Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ann Coulte on Libertarians


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#16    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,846 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:50 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 23 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

And when people are more focused on these things rather than the economy and jobs, I can understand when she says that Libertarians suck up to Socialists.  That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.
The economy and jobs aren't the responsibility of government.  To believe otherwise is an endorsement of "the public sector" and the statist belief that our employment comes from the government, that our unemployment rate comes down via the White House (Mitt Romney).

To say that Libertarians suck up to Socialists couldn't be further from the truth.   Libertarians want the government out of our production and out of our economy, out of our wallets and out of our lives.   It's the only way to oppose the Socialism you allege to hate so much, but you want to take the republican party tack instead, which supports using the government the same way the democrats do, but with different spending priorities.  Instead of coming into our bathroom and telling us what kind of toilet to flush, Ann wants to come into our bedroom and tell us what kind of marriage to have, and suddenly that's not socialist?   Don't kid yourself.

Libertarians say:  Democrats/socialists/liberals can't take the money and spend it however they like, and you can't either, Ann Coulter.  Conservatives want us to believe that big republican-party government isn't big government.  They need a serious wake up call, and that's the reason I posted this OP.   It isn't to blaspheme Ann Coulter; that's too easy.  There are much deeper waters here and much bigger fish to fry.  I'd rather highlight and expose the abject hypocrisy in republican-party thinking, figures like Ann Coulter are just a case in point.

Ann Coulter is obviously not just an empty-headed voice box.  I think it's clear by the video that she really believes in what she says/thinks.  She's fundamentally flawed in her reasoning however, and I'll point out a few of the ways how that's so in future replies.   For now, suffice to say, I think her positions need to be challenged instead of either agreed with or silently rejected/ignored.

Edited by Yamato, 23 February 2013 - 11:07 PM.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#17    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Common Sense Aficionado

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:59 PM

View PostYamato, on 23 February 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

The economy and jobs aren't the responsibility of government.  To believe otherwise is an endorsement of "the public sector" and the statist belief that our employment comes from the government, that our unemployment rate comes down via the White House (Mitt Romney).

To say that Libertarians suck up to Socialists couldn't be further from the truth.   Libertarians want the government out of our production and out of our economy, out of our wallets and out of our lives.   It's the only way to oppose the Socialism you allege to hate so much, but you want to take the republican party tack instead, which supports using the government the same way the democrats do, but with different spending priorities.  Instead of coming into our bathroom and telling us what kind of toilet to flush, Ann wants to come into our bedroom and tell us what kind of marriage to have, and suddenly that's not socialist?   Don't kid yourself.

Edit: Libertarians say:  Democrats/socialists/liberals can't take the money and spend it however they like, and you can't either, Ann Coulter.  Conservatives want to believe that big republican government isn't big government.  They need a serious wake up call and that's the reason I posted this OP.

Correct Ann just wants a republican version of what the dems have at the moment,both want everyone to live their way.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#18    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,762 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:04 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 23 February 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

She's one of those professional contraversialists, isn't she; people like that base their whole careers on saying outrageous things. q.v. in britain: Julie Burchill or Jeremy Clarkson.
Clarkson says **** to get a reaction, he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, he's like the Fool in the King's Court who can say things just to have them said. Coulter does believe what she says..

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#19    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 24 February 2013 - 01:55 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 23 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

She is very misunderstood.  I disagree with her approach but I understand where she is coming from.  It's not that she's anti-gay or whatever but anti-Liberal.  She does have a point in that there are far more important issues to deal with than drug legalization and gay marriage.  And when people are more focused on these things rather than the economy and jobs, I can understand when she says that Libertarians suck up to Socialists.  That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.

I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and drug use be legal as well.  But these are social issues and a healthy society can regulate these things.  But these things are not where the government belongs to either legalize something or not.  We need jobs and a truly Free Market.  That is the only focus.  That is the only solution and the sooner we exercise Socialism from our system the better.  This current course is only going to lead to collapse.  That is my prediction and it's not a stretch to see.  At least for those that can still see.

