|
Ask your friend what the difference is between the logical end of libertarianism and anarchy. That usually gets them butthurt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:25 |
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It seems to me that matters like education, and a lot of social issues as well, would be best left to state governments. Except they're loving awful at it and at least half the states in the union would collapse if you did this. ManDingo posted:News flash if you take any ideology to the extreme you end with with a pretty hosed up system. There are good things we can take from libertarianism in the right quantities. One of those I think doesn't get enough of the spotlight is making the small business more accessible. I honestly feel empathy for the fast food employee struggling to get by. When you think about it though I'm pretty sure that guy probably could make a pretty good burger. I'd much rather eat one of those instead of what McD's is serving. I think it would be awesome to see him gather a few of his coworkers and set up a bbq next door. I just I hope I could get there to buy one before the government shuts him down. But ensuring a free market doesn't become monopolized and controlled by a few is not libertarianism, that's just good standard capitalism (and it's true, a lot of small businesses are being ground out by megacorps like Amazon and Walmart). What specifically does libertarianism offer as a solution other than a typical 'reduce spending and regulation' half answer that any number of other conservative ideologies would put forth anyway? You don't need libertarianism to realize that entrepreneurship should be encouraged. Basically are there any advocates of libertarianism who don't in their heart think 'if only I was free to do anything I want, I would be mega rich, and it is only other people holding me back because of their own selfish greed?' It's always just about them in the end and that's why it's mostly middle-class or higher white dudes that love it. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:this kind of condescension is what is fueling the trump campaign hth Uh okay except it is true just look at the budget numbers. You think individual states have the tax base to adequately fund programs by themselves without federal grants? So then why don't they just do that when the federal government waves its club and goes 'if you don't comply with X, no more funding.' That's how they got the drinking age to be 21 nationwide, among other things. If you're right and the states don't need the federal government then don't take federal grant money. But they do, because they know they need it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Libertarianism isn't even good capitalism. It's just selfish baby poo poo that wants to reject the social contract while still benefiting from it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:43
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:because, like 8-bit explained, the money is often getting funneled into places the school doesn't actually need while other necessities go unattended, and then they fail anyway Okay that just means the programs are not administered as efficiently as they could be, that doesn't mean screw it toss the entire federal education system. Again, the logic of a child throwing a tantrum. If you ditched federal funding, that would mean schools well off states like NY or CA would be well funded and schools in rural or less populous states would probably be unable to afford basic textbooks. ANIME IS BLOOD posted:opposition to federal control of everything is definitely this, and not rooted in the fact it's become a giant pork barrel for corporate lobbyists at all "system isn't perfect therefore burn it all down no taxes no government regulation!" A child throwing a tantrum. Opposition to big government control is not strictly the domain of libertarianism. Libertarianism is just the dumb overreaction. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
I mean by that logic, F35 is a total poo poo show program so obviously the government can't handle military administration so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to. Privatize the military!
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
ManDingo posted:That's fine I have no attachment to the word. However I have to point out there is exactly one candidate in opposition of big government and he's calling himself a libertarian. Isn't a major plank of the GOP platform 'less big government?' Anyway I encourage you to look at what actually happens. Walker was super anti big government, a card carrying Libertarian, and he is turning his state into such a poo poo show in pursuit of 'less big government' that even the police joined protests against him and what he is doing to their economy and education system. Under his governorship, Wisconsin's economic growth has lagged behind what it should be. This is a fact you can easily verify for yourself. But don't take my word for it, here it is from a Wisconsin website: http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/gdp-numbers-confirm-wisconsins-lagging-growth Milton Friedman posted:'One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.' Roylicious fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:05
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The problem is is that the Fed hasn't respected states rights for quite awhile. Recall how Marijuana Dispenseries would get raided by federal troopers even though they were legally allowed to operate in their states. Obama in particular has ended his tenure as president with a downright monarchical approach, just issuing executive orders willy nilly about this and that. I don't disagree with this and I think that yes, there are some things that should remain under state discretion that the federal government shouldn't interfere with. But again, this isn't libertarianism. That's just believing in the federal system already established. Has the federal executive branch gathered too much power? Yeah I think so definitely but libertarians don't offer any real solution other than to just bitch and point to corruption. ManDingo posted:Yeah I'm from Wisconsin and now live in the Twin Cities. You'd be surprised how many people commute from Wisconsin to save several thousand dollars in taxes each year. I guess if you are a union person then yeah Walker is the antichrist. That system needed to be shaken up I'm not sure that was the way to do it however. Such is life in politics. Look Walker is just as much of a political lying scumbag as anyone else. You think him being a libertarian changes anything? He cut $250m from public education in the name of less big government... then turned around and issued bonds that are going to result in a $400m taxpayer liability to fund a new basketball stadium's construction for his rich friends. Libertarians are not the answer. They're just greedy opportunists who want to talk a lot of pretty words to convince you to support them slashing funding in one area so they can take that money and spend it on things that benefit them and theirs. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:15
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It's really why labels such as these are no longer useful. Both "libertarianism" and "socialism" have come to represent so many different things that their technical meaning is lost and their colloquial meaning is varied. Maybe, I'm just wary because the logical end result of libertarianism takes it much farther than drug policy reform and pork cutting. It's a dangerous ideology to let take hold because in the name of fixing corruption and government bloat it basically imposes economic austerity which is ultimately detrimental (and that's assuming they are really libertarian and not just slashing budget in social programs to fund more military poo poo).
