|
Post by slappy on Jan 29, 2013 14:55:00 GMT -5
Because Wikipedia is always reliable. Its more reliable the the vast majority of statements made in these political threads. Also, I would love to see a Libertarian-Marxist debate in here. The super right vs. the super left. I'll get the popcorn. I wouldn't call libertarianism the super right. It's not fascism.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 29, 2013 15:17:42 GMT -5
Fair enough. Lets get a fascist in; then we can have authoritarian, libertarian, left and right all in one hotchpotch battle of madness.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 29, 2013 15:47:35 GMT -5
At this point, I truly don't know. When I was younger, I wholeheartedly distinguished myself (and registered as) a democrat, but I don't feel that way at all anymore. While I still side with them on most issues involving individual liberties (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc), I in no way support their corrupt nature. The same goes for the Republican party, which, quite honestly, has become a bit of a joke to me. Simply put, I'm incredibly disheartened and frustrated with American politics and absolutely appalled by what those in power, on both sides of the spectrum, get away with and attempt to force on us. It's disgusting. I hate when people put abortion as an "individual liberty." And I'm not even pro-life necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 15:53:01 GMT -5
Because Wikipedia is always reliable. Its more reliable the the vast majority of statements made in these political threads. Also, I would love to see a Libertarian-Marxist debate in here. The super right vs. the super left. I'll get the popcorn. Marxism isn't really the super left, Maoism would be super left but I don't agree with most of what Mao did. But yeah, I guess Ill just wait for someone to ask a question and we can commence the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 29, 2013 15:58:33 GMT -5
If health care is a right, then do you (through the state) have the right to FORCE people to become doctors?
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 29, 2013 16:11:32 GMT -5
At this point, I truly don't know. When I was younger, I wholeheartedly distinguished myself (and registered as) a democrat, but I don't feel that way at all anymore. While I still side with them on most issues involving individual liberties (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc), I in no way support their corrupt nature. The same goes for the Republican party, which, quite honestly, has become a bit of a joke to me. Simply put, I'm incredibly disheartened and frustrated with American politics and absolutely appalled by what those in power, on both sides of the spectrum, get away with and attempt to force on us. It's disgusting. I hate when people put abortion as an "individual liberty." And I'm not even pro-life necessarily. I was sort of just lumping it in there for the sake illustrating where I stood, I don't mean to argue that it is or isn't. I'll be the first to admit I'm not deeply engrained in the political landscape enough to fully comprehend what right falls under what category, I just believe what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 16:11:55 GMT -5
If health care is a right, then do you (through the state) have the right to FORCE people to become doctors? No, forced labor is a sign of capitalism. But if there is a shortage of doctors, then through state media, I think it would be a great idea to emphasize the profession.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 29, 2013 16:52:39 GMT -5
Its more reliable the the vast majority of statements made in these political threads. Also, I would love to see a Libertarian-Marxist debate in here. The super right vs. the super left. I'll get the popcorn. Marxism isn't really the super left, Maoism would be super left but I don't agree with most of what Mao did. But yeah, I guess Ill just wait for someone to ask a question and we can commence the debate. Already did. Why should workers be entitled to both a paycheck as well as the products they create and employers get nothing at all? Why be an employer?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 29, 2013 17:01:16 GMT -5
At this point, I truly don't know. When I was younger, I wholeheartedly distinguished myself (and registered as) a democrat, but I don't feel that way at all anymore. While I still side with them on most issues involving individual liberties (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc), I in no way support their corrupt nature. The same goes for the Republican party, which, quite honestly, has become a bit of a joke to me. Simply put, I'm incredibly disheartened and frustrated with American politics and absolutely appalled by what those in power, on both sides of the spectrum, get away with and attempt to force on us. It's disgusting. I hate when people put abortion as an "individual liberty." And I'm not even pro-life necessarily. Could you explain why? I would've thought that it is as much a right as stuff like gay marriage or adoption should be.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 29, 2013 17:07:26 GMT -5
I hate when people put abortion as an "individual liberty." And I'm not even pro-life necessarily. Could you explain why? I would've thought that it is as much a right as stuff like gay marriage or adoption should be. Gay marriage and adoption harm no one while abortion causes harm to a living being. Not saying I agree but that's usually what the stance is.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 17:12:52 GMT -5
Marxism isn't really the super left, Maoism would be super left but I don't agree with most of what Mao did. But yeah, I guess Ill just wait for someone to ask a question and we can commence the debate. Already did. Why should workers be entitled to both a paycheck as well as the products they create and employers get nothing at all? Why be an employer? No no no, Not the product, the surplus profit, its the money made from the sales. Most of it goes to the state, and the some goes to the head of the factory and a tiny reimbursement.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 29, 2013 17:15:18 GMT -5
Already did. Why should workers be entitled to both a paycheck as well as the products they create and employers get nothing at all? Why be an employer? No no no, Not the product, the surplus profit, its the money made from the sales. Most of it goes to the state, and the some goes to the head of the factory and a tiny reimbursement. But why do they get the profit? Why does the state get the profit? Why can't the employer get it? Why be an employer if you are only breaking even and your profit has to go to the state and your employees?