  Sorry RavenHawk.. i just couldn't let it slide :   exorcise |ˈeksôrˌsīz, ˈeksər-|(also exorcize )
verb [ with obj. ]drive out or attempt to drive out (an evil spirit) from a person or place: an attempt to exorcise an unquiet spirit | figurative : inflation has been exorcised.• rid (a person or place) of an evil spirit: infants were exorcised prior to baptism.
ORIGIN late Middle English: from French exorciser or ecclesiastical Latinexorcizare, from Greek exorkizein, from ex- ‘out’ + horkos ‘oath.’ The word originally meant ‘conjure up or command an evil spirit’; the specific sense of driving out an evil spirit dates from the mid 16th cent.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#20    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 23 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.
Now I'm in Vietnam so I only hear about Ms Coulter here, and she sounds pretty awful, but I will leave that alone and comment on what you say.  You seem to want to associate everything bad in the world with those nasty people called "socialists."  I wonder what your understanding of that word might actually be.  They don't have horns, I do know that much.

Quote

I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and drug use be legal as well.
Sounds like you are pretty much an out-of-the box conservative, so why do you try to imply otherwise unless it is to perhaps increase your credibility.  It doesn't work when you make such admissions.

Quote

But these are social issues and a healthy society can regulate these things.  But these things are not where the government belongs to either legalize something or not.  We need jobs and a truly Free Market.  That is the only focus.  That is the only solution and the sooner we exercise Socialism from our system the better.  This current course is only going to lead to collapse.  That is my prediction and it's not a stretch to see.  At least for those that can still see.
I don't think you want a truly free market.  All societies by necessity have to be mixes of government and private enterprise, and where on the particular scale a given society can be found has a lot to do with history and their phase of development.

In fact, I think I might agree with you that the US has a little too much socialism.  Get rid of the post office and privatize secondary education for two things.  A little competition for those institutions appears needed.

But do not forget your obligations to your elders, to the handicapped, to the children, and, yes, to the poor.


#21    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:01 PM

Work calls or I would have responded to this sooner.  I want to try to explain this to you.

View PostFrank Merton, on 24 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

You seem to want to associate everything bad in the world with those nasty people called socialists.  
Absolutely!!!

So now let me try to explain.  It's really quite simple.  Firstly, please watch a study the following 10min clip:

Active content removed Active content removed

It is very simplistic but it is suppose to be.  The whole idea is to make it easy to understand.  If you have too many questions, then you defeat the purpose of the clip.

Quote

I wonder what your understanding of that word might actually be.  They don't have horns, I do know that much.
Yes, they do have horns.  Anytime government takes a little more from the people, a new horn grows out.  No government, no matter how benevolent can guarantee that it will not infringe upon the individual.  The confusion comes in that there are many different types of governing and that's not where the problem is.  We could sit here and define Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Monarchy, and even Democracy.  We'll find that they all have distinct differences.  But I cut through all of this by saying that it isn't the differences that matter.  It is the one thing they all have in common.  And if you caught on to that clip, you'll understand that all these forms tend to approach 100% control over the people.  When the government infringes on the Rights of the people, it robs a little more of their freedom.  It is an ongoing process of attrition crossing generations at times.  I'm not talking about traffics laws.  I'm talking about little things like in Iceland where they dictate what you can name your children.  Or other nations that raise taxes for wealth redistribution for whatever need.  Or enslaving the populace with dole.  Humans are not cattle and do not do well being nannied.  There is always revolution at the end of Authoritarian governments.  Yet that is what happens when government gets bigger and bigger.  It gets more authoritarian.  And the people eventually only become batteries for the state.  

That's why I call it Socialism.  Because it is a perversion of the *accepted* definition of Socialism.  Below is that definition do you agree?

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Now if you agree with that, there are two ways to read that.  One is naive and suckers people into the trap and is the basis for every nation on this planet.  One can separate the two meanings with the simple question of "who controls the resources"?  The Socialism that people are sold on is the one that answers that no one does, those decisions are just made for benefit of the whole.  But the reality is that there is some ruling elite that dictates the allocation of those resources.  At that point, the people are artificially divided into haves and have-nots.  All depending on whether you tote the party line.

