Liberal Forum

peepee » 11 Jan 2022, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022, 9:48 am

...you never even started...you are clueless as to the nature of money [and much more]....for example, if you were forced to give your best response to, 'what is the key characteristic from which the essential value of your 'money' is derived?', some worthless unenlightened  :o   $hit would/will emanate from your sandwich  :o  hole... word...  ;)   :wave:  
 

you leap into beliefs real isn't real every time you change your mind and social identity, yet your brain is just your evolved fertilized cell as an organ of the central nervous system sustaining your ability to live adapting to the moment now as an ever changing form shaped as reproductively displaced since origin of said fertilized cell mutating as your brain only minding power of suggestions life is more than biologically centered in your skin now.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 8:15 pm

Is your objection that we pooled our money to bring this about and for some unknown reason you believe stock ownership and our free, fair and private agreement is evil? Is it that you are producing a competing product and don't like the fact you won't be able to sell a version you actually HAVE involved yourself with?

This was a smart move - respond to me without tagging me, hoping I will miss it because you're getting your *** handed to you on your rather shallow, school-boy understanding of how the financial world works. 
 

SJConspirator » 03 Jan 2022, 10:04 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022, 10:04 pm

the best indicator of whether one is authoritarian vs libertarian is extremely simple.  Do you like cops?

Define "like."

If ya blow a guy to get out of a ticket, does that necessarily mean ya "like" him?
 

LibDave » 31 Dec 2021, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 1:50 pm

Bill can and does pay his own taxes.  And not only more than you but at a higher rate.  

Any doubt he was a **** eater just flew out the window. 

BILL GATES pays a higher rate of "taxes" than the rest of us. This jaggov is IN THE TANK.     
 

FOS » 31 Dec 2021, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:03 pm

I never said corporations are evil. This is you arguing with some archetype in your head.

He does a lot of that. He has his answer ready, and if you fail to ask the right question, that's YOUR fault - in fruit loop land. 

But, let's face it. I just quoted him claiming that bill gates pays a higher tax rate than the rest of us - so, he's a **** idiot.
 
Apparently, he is giving his mind the very best nourishment on earth: pure horse ****. 

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2022, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2022, 4:55 pm

He does a lot of that. He has his answer ready, and if you fail to ask the right question, that's YOUR fault - in fruit loop land. 

But, let's face it. I just quoted him claiming that bill gates pays a higher tax rate than the rest of us - so, he's a **** idiot.
 
Apparently, he is giving his mind the very best nourishment on earth: pure horse ****.

Lol.  Even Warren Buffet has publicly commented, loudly about how much less billionaires pay in taxes.  Libdave reveals himself to be a joke with that line of crap
 

SJConspirator » 18 Jan 2022, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2022, 4:58 pm

Lol.  Even Warren Buffet has publicly commented, loudly about how much less billionaires pay in taxes.  Libdave reveals himself to be a joke with that line of crap

Well, the whole "Nourishment for the mind" thing kinda telegraphed THAT.

A more patently obvious wm. f. buckley wanna be has not presented in a coon's age. Dollar to a nickel says the *** wears a tweed sweater with leather elbow patches. 

And the truly saddest thing? Wm. f. buckley was a wm. f. buckley wannabe. He could never sell it, except to easily gulled midwits. 

FOS » 31 Dec 2021, 12:35 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 12:35 am

how is this lol. Look at Rothko. OK? If we are living in a meritocracy then how the **** does Rothko just paint a canvas blue and sell it for 100 million $

LOL

This was a fun thread. I never seen a pretend intellectual get so completely shattered by facts

I'd love to resurrect this topic (for reasons @Cannonpointer  already knows...snicker)...I hope LibDave is still around for the fireworks
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 4:42 pm

The American Idea

At the heart of the American Idea is the Right to Property. As Jefferson paraphrased, if someone whittles a stick into an arrow with his own labor his right to that arrow and all the wealth entailed is sacrosanct. If he uses his arrow and his skill at hunting to fell wild game it too becomes the product of his labor and he may rightfully use it to feed his family or barter in free trade for something he deems of more value.

This anecdote was proffered by Jefferson to explain the bedrock of our system. This applies to all product of one's labor. Whether we trade our labor product for an agreed upon wage or sell such product directly. Under the American Idea no one else has the right to object or lay claim to the proceeds. Michael Jordan made the decision to apply his labor to developing the skills required to place a ball through a hoop (and all the other talents necessary to play basketball). At some point it turned out an owner of a basketball team thought it in his own interests to pay a freely agreed upon wage to Michael in exchange for his talents on the court. Now I consider $26 Million/year to earn for playing basketball astounding. Truth be told I am jealous as hell and it is only human nature to want someone to force Michael to hand over the product of his labor to me. I might even be willing to share in the theft of his wealth. But I and others have NO RIGHT to decide what is a fair price to pay for Michael's talents. Nor does he have any say in what I agree to receive in return for my labor. This is the American Idea. It is capitalism in its truest form.

"Rights" are a fictitious construct popularized by classical liberalism back in the 1600s and invented by the Sophists attempting to link "Natural/Mathematical Law" to "the laws/nature of humanity" in classical Greek civilization. 

