Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I don't know how anyone can say "oh well, too bad" to a child dying of cancer who's only mistake was being born to a family that can't afford healthcare.
Cher
"I have no advice for anybody; except to, you know, be awake enough to see where you are at any given time, and how that is beautiful, and has poetry inside. Even places you hate" -Jeff Buckley
(August 14, 2009 at 9:16 am)Rockthatpiano06 Wrote: I don't know how anyone can say "oh well, too bad" to a child dying of cancer who's only mistake was being born to a family that can't afford healthcare.
Well maybe not. It has to be ran past DLFish first as she's in charge of deciding who lives and who dies. I believe children with cancer would come under her "free treatment" program. Or maybe all children. Or was it only the children of NOT lazy fucks? Unless that mother has 6 other kids, then she falls into the "baby-factory-vagina" and the child is denied healthcare. Or was it the mother is just denied pre-natal care but the unhealthy babies this may produce get the health-care?
I forget who gets what under her system. Too many variables.
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
--------------- NO MA'AM
August 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm (This post was last modified: August 15, 2009 at 2:04 pm by bozo.)
Adrian,
Re. Libertarianism. I've read your response to my questions and I start by saying I agree 100% with the sentiments of Padraic's post no.78. Flat-rate taxation would benefit only the wealthy.
Similarly, privatising education would be disastrous for the poor. As for creating more graduates, we have too many at the moment and many come out of university riddled with debt and unable to find " better " jobs.
So you would cut benefits to the unemployed and create new jobs. Exactly how? What kind of jobs?
The pensions issue is a biggy in my book. Even now, many young workers are unable to save enough for their old age. Add to that the fact that people are living longer and the situation looks bleak, unless something drastic happens. The rich and very rich have to contribute more through progressive taxation and wasteful use of money on wars and weapons of mass destruction has to end and that money put to social uses, like pensions and care for the ageing population.
I agree with you, Libertarians aren't Socialists, and I detect that they are really not about closing the gap between the wealthiest and poorest on our planet.
dry land fish,
I disagree with you over healthcare and hope Obama manages to provide healthcare to the 46 milion of your fellow Americains who haven't any at the moment.
Rather than pick up point by point from your posts, I will comment on just the one.
You spoke about your background and are probably proud to say that your parents refused state help because they felt it belittled them. That resonates with me because I have heard similar things in my own country, England. I have to say that I profoundly disagree that accepting state help is anything to be ashamed of. Indeed I would argue that the state has a duty to ensure the worst off in society are looked after., with no stigma attached.
I do hope you are actually more compassionate for your fellow men, women and children than has come across thus far.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
I can see we're just going to get into the old "capitalism vs socialism" argument again, and I'm really not in the mood to go there, given the last one took so long.
Flat-rate tax is fair. I see no reason to punish the rich, when they have earned their money like everyone else. Even if some of them are getting inheritance, it won't last forever on it's own. A flat-tax rate benefits everyone, since everyone is giving the same proportion of their wealth. Rich give more, poor give less (as actual values). The rich are the main people paying for the services provided by the government, whilst in socialism you'd have no rich people (why would anyone want to earn so much they get most of it taken from them) and so less money going towards public services.
On education, in the current system the poor kids end up in poorer schools. State schools have to accept all children, regardless of their abilities. You want to talk about the gap between the poor and the rich, why not talk about the gap between the intelligent and the less-intelligent in state schools. Everyone learns at the same rate, and the intelligent kids are the ones who are being held back (rich and poor alike). A private system gives more classroom flexibility, and the competition generated by the various services means that more people get to use them. On graduates, I thought I made it clear that money would be diverted from government spending to help create new jobs in the private sector.
If you are interested in the welfare plan, the Lbertarian Party (American) has a nice short essay on it: http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare. The aim is to pass the safety net over the charitable organisations and community rather than have it as a government issue. The money saved is used to create more jobs in the private sector, as well as scrap barriers / paperwork that prevent people from creating jobs for themselves.
Libertarians are against wars of most kinds unless they are carried out in response to threats / attacks on homeland. We would minimize the military spending and shift it to job sector + police.
Oh, and as for the "closing the gap", there is no reason to close the gap if the poorest people are able to work and feed their families. As long as we can make sure that there are enough jobs to go around, we can solve the poverty issue.
