|
Post by Durf on Jun 4, 2016 20:26:15 GMT -5
LOL this is kinda annoying but if you bear with it, it can be funny:
|
|
|
Post by Durf on Jun 7, 2016 16:47:47 GMT -5
LOL the thumbnails changed in my previous post xD Saw this on YouTube today and lol'd
|
|
|
Post by Nathrezim on Jun 9, 2016 16:05:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nathrezim on Jun 10, 2016 5:26:31 GMT -5
Libertarian Party Post:
"To Current Bernie Sanders Supporters,
Senator Sanders has argued that college debt needs to go. No one should be paying off college debt for decades.
He's right - but his solution isn't. The reason college tuition is so high is that anyone can get a huge federally subsidized loan to pay for college. But if there were no federally subsidized loans, or federal financial aid, college tuition would go down.
If students could no longer get those loans (that turn into debt) colleges would have two choices: lower tuition, or go out of business. Colleges would have compete with each other to lower their prices.
College tuition has increased at 3 times the rate of inflation because government subsidies have allowed and encouraged that. Remove those subsidies, and college tuition will go right back down.
Let's force colleges to innovate and lower costs by ending all federal college subsidies. And while we do that, I encourage everyone to consider prestigious alternatives to college. If you like math, consider the actuarial exams. Passing just one virtually guarantees employment. If you like the humanities, consider the Foreign Service Officer's Test. Passing that proves to any employer that you have the broad base of knowledge you need. And if you just love to learn, and don't care about prestige, consider Coursera and MIT's OpenCourseWare (both free).
If you want to allow the free market to force colleges to lower tuition, to make student debt a thing of the past, please consider learning about the Libertarian Party, and our presidential candidate, former governor Gary Johnson."
Respectfully, Arvin Vohra Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee Author, Lies, Damned Lies, and College Admissions
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 10, 2016 11:17:51 GMT -5
The idea that getting rid of student loans to solve the college tuition problem doesn't hold up to scrutiny. From a simple perspective, if you get rid of loans, the tuition will drop somewhat (not as much as loans were previously worth), but you no longer have loans to help you pay for it. This means that people will either have to find other means of paying for those expenses, which will probably still involve going into debt, or they will no longer have the means to attend good colleges. Neither of those choices solves the problem. And neither does the idea of increasing competition either. People already consider cost as a huge factor when considering where to attend college. Getting rid of loans won't magically make that increase because wha-dever federal student loans they would receive are relatively fixed in amount. This means colleges won't suddenly face more pricing competition.
The heart of the problem is that college degrees today are much more necessary to finding a good job today than in the dpast. Having a degree today is like having a high school diploma 50 years ago. Tons of people becoming actuaries is a non-legitimate idea, as there are only 20,000 actuaries in the US, and employers are not looking to fill tens of millions of jobs full of actuaries.
Any proposed alternative to college such as taking some special exams is merely an individual solution, not a societal solution. Policy needs to be decided on a societal scale, and the only solution that will fix the problem without college becoming something only the wealthy can afford is to subsidize it through taxes. We already do that for K-12 education - so what is inherently wrong or dangerous about doing it for the next 4 years of education? If you think competition is the key to lower prices, making public colleges free will actually force private institutions to become much more competitive with their pricing.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 11, 2016 0:08:05 GMT -5
|
|
Malachi
FTL
Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
Posts: 177
|
Post by Malachi on Jun 12, 2016 8:28:01 GMT -5
I recommend watching the entire episode.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 13, 2016 0:27:15 GMT -5
Another video about election fraud, this time in California:
|
|
|
Post by Nathrezim on Jun 13, 2016 11:59:11 GMT -5
Milton Friedman on Bernie Sanders
|
|
|
Post by Durf on Jun 13, 2016 22:08:30 GMT -5
Milton Friedman is an agent of capitalism. Completely ignores the differences in the human condition or the problems with capitalism itself. As an outspoken example of someone who benefit well from such a system, then of course they will be encouraging the losers of that same system to keep on making him win. He's built a business on sounding like he's smart, but there's one thing I know for sure: if they are smart, they would be doing smart things. He has no faith in others, restricting him to cynical outlooks on anything but his opinion. When he has a positive opinion about something, it's the most naive thing I've ever heard. Capitalist countries DO NOT run on greed! They run on PRIDE. VERY different. And something the US could use, because the average citizen has lost the self respect of the country they live in, to give a damn about things like the character of the presidential candidates, or better yet, their policy positions and integrity. The guy, CLEARLY, isn't out to fix the world. He is there to promote messages of acceptance of the world, regardless of the situation. Ignoring how that video and that guy's opinions apply to a world that no longer exists, it still ignores many problems, making him look either like an idiot, or someone bought out to speak about capitalism that way.