The reality is that if the people actually controlled these resources then the economic form would be a free market with very limited government.  In a free market, people do not work in isolation but depend on their self interest to cooperate with each other.  When you work for yourself with the promise that what you earn is yours benefits the whole as that generates more opportunity.

People are not all the same, so you can't treat them all the same.  When a government does treat everyone the same, then it must do so accordingly to the least person.  That is forced enslavement by the government.  Without government involvement people rise to their level, whatever that may be.  By yoking that, you can raise all boats, instead of restricting everyone.  I believe Goldwater or Ford said "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" but Reagan stated it profoundly.

Quote

Sounds like you are pretty much an out-of-the box conservative, so why do you try to imply otherwise unless it is to perhaps increase your credibility.  It doesn't work when you make such admissions.
Yes, I am definitely an out-of-the box conservative but I don't understand why you say that I imply otherwise??  I don't need to increase my credibility.  It is solid and firm.  If you disagree then I would say that you need to look to your own foundation.

Quote

I don't think you want a truly free market.  All societies by necessity have to be mixes of government and private enterprise, and where on the particular scale a given society can be found has a lot to do with history and their phase of development.
Government has a role to play, especially in oversight but from the clip "The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government".  That's all that matters.  There is no government on this planet that is still in its proper place.  And ultimately, that is the fault of the people for letting that happen.

Quote

In fact, I think I might agree with you that the US has a little too much socialism.
Socialism has been creeping into our system for over a century now.  With this current Regime, it has pushed the last vestiges of a Constitutional Republic to its limits.  This current President thinks that he is Peter the Great and plans on dragging us into a Socialist 21th Century kicking and screaming.  I think it is only a matter of time before we see riots in the street and civil unrest here.  But why should we be different than any other place?  We've all heard about the Muslim Spring.  Is an American Spring coming?  France or Greece may beat us to it.

Quote

Get rid of the post office and privatize secondary education for two things.  A little competition for those institutions appears needed.
I don't think getting rid of the Post Office is ever going to happen.  It was the brain child of Franklin and was instituted by Washington.  But it can go through great reform.  The PO should rent its buildings to Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc. and use what it makes to maintain these buildings and print stamps.  And of course, administer zip codes.  People are still going to need easy accessible PO boxes.

Let's just strip down the DOEd to bare bones.  Let the states handle primary and secondary education, then follow that up with a mandatory two year military enlistment where time will be allotted for college prep.  From there, the individual will have their choice of following a military career or go into college or neither.

Quote

But do not forget your obligations to your elders, to the handicapped, to the children, and, yes, to the poor.
Agreed, but it's not the place of government to see that they are taken care of.  It's the place of society.  True Socialism is not in the despotism of government.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#22    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:57 AM

I've long suspected that RavenHawk IS Ann Coulter. But then, who knows....

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#23    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,029 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

View PostRavenHawk, on 27 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Work calls or I would have responded to this sooner.  I want to try to explain this to you.


Absolutely!!!

So now let me try to explain.  It's really quite simple.  Firstly, please watch a study the following 10min clip:

Active content removed Active content removed


I feel vaguely disappointed that I can't watch the following 10 min clip. I rather suspect it might have been rather fun. :-(

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#24    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:46 AM

I will say he would be more effective if he would leave off the pyrotechnics.

I think a certain amount of socialism is inevitable; a certain amount of private market economy is too.  Private markets left to themselves lead sooner or later (generally sooner) to monopolies or at least pseudo-monopolies (where the parties are encouraged to not be competitive).

Then, again, there are some things where a monopoly is the best way to organize it, in which case it either has to be the state doing it or the monopoly has to be heavily regulated (might as well be the state).

The Vietnamese experience convinces me that pure Communist-style socialism doesn't work because it takes away the motivation people normally have to work hard to make money, distasteful as that analysis might be.  Maybe someday we won't need people to do the work, and can have everything in a model of socialist enterprise, and do away with both greed and want, but that's a big maybe.


#25    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 28 February 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

I will say he would be more effective if he would leave off the pyrotechnics.
For the benefit of the blind, bigger is always better.