In any discussion with so-called "classical liberals" (which, as I noted in another thread, most of whom are unable to define "classical liberalism"), they are unable to defend the basis for "Rights." 

1) "God gave us these rights; bestowed to us upon God" - no evidence let alone proof for this claim

2) "Nobody has a right to violate another's [insert some right here]" - this is irrelevant if someone does choose to violate them, whether "Someone" refers to the State, another individual, or some ((((unsavory groups))) doing what they do best: usury and rent extraction.

Through simple observation of every society that has existed - no matter whether said society is "Free" and "Democratic" or "Authoritarian" and "Undemocratic" - your rights end where the State says they do. No amount of anti-taxation or anti-regulation tirades will change this feature of human society. 

If you come back and tell me that I "didn't refute your claim that rights inherently exist," I'll tell you that it doesn't matter because your rights crumble in the face of overwhelming force. You have (presumably) never told the IRS that "they don't have a right to tax you" [because reasons]. You just pay them what you're legally required to (or can get away with without triggering an audit).

No amount of sophistry changes this arrangement of the pecking order. 
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 5:54 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 5:54 pm

I'm the opposite of a NAZI.  I believe in freedom not tyranny.

And Fascism is little different from Bolshevism.  Fascism is just socialism which favors a portion of the population.  More specifically it normally means favoring only those in society who produce for the collective more than they consume.  Of course in the case of Fascism the NAZI's decided who was contributing above consumption.  Only Aryans were deemed worthy of sharing in the equal distribution of wealth under socialism.  All others were to be worked to death and deprivation or exterminated outright in the case of the mentally retarded and the criminals.  And of course the Jews.

"Freedumb" and "tyranny" are just buzz words. They mean whatever the wielder of the terms want them to mean...so those words are meaningless (a similar case can be made for the term "anti-Semitism").

Germans from 1933-1938 most certainly felt more "free" being able to live productive and happier lives, not live in shambles and severe poverty wrought upon them by (((the ones responsible for the Great Depression))), etc.

Other than the fact your points about Nazism are (were) almost 100% incorrect, this wasn't a bad post. XD

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm

Capitalism includes the contribution of those who as part of the agreement provide the tools necessary for more efficient production.  If I build a machine to create women's hairpins (to take an example from Adam Smith) this machine and it's proceeds are by all rights mine.  If you and I enter into an agreement were you work at my enterprise utilizing my machine in exchange for work I am contributing my labor (i.e. the hairpin machine) as well.  Between the two of us we must agree on a free and fair trade.  This is true whether I built the hairpin machine or purchased it from someone else with the proceeds from my other perhaps unrelated efforts.

For instance say we agree that I pay you $1,000/week to work 40 hours at my machine and I get to keep the product.  I too have contributed to the production of the product.  Or we could agree that you pay me $500 per week to use my machine and you get to keep the product.  It's completely up to us to come to some kind of agreement.  Capitalism is merely free enterprise with a recognition that capital is a part of production.  That capital and it's ownership is merely an affirmation that the machine is my rightful property to do with as I please.

At its core capitalism is just the recognition of the Right to Property.

Capitalism was actually a term coined by Karl Marx describing a "political economy" where capital accumulation and wage labor would begin to take hold. In pre-capitalist societies (agrarian/feudal, slave labor, hunter-gatherer), Marx argued, there was not enough "Surplus value" to create a class of "bourgeoisie" - the owners of the means of production. 

What you describe is not "capitalism" - it is merely individuals participating in market transactions.

I don't blame you for this misunderstanding because your Libertarian propaganda masters misled you into thinking that "capitalism is just a natural state of affairs - people trading with each other through freedom of association." I know this because at the age of 15, I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and participated in some libertarian group discussions. It was only 6-8 months later I de-programmed myself (as a teenager...heh) by reading outside sources.

There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about free transactions - we already know that such market participants conducting trade can lead to "market equilibrium" AKA Pareto efficient outcomes, at least in your Econ 1 classroom whiteboards.

(Whether this happens in reality is debatable)

What you presumably wish to argue is that if 2 people enter into some kind of contractual agreement, some "3rd party" (the State, other individuals) do not have a right to interfere with said terms of contract (e.g. via minimum wage laws) because it violates Libertarian sacrosanct property rights. This is, once again, problematic for the Libertarian since they have never properly defined the parameters of "said property rights."

Back in reality: if (((Monsanto-Bayer))), another corporation owned by (((Tiny Hats))) decides to sue family owned farms because said family farms allegedly violated "seed patent" (intellectual property) rights, then the courts will side with (((Monsanto-Bayer))) almost every time because the courts are stuffed with corrupt/cowardly corporate plants. 

(Because seed patents are so sacred...to the Libertarian. lol...and Libertarianism is totally not Jewish-funded propaganda to eliminate any barriers to rent-seeking/parasitic activity)

 
 

LowIQTrash » 28 Dec 2022, 3:54 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2022, 3:54 am

Capitalism was actually a term coined by Karl Marx describing a "political economy" where capital accumulation and wage labor would begin to take hold. In pre-capitalist societies (agrarian/feudal, slave labor, hunter-gatherer), Marx argued, there was not enough "Surplus value" to create a class of "bourgeoisie" - the owners of the means of production. 