|
|
Grant
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 17, 2011 9:50:29 GMT -5
Posts: 1,219
|
Post by Grant on Jan 29, 2013 17:29:01 GMT -5
My political views are closer to Libertarians than anything else. I didn't know about Libertarians until a few months ago (maybe closer to a year) The way I found out about Libertarians was through this guy's sig: Libertarian as a means to Anarcho-Capitalism. I started to research Ron Paul and then it turned into researching Gary Johnson, which turned into researching the Libertarian Party. And I agree with most to almost all of their beliefs. Before I found out about Libertarian views I thought I was somewhat Democrat and very slightly Republican with a ton of my own views. But with some thanks to Kliquid, I would say I'm a Libertarian. Oh yeah, and definitely not a crazy Libertarian like Alex Jones. He's more of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who acts crazy for more viewers.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 17:40:45 GMT -5
No no no, Not the product, the surplus profit, its the money made from the sales. Most of it goes to the state, and the some goes to the head of the factory and a tiny reimbursement. But why do they get the profit? Why does the state get the profit? Why can't the employer get it? Why be an employer if you are only breaking even and your profit has to go to the state and your employees? Because, when the surplus profit goes to the states things like education, health care, public transportation, and housing (Tis already free since in a Marxist society private property is abolished and housing is provided for by the state!) all become free! Also this allows basic needs to be cheaper! Just look at Cuba, food and clothing are cheap. Ah, the employer, the middle man, he just like the Worker, he gets a wage from the state (reimbursement AND the small percentage of surplus that goes to him) PLUS the free services and cheap things! So yes he isn't being screwed out of anything.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 29, 2013 17:44:49 GMT -5
But why do they get the profit? Why does the state get the profit? Why can't the employer get it? Why be an employer if you are only breaking even and your profit has to go to the state and your employees? Because, when the surplus profit goes to the states things like education, health care, public transportation, and housing (Tis already free since in a Marxist society private property is abolished and housing is provided for by the state!) all become free! Also this allows basic needs to be cheaper! Just look at Cuba, food and clothing are cheap. Ah, the employer, the middle man, he just like the Worker, he gets a wage from the state (reimbursement AND the small percentage of surplus that goes to him) PLUS the free services and cheap things! So yes he isn't being screwed out of anything. You are stealing from the employers to pay for things. It is coercion. Coercion is wrong. Look at Cuba; you dissent, you are murdered. The employer is being screwed out of his profit.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 17:49:34 GMT -5
My political views are closer to Libertarians than anything else. I didn't know about Libertarians until a few months ago (maybe closer to a year) The way I found out about Libertarians was through this guy's sig: Libertarian as a means to Anarcho-Capitalism. I started to research Ron Paul and then it turned into researching Gary Johnson, which turned into researching the Libertarian Party. And I agree with most to almost all of their beliefs. Before I found out about Libertarian views I thought I was somewhat Democrat and very slightly Republican with a ton of my own views. But with some thanks to Kliquid, I would say I'm a Libertarian. Oh yeah, and definitely not a crazy Libertarian like Alex Jones. He's more of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who acts crazy for more viewers. Where did that research lead you too? A. Ron Paul is a Psycho Lunatic, just look at his track record for one: B. Gary Johnson is irresponsible with his money: C. Libertarians believe that the government should not help the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, and the exploited because its "their problem"
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 29, 2013 17:53:33 GMT -5
Already did. Why should workers be entitled to both a paycheck as well as the products they create and employers get nothing at all? Why be an employer? No no no, Not the product, the surplus profit, its the money made from the sales. Most of it goes to the state, and the some goes to the head of the factory and a tiny reimbursement. So they are entitled to a wage for their labors and any profits their employer makes from their labors? Again, why be an employer?