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:22
|
|
ManDingo posted:Who is saying he's a libertarian? Isn't he registered as a member of the libertarian party? Isn't he the libertarian presidential nominee? Dude wants to eliminate all taxation and replace it with a flat 23% sales tax that will absolutely buttfuck our economy have no doubt.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
ManDingo posted:Sorry I was talking about Walker being a libertarian. Oh. Well I was just looking at his economic policies which are basically the same (again libertarians don't have some sole claim to 'less government'). The libertarian party doesn't like him because of his conservative stance on social issues like gay marriage. They were def supporting Scott Walker not too long ago when he was trying to slash taxes and state funding, for example: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/31/scott-walker-resurgence-of-libertarianis
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
ManDingo posted:So how does lower taxation negatively affect the economy? Do you assume if it's not taken and funneled through some giant bureaucracy then people will bury it under a tree. Maybe they'll spend it on wants and needs. Are you ignoring the massive sales tax that will mean a higher effective tax rate for basically anyone earning under $30k? His proposal doesn't cut taxation. His proposal cuts taxation for those who need it least while putting a bigger tax burden on the lower class, who is the least able to handle it. Also, such a high sales tax will have a seriously detrimental affect on consumer spending and aggregate demand. This is just more trickle down supply side fantasy economics in a different form. He himself says it: "cut corporate taxes to 0 and we'll create millions of jobs" except jobs are created when the company grows to meet demand. Why would a company build new factories when there is no demand to meet instead of just say, cutting shareholders a bigger dividend? Companies don't produce more widgets for shits and giggles, companies produce more widgets to meet an unmet demand. Considering 1 in 2 Americans earn less than $30k, you're basically talking about actually raising the effect tax rate on half the population in order to mitigate the corporate tax cuts and putting aggregate demand in the shitter in the name of an empirically failed supply side economic policy. Awesome lmao. And there's no way 23% is going to cut it anyway so either that needs to be higher (even worse for the economy) or you're talking about ending tons of programs and departments that society relies upon such as education and letting them go private. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:32
|
|
ManDingo posted:So now high taxes are bad for the economy? Pretty sure there would be an allowance for necessities (food, doctor, shelter, transportation) up to a certain income threshold. That's even assuming he'll get everything he wants to the letter (he won't). I couldn't even tell you what it would do to me personally. I need to hand some dude with a calculator a stack of papers and $150 and he tells me what my effective rate is. But what I do know is making the system less complex and thus way harder to dodge would be an improvement. So, basically, your argument is "I don't know specifics but what I do know is SOMETHING is wrong and he is promising to make things better in a different way than the others! I don't know how his policies would affect me or others in our daily lives, by god I just am sick of all this.' Which is understandable but surely you realize that's kind of not based on anything solid? For all you know he is speaking a lot of eloquent pretty words with the full intention of not helping you out whatsoever. Look at the policies actually advocated and do some research for yourself as to how they would affect things. Otherwise you're just basing your beliefs on emotions. ManDingo posted:So now high taxes are bad for the economy? Anything that is going to negatively impact aggregate demand is bad for the economy. This is basically any taxation of course but obviously you need to fund things like a judiciary, military, etc. It's not just about 'high taxes,' it's about who is taxed at what rate and why. If you can't even tell me how his tax policies would affect your effective tax rate then how can you seriously be sitting there supporting them? For all you know you'll end up paying more in taxes and getting less back in benefits. quote:Pretty sure there would be an allowance for necessities There would be, but think of it like this: nVidia produces a chip that costs $500 retail, based on their production costs and R&D costs and whatnot. If people have money to spend, they'll buy luxury goods like a new GPU. nVidia needs to make more chips to meet demand, they build more factories and provide more jobs which allows them to lower prices based on economies of scale which further stimulates demand for their product and so on. If people can only afford necessities like food/doctor/clothes, they are going to buy less GPUs. nVidia might not sell enough units to justify opening new factories. They might even end up laying employees off if sales lag enough. That has a knock on effect as well, but a bad one. Just look at the share prices of retail companies if you don't believe me. Even WalMart is starting to struggle because simply put people ain't got poo poo to spend on goods/services they don't absolutely need. So the solution is raise the effective tax rate on the average person so they can cut business taxes? That isn't going to save any companies and no one is going to invest in growth if there is no profit to be made. They'll just thank you for the tax cut and raise the stock dividend. