 4 years of President Obama.
|
another know-nothing post on the internet -
oh yeah baby - use that brain for something other than popping bottle tops  |
There was not a single NEW idea from Obama during the election. The economy is in a terrible state, and there is little room for anything new to be adopted.
So, we'll wait and watch, and we'll soon discover that there will be nothing new from Obama and very little change. Just some tinkering around the edges and policy tweaking, at most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