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 17:54:42 GMT -5
Because, when the surplus profit goes to the states things like education, health care, public transportation, and housing (Tis already free since in a Marxist society private property is abolished and housing is provided for by the state!) all become free! Also this allows basic needs to be cheaper! Just look at Cuba, food and clothing are cheap. Ah, the employer, the middle man, he just like the Worker, he gets a wage from the state (reimbursement AND the small percentage of surplus that goes to him) PLUS the free services and cheap things! So yes he isn't being screwed out of anything. You are stealing from the employers to pay for things. It is coercion. Coercion is wrong. Look at Cuba; you dissent, you are murdered. The employer is being screwed out of his profit. 1. No you arent, you are creating a better society while the government improves your living standards. And coercion? I think not! 2. Nope, there has not been a single dissent murdered in Cuba since the last of Batista's regime's cabinet was executed in the early 60s, but those where needed. Now dissents are given no problem by the law or the government. Sometimes dissents are protected by the law to avoid hate by society, but you know Cuba is EVIL. 3. Again, no he is not being screwed out of anything because all he does is manage the books, the workers are the ones that are hands on with the product not him.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 29, 2013 17:57:02 GMT -5
No no no, Not the product, the surplus profit, its the money made from the sales. Most of it goes to the state, and the some goes to the head of the factory and a tiny reimbursement. So they are entitled to a wage for their labors and any profits their employer makes from their labors? Again, why be an employer? NO, the workers dont get the profits, they are rewarded for their labor with free social programs as stated above here "Because, when the surplus profit goes to the states things like education, health care, public transportation, and housing (Tis already free since in a Marxist society private property is abolished and housing is provided for by the state!) all become free! Also this allows basic needs to be cheaper! Just look at Cuba, food and clothing are cheap. Ah, the employer, the middle man, he just like the Worker, he gets a wage from the state (reimbursement AND the small percentage of surplus that goes to him) PLUS the free services and cheap things!" So I guess being an employer is still not that bad.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 29, 2013 17:57:29 GMT -5
If health care is a right, then do you (through the state) have the right to FORCE people to become doctors? No, forced labor is a sign of capitalism. But if there is a shortage of doctors, then through state media, I think it would be a great idea to emphasize the profession. Agreed. However, when you say that "health care is a right," you are inherently saying that you are entitled to the fruits of a doctor's labor. In theory, if people decided to stop becoming doctors, the only way for the population receiver their "right" of health care would be through FORCING others to become doctors. Do you get what I'm saying here? When I say something is a "right," I'm talking about something that we derive from no one else but ourselves. When you say something is a "right," you're saying that you get to take from someone to provide for yourself (or others). My above example of no doctors existing is a wide stretch, I understand, but let's take it down from there. Let's say that, theoretically, half of the doctors in America decided to quit practicing medicine because it just was not profitable enough for them anymore. They instead decided to become mechanics, teachers, garbage men, whatever... Now in this theory, the state is providing health care to its population as a right. So under this philosophy, SIGNIFICANTLY more people are receiving this care than under our current world as it exists today. So you've got, let's say 30% more people getting health care, but only being provided that health care by half of the population of doctors. As things are today, most doctors would tell you that they are ABSURDLY busy. So imagine increasing their workload by DOUBLE because half of the doctors have left the professional for more easier employment (because everyone gets the same benefits no matter what job they choose), in addition to the 30% increase in more clients. They're going to have to work significantly longer hours. They will want to be paid more for providing the service, but they can't because the government has decided that everyone makes the same amount of money. When their work continues to increase and become more stressful, again, more doctors drop off and look for other employment. Yes, many doctors will stick around. Many view their "duty" as a doctor to be taking care of others, even if it means no compensation at all. Good for them. But when you say that health care is a right, what you are saying is that you OWN those people. If they all decided "enough is enough," we would have no doctors under your theory. Because there could theoretically be a shortage of doctors (or no doctors at all) in your utopian world, and you refuse to force people to be doctors, then health care cannot be a "right."
|
|