Y'know what is smart? Assessing where faults might occur in a system and preventing those faults. Y'know what is faith? Believing that people aren't looking for a free handout when you raise taxes, or that the government won't be controlling your life as a result.
The notion that bigger government means you don't control your own life is just as ridiculous as the notion of "great achievements of civilization did not come from government bureaus", because neither did a motivation to go to war.
But maybe you can tell me how what Bernie is promoting is "self-interest", political or economic. The video is making implications it cannot backup, attempting to create a message using someone's words that weren't even created for the situation. The true "genius" behind this video has nothing to do with Milton Friedman, and I even suspect Milton would be upset that he was made to look like an idiot by some other YouTube idiot.
Let's assume for a moment he would be naive enough to say everything he has said about capitalism, for today's system and the state it's in. Even then, failure to actually recognize the issue discredits more than anything anyone could write about in a post. Example: When a company in a capitalist country, such as an air liner, gets to a particular size, without any significant competition, then it has economic power. The ability to set the price of the market itself, without caring for the demand of that market. Basically, charge wha-dever it damn well pleases, be as slow as it wants, be as shitty as it wants (within the law) because you are paying for your flight anyway. The dependency has gotten to a point where...THERE IS A PROBLEM. What you think capitalism has no problems? Gee okay, we have the "freedom" to choose not to fly! WOW! That only proves my point about there being a problem when they get economic power.
Capitalism is, yes, a free market, but what makes you think people are even responsible enough to know what to do with a free market? Clearly you think humans cannot manage communism, but if they could then capitalism wouldn't have any issues either. What makes you think that Milton Friedman is even happy with his own life? Frankly if there was a government program to look into everything everyone wants to look into anyway, then a person can be a complete idiot and still make it in life okay because there is that reinforcement (not control) to enable people. In a completely "free" system, you are also free to destroy yourself, and that is how "when one person succeeds, another fails/loses". As Milton implies, a person's failure in a capitalist system has nothing to do with anyone else's success (directly); he's doing his job in sounding correct so far. What is blatantly ignored are methods of success in capitalism, as an attribute of capitalism itself. Meaning, there can be two examples of success, one that is legitimate and kind, or a much more successful variety of crime and illegitimate means, or if not illegitimate, unethical. The intrinsic problem of capitalism is that it encourages thoughts of the self; how the self can succeed, to care for one's self. And the focus and scope of your attention is restricted to that and that alone. Not only is that a very lonely place to live in, but great civilizations are not formed from self interests - that is a fact, no matter just how rich and powerful the self interest is, because the more powerful they need to be to do something great for society, the less great that society is as a result.
IDEALLY, the government would be able to care for the idiots of the country through socialist means, while enabling a free market for the more economically capable. But even this hypothetical "fix" to the problems of capitalism is just as "bad" as believing communism can work.
Remember what I said earlier? It's the lack of progress that ensures problems remain. If there is a person in a world with an existing problem, and there is no attempt at a solution, that person is either an idiot, or profiting from that problem. Progress, in this case, represents a motivation for making a "great" society. Do you really think people are dumb enough to think a great society is one that gives hand-outs? 100% of the population can't be on welfare. And no one has ever claimed to think that. The implication that people who believe in taxes and communal goals are too stupid to know how to capitalize, is part of the propaganda to ensure the stupid people that feed the profit of the wealthy keep doing so. Of course there is nothing stopping anyone from capitalizing ANYTHING in this free market...the question is: SHOULD YOU There is more than the "self" and a great civilization would know that (as characterized by a peaceful existence among it's people, among many great achievements, like the pyramids in Egypt, or great wall of China are often used as an example). The scope of Milton Friedman's thoughts do not qualify him to speak politics on a larger scale - a quality that today's politicians should be required to develop. Milton sounds like he's profiting from what he's saying, he doesn't sound like he's out to educate people. But what do you think he would say if you were to ask him about what he makes talking about his political opinion? What do you think he will say makes him credible? His position is too entirely focused on the goal of getting others to embrace capitalism; so either he truly believes it's a working system because it worked for him (making him simply naive and ignorant), or he is using this as an unethical means to profit (by the exploitation of the human condition(stupidity) for personal gain). So who are you listening to? The idiot? Or the capitalist that wants your wealth because he's thinking about his own self, and not yours? He will even tell you, yes he is looking to take your money (that's success), and you are free to not spend it; he will argue that he can offer a service like anyone else in capitalism (this answer completely ignores the ethical implication of taking advantage of others), you paid for the service you are getting. So was it taking advantage of you if you could have continued to live your life never hearing Milton's words? The fact of the matter is that socially, you are already his customer, and that's his business. Collecting the potential market.