Quote

I think a certain amount of socialism is inevitable;

"Logic is on our side: this isn't a case of a world struggle between two divergent ideologies, of different economic systems. Every day your country becomes more socialistic, my country becomes more capitalistic. Pretty soon we will meet in the middle and join hands. No, my dear doctor; you're going to defect because you want to live."

I suppose that some is inevitable but not in the middle.  Maybe 10% or so.  I could see a government supplied safety net or more like Gore's Lockbox with some gawd awful amount, say $1 Trillion that is available to those in need for whatever purpose.  The catch is that as soon as you pull from this lockbox, you become responsible for paying it back or perhaps Pay-it-forward.  Now if you are unable to pay it back, then it passes to your offspring and they become responsible.  

One argument against this Administration is that it is putting future generations in debt with its tax and spend Socialism.  A solution as I've mentioned would make it individual responsibility.  What kind of parent puts their children into debt?  Ultimately, this may not be Socialism, but it's as close as I want to be.  I do not like being in the position of having the government force itself on me and having to *accept* it as normal.

Quote

a certain amount of private market economy is too.  Private markets left to themselves lead sooner or later (generally sooner) to monopolies or at least pseudo-monopolies
No not necessarily.  Prosperity does not always lead to monopolies.  You even acknowledge as much by CYA with the pseudo-monopoly comment (a monopoly is a monopoly).  What leads to monopoly is a lack of competition.  

Quote

(where the parties are encouraged to not be competitive).
I don't think you understand what a free market is.  It's not about *just selling things*.  Its nature alone encourages competition.  It's the basis of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".  It's when government infringes via heavy regulation that causes it to not be competitive.  Government infringement makes people lazy.  East Germany before the wall came down is probably the ultimate example.  The thing that controls monopolies is the consumer.  If there is a monopoly that runs amok, it's the fault of the consumer.  It's the well informed and well educated consumer that drives the market and therefore controls what business does.  Last year the credit card companies were instituting extra fees.  When the public became aware, the credit card companies were inundated with negative comments, so much so that they rescinded those fees.  That's how the free market works, not government regulation.  So the best thing that government can do is to educate the public on the free market.  Encourage the people to be entrepreneurs.  This will allow the best to rise and the rest to follow, all at their own rate.  That benefits a nation better than forcing everyone to fit a certain mold.  A nation whose individuals do things for themselves is a stronger nation than one in which it nannies its people.  Socialism is just an indicator of narcissistic leadership.

Quote

Then, again, there are some things where a monopoly is the best way to organize it, in which case it either has to be the state doing it or the monopoly has to be heavily regulated (might as well be the state).
A monopoly is not the trademark of free enterprise.  The only regulation that is needed is that of the well educated consumer.  Monopolies are not always the best way to organize things.  The chaos of a free market is usually the best.

Quote

The Vietnamese experience convinces me that pure Communist-style socialism doesn't work because it takes away the motivation people normally have to work hard to make money, distasteful as that analysis might be.
Well, hello!

Quote

Maybe someday we won't need people to do the work,
That will never happen.  People need to work to live.  We were made to toil.  Not just work to provide sustenance but the work itself is what we need.  To build things ourselves, with our own two hands.  To accomplish, to succeed.  You don't get that if something is just handed to you.

Quote

and can have everything in a model of socialist enterprise,
Have you seen what happens to the humans in Wall-E?  That is what happens in such a utopia.  That is not the ultimate goal of man.  I know there are heavy religious aspects here but I don't want to go in that direction.

Quote

and do away with both greed and want, but that's a big maybe.
As the quote goes, greed is good.  When problems arise is when greed goes amok.  Greed is nothing more than you looking after your family and wanting the best for them.  Want is good if you can fulfill it.  Man is build to be able to fulfill want and need.  That is what builds community.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#26    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:43 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 04 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:


I suppose that some is inevitable but not in the middle.  Maybe 10% or so.  I could see a government supplied safety net or more like Gore's Lockbox with some gawd awful amount, say $1 Trillion that is available to those in need for whatever purpose.  The catch is that as soon as you pull from this lockbox, you become responsible for paying it back or perhaps Pay-it-forward.  Now if you are unable to pay it back, then it passes to your offspring and they become responsible.  