What you describe is not "capitalism" - it is merely individuals participating in market transactions.

I don't blame you for this misunderstanding because your Libertarian propaganda masters misled you into thinking that "capitalism is just a natural state of affairs - people trading with each other through freedom of association." I know this because at the age of 15, I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and participated in some libertarian group discussions. It was only 6-8 months later I de-programmed myself (as a teenager...heh) by reading outside sources.

There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about free transactions - we already know that such market participants conducting trade can lead to "market equilibrium" AKA Pareto efficient outcomes, at least in your Econ 1 classroom whiteboards.

(Whether this happens in reality is debatable)

What you presumably wish to argue is that if 2 people enter into some kind of contractual agreement, some "3rd party" (the State, other individuals) do not have a right to interfere with said terms of contract (e.g. via minimum wage laws) because it violates Libertarian sacrosanct property rights. This is, once again, problematic for the Libertarian since they have never properly defined the parameters of "said property rights."

Back in reality: if (((Monsanto-Bayer))), another corporation owned by (((Tiny Hats))) decides to sue family owned farms because said family farms allegedly violated "seed patent" (intellectual property) rights, then the courts will side with (((Monsanto-Bayer))) almost every time because the courts are stuffed with corrupt/cowardly corporate plants. 

(Because seed patents are so sacred...to the Libertarian. lol...and Libertarianism is totally not Jewish-funded propaganda to eliminate any barriers to rent-seeking/parasitic activity)

Libertar(d)ians need to stop punching themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMIHxSXRlG8
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 1:57 am » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 1:57 am

I've been asked and answered this question several times.  Likely by you.  You seem to think this is a question which furthers your argument in some manner.  It doesn't.  It is merely a Red Herring.  It is a brain dead query quite frankly and not at all relevant for serious contemplation.

No system of government can exist without a system of government.  So all governments which have ever existed cannot be devoid of government.  So the hell what?  Ask a completely stupid question and you get a stupid answer.  But the answer is correct as you framed the question.

Government provision of ANY function is by definition socialist in some regard.  For instance having a judicial system of any kind would rightly be considered a socialist endeavor.  Any taxes which are expended for the common good (in this case to provide for judicial review) would be considered socialism.  So without socialism there are no government functions conducted.  Without taxation it would be a strange endeavor indeed for government to conduct any function of import beyond charitable contributions of labor from its citizens.

Your implication is equivalent to stating "without taxation you can't have government so socialism is the only valid system".  This doesn't pass philosophical reasoning conventions and is obviously just useless contemplation designed to gain a hollow victory.  The posing an illogical question irrelevant to the inquiry.  The insinuation is that any form of government requires some form of government and therefore capitalism can't exist so it is invalid.  I will concede the point with uproarious laughter and ascendancy.

Your Libertarian propaganda masters sold you on the concept that any sort of public services/provisions is "socialism." That statement is beyond absurd. 

Every functioning civilization since 10000 BC had public works and public services - only difference is the extent and quality to which said "commons" were provided. The vast majority of those civilizations were not "socialist." 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 29 Dec 2022, 2:03 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2022, 2:03 am

Your Libertarian propaganda masters sold you on the concept that any sort of public services/provisions is "socialism." That statement is beyond absurd. 

Every functioning civilization since 10000 BC had public works and public services - only difference is the extent and quality to which said "commons" were provided. The vast majority of those civilizations were not "socialist."

Where did that guy get off to?
 

FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 5:09 pm

Ethical work is that which advances your people imo. 

When we lived in homogeneous societies that was anything that was useful to your society. 

Now we don't. It is a hard question to answer which work is good. I don't want to slave for a racial enemy.

Since when is work done to accomplish a personal goal "slaving for a racial enemy".
I have no racial enemies, I see no reason for any.

FOS » 29 Dec 2021, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 5:09 pm

Ethical work is that which advances your people imo. 

When we lived in homogeneous societies that was anything that was useful to your society. 

Now we don't. It is a hard question to answer which work is good. I don't want to slave for a racial enemy.

Since when is work done to accomplish a personal goal "slaving for a racial enemy".
I have no racial enemies, I see no reason for any.
 

Xavier_Onassis » 31 May 2023, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

31 May 2023, 10:11 am

Since when is work done to accomplish a personal goal "slaving for a racial enemy".
I have no racial enemies, I see no reason for any.

you are, as always, falsely assuming that the only way to have a racial enemy is to imagine that you have one. you are not making any point about being correct...you are just confessing ignorance.

Xavier_Onassis » 30 May 2023, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

30 May 2023, 6:41 pm

Since when is work done to accomplish a personal goal "slaving for a racial enemy".
I have no racial enemies, I see no reason for any.

Your enemy is instinctive awareness from anyone navigating space with their brain while you suggest everyone mind their grammar and rule of law typecasting them into stereotyped behavior patterns commanding ancestors stay in character or else.