Nath, try not to be a sheep, and use your brain. You have it for a reason. If you could so easily just have others guide you, well, that would be communism now wouldn't it? Speak for yourself, because only your voice represents your circumstances. If there is no apparent problem for you, that doesn't mean there isn't one for someone else (given their circumstances). So Nath, why is being selfish a good thing?
#rant #triggeredByStupidity #wakeTheFuckUp #areYouAPerson
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 13, 2016 23:12:11 GMT -5
To add onto what Durf said, one of the inherent problems with the idea of the "free market" working to help everyone prosper is that this idea goes against the logical choice a selfish agent would make. Say you live in an economy that produces 1 trillion dollars worth of goods and your goal (for now) is to have control of 1 million dollars worth of that production, aka become a millionaire. There are two different ways of attaining this goal: either personally increase the production of the country, or take that money from other people. Option 1 would require you to add 1 million dollars worth of production to the country. Option 2 would be to simply increase your share of the wealth from 0% to 0.0001%.
Which option sounds easier? You are allowed to do both, but it makes the most financial sense to invest most of your resources into the most profitable option. If you can't figure it out by yourself, just ask most super wealthy people today how they made their money. Fraud is and has been rampant on Wall Street since its inception. Billionaires have been buying out politicians to pass laws that make it easier for them to amass wealth. You think that the housing and banking industries were trying to increase the overall production of the economy by causing the Great Recession? Taking money from other people and giving it to yourself makes all the sense in the world if you are looking out for yourself. This principle doesn't magically disappear if you have a free market - it only gets magnified.
This is why a "free market" has not worked and will never work. Our most prosperous time as a country came during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, which were the 3 decades that we had strong New Deal regulations and high taxes on the wealthy. Europe is currently following a similar model, and many of those countries are doing significantly better than us, regardless of the negative propaganda you might hear about them.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 13, 2016 23:56:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 14, 2016 13:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nathrezim on Jun 14, 2016 19:22:00 GMT -5
Selfishness is probably the concept most misunderstood by people(after freedom).
What is selfishness? In your relationship with the other people, you must prioritize yourself. The primary interests of your actions must be yourself.
What people think selfishness is? You must ignore the other people, forget they are people, use them, steal, destroy and fool them, thinking about yourself.
That’s not selfishness. That’s just violence. That’s immoral, it’s wrong. Why? Because of the definition of individual. If you say; "I will be a selfish person, I will prioritize myself." When you say that you recognize other people. So if you use that second concept of selfishness, you’re saying that a individualistic is denying other people’s property. What does it mean to attack someone? It’s saying like; “You own yourself, but I’m going to use you, against your will. I will overcome my will to his. Deny your individualism, deny your freedom, and take part of your work[for instance].” However property, freedom, etc, are self evident. They don’t have to be ensured. When you deny that, it’s like saying 2+2=5. It’s wrong. You can’t say; “I’m denying his property on behalf of my property.” You can’t rape someone to stop the rape. Just doesn’t make sense, it’s wrong. In that case, you can’t consider property at all, since you just denied it. It is not consistent. Attacking others is simply wrong, immoral. That’s why it’s wrong to use that second concept of selfishness. For him to attack someone, he has to be an individual first. If he’s not an individual there is no way he can be selfish. For you to be selfish you have to respect other people first. You say; “I want to be recognized as an individual, and I want to chase what suits me.” As I said you must recognize the other people as well, so, in consenting relationship with these individuals I chase my own interests. That is the only consistent way of being selfish.
Altruism doesn’t exist. Everything you do, you do it because you got something. I can say “Now I want to help other people, because I will feel better. Their happiness will make me happy.” People think volunteer work somehow has to be ‘for others’. There is no such thing. You do it because of selfishness. And that’s fine! Nothing’s wrong with that. The only problem, is that if you don’t have the option not to do so. You can be charitable (because you want to), but you don’t need to be. You have the right to be a person, moral, worthy, beautiful, without being charitable. That’s fine too.
If you work, have an income, it’s because you generate something. You make something to the other humans living around you. Someone will look at what you do, they’ll want it, and they’ll give you money for it. Just for the simple fact that you have a salary, comes from the fact that you helped people. Means you’re making people’s life better, improving it, eliminating sufferings. In a perfectly selfish way, because all you want is your living, but the only(pacific) way you have to get that, is giving what people want. As i said, the problem is if you’re doing things because someone manipulated you, or eliminate a sense of guilt cause other people are poor cuz you have a job or cuz you’re rich, wha-dever. It’s like you’re guilty because you succeeded. You are not forced to make charity, but if you do, do it because of selfishness.
When we are forced to make charity, we often call it taxes. That’s theft. Because of that, the government itself, is immoral. The way it works is through violence.