(August 15, 2009 at 3:34 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I can see we're just going to get into the old "capitalism vs socialism" argument again, and I'm really not in the mood to go there, given the last one took so long.
Flat-rate tax is fair. I see no reason to punish the rich, when they have earned their money like everyone else. Even if some of them are getting inheritance, it won't last forever on it's own. A flat-tax rate benefits everyone, since everyone is giving the same proportion of their wealth. Rich give more, poor give less (as actual values). The rich are the main people paying for the services provided by the government, whilst in socialism you'd have no rich people (why would anyone want to earn so much they get most of it taken from them) and so less money going towards public services.
On education, in the current system the poor kids end up in poorer schools. State schools have to accept all children, regardless of their abilities. You want to talk about the gap between the poor and the rich, why not talk about the gap between the intelligent and the less-intelligent in state schools. Everyone learns at the same rate, and the intelligent kids are the ones who are being held back (rich and poor alike). A private system gives more classroom flexibility, and the competition generated by the various services means that more people get to use them. On graduates, I thought I made it clear that money would be diverted from government spending to help create new jobs in the private sector.
If you are interested in the welfare plan, the Lbertarian Party (American) has a nice short essay on it: http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare. The aim is to pass the safety net over the charitable organisations and community rather than have it as a government issue. The money saved is used to create more jobs in the private sector, as well as scrap barriers / paperwork that prevent people from creating jobs for themselves.
Libertarians are against wars of most kinds unless they are carried out in response to threats / attacks on homeland. We would minimize the military spending and shift it to job sector + police.
Oh, and as for the "closing the gap", there is no reason to close the gap if the poorest people are able to work and feed their families. As long as we can make sure that there are enough jobs to go around, we can solve the poverty issue.
You begin by saying you don't want to revisit the argument....and then you go on and do!
You are a Capitalist...call yourself Libetarian or whatever...your argument boils down to no change from what we have now.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
No, I said I didn't want to revisit the socialist / capitalism argument. You asked me questions on Libertarianism, I answered them, and then responded to your criticisms.
As for your assertion that "your argument boils down to no change from what we have now", I think this is plainly ridiculous:
- We don't have a flat tax rate.
- We still have state schools.
- We still have welfare.
- It is hard to create your own work without having lawyers and accountants, etc.
- We have a large and expensive army.
Those are just 5 of the things that Libertarians would change if in power. But sure, "no change" at all...
Oh, and Libertarians can be capitalists and socialists. One of my atheist blogger friends is a socialist libertarian: http://dbzer0.com.
(August 15, 2009 at 6:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, I said I didn't want to revisit the socialist / capitalism argument. You asked me questions on Libertarianism, I answered them, and then responded to your criticisms.
As for your assertion that "your argument boils down to no change from what we have now", I think this is plainly ridiculous:
- We don't have a flat tax rate.
- We still have state schools.
- We still have welfare.
- It is hard to create your own work without having lawyers and accountants, etc.
- We have a large and expensive army.
Those are just 5 of the things that Libertarians would change if in power. But sure, "no change" at all...
Oh, and Libertarians can be capitalists and socialists. One of my atheist blogger friends is a socialist libertarian: http://dbzer0.com.
Your changes on tax,education,welfare would mean " no change " in a change for the better. Your changes would be even worse.
I don't understand your 4th point and what do you mean about the army?
I'll check out your confused friend if I get the chance.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Whether my changes would be for the better is all a matter of opinion. In my opinion, socialism is always going to fail and end up with a country in chaos, at which point capitalism comes back into play because capitalism is the most natural state for a country to be in. Alas, this is getting back into the socialism/capitalism thing again.
My 4th point was in reference to creating more jobs, namely by making it easier for people to start their own companies.
Concerning the army, we would reduce the budget the army have, plain and simple. Put more money back to public services people need.
Adrian,
You have failed to convince me that Libertarianism is anything other than a right-wing form of capitalism which would benefit the few at the expense of the many.
No surprise there then!
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Libertarianism is socially left and economically right, focussing on both social and economic liberty. Of course the socialist libertarians think that the one exception to liberty should be in regards to money.
![[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img824.imageshack.us%2Fimg824%2F7042%2Fattemptingtogiveadamnc.gif)
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
