Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLibertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 304305306307308 350>
Author
Message
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:55
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

As usual, I'm in direct opposition to your beliefs.  If you are going to take into account the amount of damage done, then absolute damages is not the way to go.  If I steal 10K from a multi-millionaire's house, it's going to hurt him a lot less than if I steal $100 from a poor man's house. 

Either the system should state that theft is theft no matter how much you take, or it should be based on the amount of relative harm to the victim. 


I anticipated your trap, Doc, but it was poorly laid.

"The system" should make criminals pay back what they robbed their victims of. 
Victims must personally benefit from those who committed a crime against them.  A system of retribution is something I have advocated quite some time.  If you steal a thousand dollars, then you should be forced to work until you pay back that thousand dollars plus interest and penalties. 


There was no trap.  Perhaps a bit of hope that there was some egalitarianism and sense of social justice from you.  Wink  Ah well. 

Jim, I agree with you.  Violence to me is much more serious than theft. 


"Egalitarianism" and "social justice" are evil things.

Do you disagree with my view of basic retributive justice?  If so, why?


Then you must think that I am evil.  But that's ok.  The Sith thought the Jedi were evil too.  Wink

I think it is ok to have a system whereby the punishment fits the actual, real harm done to the victim.  But again, stealing 15 dollars from a poor man does a lot more real harm to the victim than stealing 10K from a rich man. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Andy Webb View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: June 04 2010
Location: Terria
Status: Offline
Points: 13298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:59
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
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 22:01
Not so well nationally though....he was single digits in the new ABC/USA poll today with the other two way out front.  He was back with Perry and Bachmann.  
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 22:01
Originally posted by The Doctor 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.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 22:04
Sorry, it was NBC, not ABC...

In the GOP matchups, Gingrich is at 40 percent to Romney's 23 percent. Everyone else is in single digits - Ron Paul gets 9 percent, Michele Bachmann 8 percent, Rick Perry 6 percent, Jon Huntsman 5 percent and Rick Santorum 3 percent.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 22:14
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...LOL


Edited by JJLehto - December 13 2011 at 22:15
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 23:39
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Sorry, it was NBC, not ABC...In the GOP matchups, Gingrich is at 40 percent to Romney's 23 percent.
Everyone else is in single digits - Ron Paul gets 9 percent, Michele
Bachmann 8 percent, Rick Perry 6 percent, Jon Huntsman 5 percent and
Rick Santorum 3 percent.

Yes. But isn't it possible that a win in Iowa could improve his chances everywhere? He would no longer be the impossible candidate but a more realistic one for many people.
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 23:39
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor 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.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 23:48
^Why Mr Doctor? It would really seem you were once raped by a rich man, seeing the amount of hatred you display...
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 23:54
Originally posted by The T 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.  Wink
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 13 2011 at 23:59
To be fair Teo...it was good ol Equality himself that said libertarianism has a healthy dose of populism and indeed aims to free us from the power of uber corporations and wealthy elitists, as well as government.

With the way yall carry on it's tough to tell sometimesTongue
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 00:11
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.
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 00:18
The "free" market is really anything but. We've seen the fatcats exploit the loopholes in the system and lack of restrictions on their greed even to the point of them buying out politicians (such that those kept dogs are the only ones who get enough visibility to win). It plainly doesn't work. Of course, since big business has the gov't in their pockets, how can you get that gov't to bring these sociopaths to justice?! I'm afraid we'll have to go the way of Egypt and be out in the streets, a total societal boycott, in order for anything to change. Maybe we can even force companies to convert to renewable sources of energy... and for the gov't to focus on science instead of war... but I hope for too much, doubtless. It would take people on a mass scale waking the f**k up and that looks pretty distant.
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 00:29
Originally posted by The T 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. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 00:32
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

The "free" market is really anything but. We've seen the fatcats exploit the loopholes in the system and lack of restrictions on their greed even to the point of them buying out politicians (such that those kept dogs are the only ones who get enough visibility to win). It plainly doesn't work. Of course, since big business has the gov't in their pockets, how can you get that gov't to bring these sociopaths to justice?! I'm afraid we'll have to go the way of Egypt and be out in the streets, a total societal boycott, in order for anything to change. Maybe we can even force companies to convert to renewable sources of energy... and for the gov't to focus on science instead of war... but I hope for too much, doubtless. It would take people on a mass scale waking the f**k up and that looks pretty distant.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 00:39
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:


Originally posted by The T 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...
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 01:12
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

The "free" market is really anything but. We've seen the fatcats exploit the loopholes in the system and lack of restrictions on their greed even to the point of them buying out politicians (such that those kept dogs are the only ones who get enough visibility to win). It plainly doesn't work. Of course, since big business has the gov't in their pockets, how can you get that gov't to bring these sociopaths to justice?! I'm afraid we'll have to go the way of Egypt and be out in the streets, a total societal boycott, in order for anything to change. Maybe we can even force companies to convert to renewable sources of energy... and for the gov't to focus on science instead of war... but I hope for too much, doubtless. It would take people on a mass scale waking the f**k up and that looks pretty distant.
  
What, do you deny that politicians are bought off (and that this is a result of unrestricted capitalism)? Why else haven't the fatcats at Goldman Sachs been brought to justice? Try and refute what I'm saying, nothing I've said is absurd, although I could have spent more time leading into some of these points so the indoctrinated might better digest them.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 02:41
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor 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.

But in reality, the rich are neither of these extremes. Sure they actually do create jobs (poor people certainly aren't, and middle class does not have as many high-level entrepreneurs as the upper middle and upper class), but then again, a lot of those jobs will be in China for lesser wages. It is part of the growing pains of globalization, and while I do not agree with paying below living wages as a rule, in China perhaps they're grateful to have work at all in some of these factory towns. I really don't know, but I think this casting the rich man and the mustache-twirling fat cat from 1800s cartoon strips is dangerous. Once a large number of people start believing the caricature, then eventually something like riots and window smashing corporate offices becomes an ok thing to do. Bad things have happened before when populists look for someone to blame.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 06:43
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor 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.


Once again you failed to address the question.  You also failed to address the hypothetical.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 14 2011 at 06:45
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis 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:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 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.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 304305306307308 350>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.924 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.