This doesn’t have a lot to do with what I said but; I don’t feel like a sheep at all. I think a lot about everything I read and hear. I learned that when I was 14, and realized the main reason why people are religious is because of childhood indoctrination. Atheist since then. I do not consider myself a real anarchist(keep in mind that’s actually anarcho-capitalism), for lack of proofs. But it definitely makes sense, and I like it.
There’s not a lot of time since I started studying politics and economy btw, so yes I’m kinda newbie and this is my position for now(minarchist). *Look for Ludwig von Mises, his books are in my list of 'best books ever.'
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Jun 14, 2016 20:52:52 GMT -5
The main problem I see in your logic is that you make all of these assumptions/statements without supporting evidence or logic, and you don't seem to be looking for supporting evidence or logic. For example, to say that something is "self evident" or "Just doesn't make sense. It's wrong" is being dishonest with yourself. All of your opinions should have supporting logic and/or evidence behind them. If any of them don't, search for those things and possibly change your opinion if you can't find any support for your original opinions. If you fail to do this, you end up holding a bunch of nonsense, meaningless opinions that are basically a shot in the dark, in terms of how likely it is that they are the "truth". I could just as easily say "it is self evident that capitalism doesn't work" or "it doesn't make sense to want to make profit. It's wrong." These statements are just as valid as the ones you made, and yet are opposite to most of what you say. The problem is that they are completely unsupported and rely on a "common sense understanding" which really is just a vague gut feeling that differs from person to person and has no real logical validity. Don't just stop when you think you've hit an underlying moral truth. Keep on asking "WHY" so that you can gain a better understanding of reality and have more valid, well supported opinions.
Just because you operate in this way does not mean everyone does. There are many moral systems, including the one that I operate under, that direct people to do things truly because it helps other people and not just because it makes themselves feel better. People who knowingly sacrifice their lives for a cause are not doing that to feel better. They are doing it because they truly want to advance the cause, regardless of what happens to them.
- - -
Your discussion of your own morality in relation to capitalistic ideas reveals that you are misunderstanding how the system works. Capitalism doesn't give a shit about your morality or any else's morality. There is no inherent framework in capitalism that enforces any kind of morality. Capitalism is a system that revolves around you doing things to improve your own situation. To you, this might involve respecting other people and not impeding on their "rights". Capitalism allows you to do that. To others, this involves stealing as much money as possible to maximize their wealth, everyone else be damned. Capitalism allows them to do that as well. However you think people "should" operate is not how all people operate, and when you have an unrestricted system like capitalism, this creates problems because there are plenty of cruel people out there that will try to maximize their personal wealth at the expense of others.
This is a highly idealized and over simplistic view of the world. Most professions (probably) help contribute to the well being of society, but there is no guarantee that all of them do. Basically any scam or service that takes advantage of desperate people is a service that overall hurts society's well being, yet people get paid to do these things. In a capitalistic society, your income is not based on how much you produce or how much you contribute. In reality, it is the money you were able to take from other people or things, through legitimate means or not. Any attempt to idealize or romanticize how capitalism works inevitably results in you being blinded to the harsh realities of what ends up happening when you let people do wha-dever they want to do.
Taxes are not inherently charity. It is a fact that there are several government services that end up giving you more benefit than you personally put into them. If you tried to build all the road you use to drive on with the amount of money you currently give to the government for that service, you'd end up with a short, shitty segment of road that you would be unable to drive on. Everyone being forced to pool money together to build roads results in everyone individually benefiting more than if they all tried to do it by themselves. Same thing happens with schools. If everyone tried to home school their children, or hired private tutors to teach their children without any formal schooling, society would be much less educated and much less productive than it is now, and that would negatively affect everyone in obvious ways. Point being, not all of your taxes go to things that help the less fortunate.
I'll going a little bit into how ridiculous it is to think we would be better off if there was no state at all, but I can already tell that you only believe this because you have idealized and generalized human nature and aren't taking into account the many ways that people can fuck other people over.
The most obvious problem with a stateless society is the lack of a working justice/law enforcement system. You say that there would be private institutions that would protect people and enforce codes, but who would they care to protect? Only those that give them enough money. Protecting anyone that doesn't pay up would be bad for the bottom line. This means that anyone who is "poor enough" would be at the mercy of those around them. This would be a huge detriment to the productivity of the country, as a huge segment of the population would have to spend much of their time individually protecting themselves and their families rather than work or provide for said family. Basically, in this society, the small portion that are well off will pay a small portion of people to provide for them and protect them. Everyone else is left to fight for survival in the mud pits.
Just to repeat, keep on asking "why". Don't just leave things be because they currently "make sense".
|
|