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
And on a side note, the lack of aggregate demand stimulus because of supply side economics is a major reason why we have seen the rise of such easy credit and debt in this country. The credit replaces the fact that the average American isn't making as much money to spend on widgets. At some point, it becomes untenable and you get the big bubble bursts we've been seeing.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:04
|
|
ManDingo posted:Well that settles it, full communism now. So, in response to my pretty bog standard macro-econ points, you give me some emotional appeal and when I don't just accept it at face value you do this. You're really doing yourself a disservice, it's not like I give a poo poo in the end and I'm gonna be doing alright either way. Dunno why you're so closed minded but that's usually an indicator that your beliefs aren't logically defensible so you turn to getting mad or making fun or hyperbole to sandbag the opposing side. Roylicious fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:05
|
|
ManDingo posted:It's just too much dude. I had a reply half written before you made like 10 edits. My points were this: Well again, "I don't know specifics but by god poo poo is hosed up and this guy says he'll fix it! I dunno how exactly, but it seems simpler."  I'm not saying simplification of the tax code is a bad thing, I'm simply saying Gary Johnson's proposal to eliminate all taxation except for a 23% consumption tax is loving nanners. ManDingo posted:I have no interest in talking about video card production or how poor people are hosed. Like I said if those people had access to the economy that wasn't illegal drugs life will be better for them. There's plenty of threads you can read in archives that go over supply side vs demand side you can read at your leisure. Also if spending was in any way correlated with improved education we'd have seen it by now. You have no interest because you either know supply side is utter bullshit no serious economist advocates anymore or because you have no real basis for your rationale. I'm sorry that a very basic macroecon concept is too much effort for you to parse through. quote:Also if spending was in any way correlated with improved education we'd have seen it by now. lol def what I was saying yeah. Not like I haven't already stated that just because something is inefficient or corrupt that's no argument to just toss the entire concept completely. You clearly have no interest in an honest discussion, you just want to rattle off insults and disingenuous arguments and feel good about your own perceived superiority. I'm not saying anything particularly leftist and I'm met with accusations that I'm supporting full communism. Laughable. Drunk Nerds posted:All my libertarian friends I shut up by asking one question: Yeah that's one that really trips them up too. Honest to god a lot of them straight go 'I dunno what that is.' Roylicious fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
And in case for some reason you actually give a poo poo, read up on supply side (which again no serious economist supports anymore yet its the go-to policy of libertarianism): https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/01/11998/the-failure-of-supply-side-economics/ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/10/29/tax-evasion http://itep.org/itep_reports/2013/02/states-with-high-rate-income-taxes-are-still-outperforming-no-tax-states.php http://www.itep.org/pdf/LafferRegression.pdf
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Are you really that dumb or just bad at trolling or what? The poo poo does Maoism have to do with anything?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:25 |
|
quote:Libertarianism, by contrast, is a theory of those who find it hard to avoid their taxes, who are too small, incompetent or insufficiently connected to win Iraq-reconstruction contracts, or otherwise chow at the state trough. In its maundering about a mythical ideal-type capitalism, libertarianism betrays its fear of actually existing capitalism, at which it cannot quite succeed. It is a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy. Eh like I said, baby throwing a tantrum.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:47
|
|