I think that the things that should be socialized to at least some extent are infrastructure, emergency healthcare, police/firefighters, basic education, and national defense. I disagree with the passing of the amount onto offspring. This social safety net you speak of should be like credit card debt. today only without interest or very little interest. It should be a loan to the people and only to a certain amount depending upon the cost of living in your area and the size of your family, income of your spouse, and so on. I do not think that this loan should be passed on to your children after you die.

Quote


One argument against this Administration is that it is putting future generations in debt with its tax and spend Socialism.  A solution as I've mentioned would make it individual responsibility.  What kind of parent puts their children into debt?  Ultimately, this may not be Socialism, but it's as close as I want to be.  I do not like being in the position of having the government force itself on me and having to *accept* it as normal.

Yes, this administration, and the last administration at least are both responsible for the present state of things. I also do not like being in the position of having government force itself on me either, but unfortunately some government intrusion into our lives is necessary in order to live in a civilized society- that is unless you can figure out a way to properly educate EVERY single human in that society and rid that society of all mental illness, hatred, and unhealthy greed.

Quote


No not necessarily.  Prosperity does not always lead to monopolies.  You even acknowledge as much by CYA with the pseudo-monopoly comment (a monopoly is a monopoly).  What leads to monopoly is a lack of competition.  

Yes you are correct that prosperity does not always lead to monopolies, the free-market itself does not lead to monopolies. But what does lead to monopolies in a purely free market is a competing company becoming the top dog (as they should if they are the best) That company then buying out and stomping out through price gouging and aggressive tactics the other competition, leaving only that one company left. Then that company now lacking competition and being the sole provider for said product/service can just sit on top, using its profit to crush competition even though the competition might be better than it. This is how a free market can fail, government regulation is needed to prevent this from happening. We cannot rely on the consumer, if you study modern marketing you would know this. Consumers are being manipulated all the time and can be controlled to some extent using marketing. If there was a way to properly educate everyone to guard against this then the Utopian theory of a perfectly free market would work, but in practice it does not work like this. There are far too many ignorant consumers out there that refuse to educate themselves and refuse to learn how to think empirically. These are the people that are the true enemy of the free market. Government merely exploits these people and their weaknesses to grab more and more power. It is the failure of the people that leads to authoritarian governments.

Quote


I don't think you understand what a free market is.  It's not about *just selling things*.  Its nature alone encourages competition.  It's the basis of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".  It's when government infringes via heavy regulation that causes it to not be competitive.  Government infringement makes people lazy.  East Germany before the wall came down is probably the ultimate example.  The thing that controls monopolies is the consumer.  If there is a monopoly that runs amok, it's the fault of the consumer.  It's the well informed and well educated consumer that drives the market and therefore controls what business does.  Last year the credit card companies were instituting extra fees.  When the public became aware, the credit card companies were inundated with negative comments, so much so that they rescinded those fees.  That's how the free market works, not government regulation.  So the best thing that government can do is to educate the public on the free market.  Encourage the people to be entrepreneurs.  This will allow the best to rise and the rest to follow, all at their own rate.  That benefits a nation better than forcing everyone to fit a certain mold.  A nation whose individuals do things for themselves is a stronger nation than one in which it nannies its people.  Socialism is just an indicator of narcissistic leadership.
Mostly agree with you here, but it is not only government that can make it not competitive. Very aggressive and power hungry corporations can also become too powerful (ie too big to fail) without any regulations and we have seen this in the past before unions when firms would have people working 12 hours a day 7 days a week, child labor, etc. Exploiting the people, who are unable to fight back because they are kept hanging off a financial cliff whereby if they lose their job they lose everything. So government must play some role and there must be some kind of regulation otherwise it is just corporate anarchy and the one with the biggest stick, not the best product, becomes top dog. A Utopian perfect free market does not exist, just like the liberal Utopian communism or socialism do not exist in reality.

Quote


A monopoly is not the trademark of free enterprise.  The only regulation that is needed is that of the well educated consumer.  Monopolies are not always the best way to organize things.  The chaos of a free market is usually the best.

