Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Oh, and btw, Ron Paul is doing quite well in the polls in Iowa:  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

The Doctor wrote: stealing 15 dollars from a poor man does a lot more real harm to the victim than stealing 10K from a rich man.

Can you demonstrate this?

Suppose that, with that 10k, the rich man was starting a non-profit business and that he would have hired the poor man and two of his homeless friends.

Ah yes, 2000 is so long ago (and so much has happened) everyone forgot that Bush was originally a "moderate" conservative (at least no neo con) and did not want to use our army for "nation building" LOLWUT

It's part of the reason I think he was just the guy who made the speeches and signed what he was given...I'm just glad one way or another all his company have been removed. Especially that Cheney, we all joke but that guy is legit scary.


Seriously, how the hell has it gotten to Newt?? Has been out of the light so long we all forgot how sh*t he is?
Is it because we was the frontman for that "Contract for America" which included clamors for less government?
That went well...


Edited by JJLehto - December 13 2011 at 22:15

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: stealing 15 dollars from a poor man does a lot more real harm to the victim than stealing 10K from a rich man.  Can you demonstrate this? Suppose that, with that 10k, the rich man was starting a non-profit business and that he would have hired the poor man and two of his homeless friends.

More likely he would use that money to buy off a conservative politician to help him screw that poor man even more.  Or help defray some of the costs of moving his factories to china where he could get away with paying slave wages.  Etc., etc., etc.

The T wrote: ^Why Mr Doctor? It would really seem you were once raped by a rich man, seeing the amount of hatred you display...

We are all raped by the rich every day. 

No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few.

What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above.

What's curious is that when you work in a non-wealthy environment you see how many people stay down and never advance precisely because they think they can get away by doing nothing.

In the end, the government that TheDoc loves so much is what allows his hated wealthy to do as they please with the lower classes. Yes, even through the regulations that apparently are set to protect them.

The T wrote: No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few. What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above. What's curious is that when you work in a non-wealthy environment you see how many people stay down and never advance precisely because they think they can get away by doing nothing. In the end, the government that TheDoc loves so much is what allows his hated wealthy to do as they please with the lower classes. Yes, even through the regulations that apparently are set to protect them.

I find the conservative viewpoint equally repulsive and most certainly worrying.  I do not believe that all people who are wealthy are evil greedy slime(some actually do have hearts and concerns outside their own personal greed), but yes, I do think there is a more than healthy dose of that in our world today.  The kind of world we are moving toward is one where greed is becoming a necessary character trait simply to survive.  And conformity and obedience to our wealthy masters.  Who defines "work ethic"?  It's the employers.  Not the workers.  I once had a wealthy scumbag boss (and he was scum, his business was helping rich people make more money at the expense of labor) tell me I didn't have a good work ethic because I wasn't willing to give over my entire life to him for a rather paltry salary.  I was willing to work 40, even 45 hours a week.  But I drew the line at the expected 60-70 hours per week. 

The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few. What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above. What's curious is that when you work in a non-wealthy environment you see how many people stay down and never advance precisely because they think they can get away by doing nothing. In the end, the government that TheDoc loves so much is what allows his hated wealthy to do as they please with the lower classes. Yes, even through the regulations that apparently are set to protect them. I find the conservative viewpoint equally repulsive and most certainly worrying.  I do not believe that all people who are wealthy are evil greedy slime(some actually do have hearts and concerns outside their own personal greed), but yes, I do think there is a more than healthy dose of that in our world today.  The kind of world we are moving toward is one where greed is becoming a necessary character trait simply to survive.  And conformity and obedience to our wealthy masters.  Who defines "work ethic"?  It's the employers.  Not the workers.  I once had a wealthy scumbag boss (and he was scum, his business was helping rich people make more money at the expense of labor) tell me I didn't have a good work ethic because I wasn't willing to give over my entire life to him for a rather paltry salary.  I was willing to work 40, even 45 hours a week.  But I drew the line at the expected 60-70 hours per week.

Obviously I'm not talking about the "work 70 hours a week or be fired" lack of work ethic but the kind of work ethic that is to be expected from any employee working a reasonable amount of hours in normal conditions. I don't want people to submit to slavery either. It's all about freedom, remember? And in your scenario, the freedom I'd like is the freedom to say "ok I'll try and find another job away from this a****le".

I'm going to sleep but let me ask you a question Doc: let's say a poor man somehow strikes gold (I'm not sure, lottery, some inheritance, or actual gold) and gets rich. Now he's rich. Is he by default suddenly evil slime? Does his character automatically turn devious? If so, don't you think we should prevent people from ever getting rich? Yes, let's keep them all down. (That worked so well...).

Oh I guess a rich person that suddenly ends in the street suddenly also becomes pure and caste, it would seem...

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: stealing 15 dollars from a poor man does a lot more real harm to the victim than stealing 10K from a rich man.  Can you demonstrate this? Suppose that, with that 10k, the rich man was starting a non-profit business and that he would have hired the poor man and two of his homeless friends. More likely he would use that money to buy off a conservative politician to help him screw that poor man even more.  Or help defray some of the costs of moving his factories to china where he could get away with paying slave wages.  Etc., etc., etc.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: I find your answers reasonable. This is good. I thought you may not. I wonder why you would suspect that. The only detail I would disagree with is perhaps this: Equality 7-2521 wrote: They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded. A bad thief is still a thief, no?

Perhaps my wording was poor, I was not convinced I had said enough so I thought may answers may not have been justified sufficiently for you.

Yes a bad thief is still a thief, but if you focus on restitution, and even if you focus on punishment, the attempted thief has still taken less from you than the successful thief. Like the man who sets out to kill you, yet misses and only grazes your skin with the bullet, your skin can be more easily replaced than your life so I feel the punishment should reflect that.

It's as though the thief intended to steal your flatscreen and your sports car, but he was apprehended after only getting the car. He has stolen less, he is to return less from you even though his intentions were worse.