Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cantrell

Top 10 Jobs in Libertarian Paradise

Recommended Posts

I have a hard time believing conversion to libertarianism would improve the infant mortality rate but I guess that's just me and the author of this satire piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I have a hard time believing conversion to libertarianism would improve the infant mortality rate but I guess that's just me and the author of this satire piece.

I also doubt that switching to quilted northern in the white house bathrooms would improve infant mortality rate.

Maybe charmin should manufacture those child coffins because they're not doing much to help the situation.

<Just satired the satire satyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also doubt that switching to quilted northern in the white house bathrooms would improve infant mortality rate.

Maybe charmin should manufacture those child coffins because they're not doing much to help the situation.

<Just satired the satire satyr

The point was, and is, that Libertarianism probably would result in an increased market for child-sized coffins. Well, that is, until those lazy poors who just didn't have enough "want to" died off.

don't think it's that far-fetched but whatevs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was, and is, that Libertarianism probably would result in an increased market for child-sized coffins. Well, that is, until those lazy poors who just didn't have enough "want to" died off.

don't think it's that far-fetched but whatevs

LoL really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was having this conversation with my libertarian friend the other day: would a free market in today's globalized economy actually create more monopolies on high production cost items and an overall weaker U.S. economy?

My answer is yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was, and is, that Libertarianism probably would result in an increased market for child-sized coffins. Well, that is, until those lazy poors who just didn't have enough "want to" died off.

don't think it's that far-fetched but whatevs

Probably would huh?

k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably would huh?

k

Who's going to help the poor in the absence of government?

Oh, wait, you think we live in a meritocracy where social mobility is only limited by government, so why should you care? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to help the poor in the absence of government?

Oh, wait, you think we live in a meritocracy where social mobility is only limited by government, so why should you care? lol

The government is involved in too many things, including "help" run amok.

I really don't care about what you think is the function of government.

I think it should be involved in very, very few things.

Charity....sorry. They have proven their inability to "help" the poor...or are you able to argue successfully for any government run program along those lines?

Didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Epistaxis again.
...

As much as it hurts to say...

...religions are the only entities that effectively and consistently take care of the poor. Ask the statistician/professor from Syracuse University on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is involved in too many things, including "help" run amok.

I really don't care about what you think is the function of government.

I think it should be involved in very, very few things.

Charity....sorry. They have proven their inability to "help" the poor...or are you able to argue successfully for any government run program along those lines?

Didn't think so.

Success in what sense? Success in eradicating poverty? No. Success when compared to the alternative of completely removing the safety net? Absolutely.

Generally, poor people are poor because they're born into it. Just as rich people tend to come from rich, advantaged families. Removing the government's safety net in favor of an increased reliance on charity is pretty laughable. In the face of factors that would depress spending and, consequently, charitable actions, those with money would get by while the poor would starve. We do not live in a pure meritocracy, and it's socially irresponsible and morally abhorrent not to maintain a structure responsible for doling out welfare to the poor.

Also:

Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post�World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This assumes it's a proper function of government to funnel money from the rich to the poor, which unless you adopt a Judeo-Christian or collectivist set of ethics, is morally bankrupt.

The government isn't exactly funneling money from the rich to the poor.

Wealth83_04.gif

I mean, if you believe that it's not the responsibility of a 1st world country to eliminate as much poverty as possible, that's your problem. The goal isn't to push everyone to the middle, so let's not act like it is. Putting money in the hands of those who need it to survive, at the expense of a millionaire who has, in all likelihood, never had to face such circumstances, isn't such a bad thing. Of course the rich resist this; they think they got to where they are on their own. lol. Why do you think billionaires are funding Libertarian movements? They think they're smarter, harder working, and deserve to take advantage of everyone beneath them because they did it all by themselves. They're wrong but, hey, it's not like America will ever shift to Libertarianism anyway so it's not something to get worked up about.

Libertarians, while a majority of the time pseudo-intellectuals with no real grasp on their philosophical beliefs, generally value freedom over equality, which is why I have much more respect for them than the Plato-worshiping conservative and liberal sycophants who base all their moral decisions on the flawed central premise of man as inherently evil.

Equality isn't freedom? I mean, yeah, I guess it's not, if you seek to have the freedom to discriminate, or to take advantage of the disadvantaged. Also, it's disingenuous to imply that "conservative and liberal sycophants" do not value freedom over equality, considering how far we are from equality in America today.

When you hate man (the individual, not mankind), you get this bullpoo mentality of moral righteousness in the form of involuntary welfare. The only way a person can possibly be righteous is to sacrifice themselves for the good of God or for the collective. Anyone who then resists the notion of social equality is an evil, selfish, and dangerous brute that refuses to accept their own worthlessness as a human being. Keep taxing them. Keep slandering them They're reprehensible and they deserve it.

If you are advantaged and lack the desire to help the disadvantaged, you probably are pretty selfish. You know, "fug you, got mine." Rich people are generally rich because they were either born into the wealth or born with the advantages necessary to accumulate wealth. We don't live in a meritocracy. The lower-class and under-class aren't there because they didn't want to succeed. To use them to further your wealth, while resisting the idea that they need "involuntary welfare" to survive, is pretty "evil, selfish, and dangerous".

Not everyone can be rich or poor. A clerk in a grocery store will not have the highly-sought after skills of a doctor or a scientist. You're fooling yourself if you think the government can or should try to increase the clerk's wages and lower the doctor's wages without sidelining capitalism in the process (and please please PLEASE resist the temptation to promote a mixed or central-heavy economy, since that's precisely what has our economy in the pooter right now).

There you go again, thinking we live in a meritocracy.

You're fooling yourself if you think the average "clerk in a grocery store" was born with the same advantages as the average "doctor or scientist." Why are they entitled to more, simply because they won the genetic lottery?

Oh, because "freedom", right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×