Agreed that monopoly is not the trademark of free enterprise, it is more of a tumor on the side of a free enterprise market. Many monopolies are a direct result of government regulation and government interference in the market. Agreed that the only regulation that is needed is that of the well educated consumer, BUT we are not a nation full of well educated consumers, we are a nation of many differing opinions, many people do not use logic and reasoning to make decisions. So if you are relying on well educated consumers to regulate the market then we need to totally reform and re-do our education system in this country. If you rely on that then be prepared for corporations to spend those billions of dollars that they now spend on lobbying the government, to be spent on more and more invasive forms of marketing to change our opinions. They already spend billions on marketing to influence the mass perception of their corporations, and it works. The well educated consumer...that would be nice! What an idea! If we could educate everyone to such a high degree of free thinking, why then we would not need any laws, because well educated people would simply make the best choices for themselves right? They would not use drugs, or rape, because they would just know better right? This is another libertarian fantasy ideal that looks great on paper, but in reality does not exist.


Quote

That will never happen.  People need to work to live.  We were made to toil.  Not just work to provide sustenance but the work itself is what we need.  To build things ourselves, with our own two hands.  To accomplish, to succeed.  You don't get that if something is just handed to you.

I could not agree more with you here.

Quote


Have you seen what happens to the humans in Wall-E?  That is what happens in such a utopia.  That is not the ultimate goal of man.  I know there are heavy religious aspects here but I don't want to go in that direction.

I love that movie and I think it does an excellent job of showing the end result of a society in which all work is done by machines.

Quote

As the quote goes, greed is good.  When problems arise is when greed goes amok.  Greed is nothing more than you looking after your family and wanting the best for them.  Want is good if you can fulfill it.  Man is build to be able to fulfill want and need.  That is what builds community.

Healthy greed is good yes, the greed of wanting to make your life better, do more, have more, that is good. It is envy and unhealthy greed that is bad for society.

Tradeoffs have to be made, A utopian purely free market society that relies on educated consumers to regulate it does not exist and it can not exist in reality unless we somehow can educate all consumers up to a certain standard, but given our education system and how some people will never learn no matter how hard you try, this system is just another idealist system that can not exist in reality as stated. Communism and socialism in their pure forms also can not exist in real life, people are just too different and too corruptible for these systems to work as intended.

I don't know what the best answer is, but in my opinion it lies on the free market side of the spectrum, with more power in the hands of individuals and less power in the hands of government, with reasonable regulations and a reasonable social safety net of some kind.


#27    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:58 PM

A constitutional attorney she was. Hopefully she itleast gets that bit right in her rantings.


#28    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,993 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:30 AM

View PostRavenHawk, on 04 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Have you seen what happens to the humans in Wall-E?  That is what happens in such a utopia.  That is not the ultimate goal of man.  I know there are heavy religious aspects here but I don't want to go in that direction.

I think you've misinterpreted that movie, RavenHawk. That's not what it's about at all. Has to do with the so-called Global Warming trend and the possible future of mankind. It's a movie that was probably influenced by Al Gore, if anything.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#29    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:17 AM

I didn't really see any global warming parallels in Wall-E.  The downfall of earth was rampant consumerism.  The Buy-n-Large megacorporation basically covered the planet in garbage and had to evacuate everyone into space.  Humans then basically became fat consumers while the robots did all the work.


#30    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,993 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:27 AM

View PostGromdor, on 05 March 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

I didn't really see any global warming parallels in Wall-E.  The downfall of earth was rampant consumerism.  The Buy-n-Large megacorporation basically covered the planet in garbage and had to evacuate everyone into space.  Humans then basically became fat consumers while the robots did all the work.

Oh yes, that was part of it as well. But here is the gist about all of the societal problems in the movie, as stated in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....ann.2C_2009_6-1


Quote

WALL-E, besides being entertaining, is also seen as a critique on larger societal issues. This film addresses consumerism, nostalgia, environmental problems, waste management, and the immense impact that humans have on the earth. There is also a rather major overarching theme through this movie, which is issues of human nature, and the direction that the human race is headed. WALL-E is seen as a movie that appeals to both conservative and liberal audiences.


It's also ironic they would say "WALL-E is seen as a movie that appeals to both conservative and liberal audiences".

Indeed, apparently so.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users