I've joined the Libertarian Party... - General

[quote=s0beit] It isn't a question of "Why do they deserve to keep their inheritance?", it's a question of "What gives you the right to take it?" Just because it may be to fund the poor, just because it may be used to fix roads or build tanks, doesn't mean robbery is justified. If the self-made millionaire made the money he should be able to spend it in a way he desires, not in a way you desire.[/quote] So your saying that it doesnt matter how fucked up things get as long as they get to keep there money and no one has to pay taxes. Im sorry I would rather have people have food on there plate even if it means no new swimming pool for rich guy. Think about it tax is like paying to be protected. The government helps you scientifically and creates laws so you dont get killed and in return you feed the homeless.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29078027]Reading this thread is akin to bashing my head once on the wall for every post. So far 479 bashes and counting.[/QUOTE] its every extreme of the political compass pissing at each other lmao

[QUOTE=Shooter;29077967]You have a point. How ignorant [i]do you[/i] have to be? [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [/QUOTE] Im sorry but your just plainly wrong if you think they like there life the way it is and dont want to change it. This is what it all boils down to.

[QUOTE=Shooter;29077967]You have a point. How ignorant [i]do you[/i] have to be?[/QUOTE] If you haven't noticed, people can't get a job because of the little thing called: recession. When it struck us, people lost jobs all across the world. It still is hard to get a job because of the following reasons: 1. Even with an education, it isn't easy to get a job. 2. Even with "work ethic" as you put it, you can still be denied (As I was) because they pick other people. 3. If you live in the country-side it is even more hard to get a job since most jobs are located in the city. 4. Even if you live in the city, there is so much competition for jobs, alot of people might get your job. 5. Depending on where you live in the world, it can be easier or tougher.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29078027]Reading this thread is akin to bashing my head once on the wall for every post. So far 479 bashes and counting.[/QUOTE] im hoping the next one kills you given how stupid you are

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078001]"prove it xd" but really, life isnt fair. the social ladder is there for a reason. if someone acquires that quantity of money through legal means then you have no right to direct how they use it, you manipulative fuck. keep in mind that i use the term legal loosely.[/QUOTE] I don't think "life isn't fair" should be a justification for the exploitation of millions of people tbh.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078063]If you haven't noticed, people can't get a job because of the little thing called: recession.[/QUOTE] recession due mostly to government regulations and rules on subprime lending, idiot

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29077914]then explain how you could statistically prove in a mass-scale study with [b]conclusive[/b] evidence that people exploit social services rather than using it to better their own lives? let me tell you, its only proven through life experience. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. i could argue the same point about god and it would hold up strongly. i suggest you abandon this close-minded point of view. clearly, if you took a trip down to your local government-subsidized housing neighborhoods/projects youd find a lot of people who have no intention or ethic of advancing the quality of their lives. i know i have.[/QUOTE] If it isn't provable, you can't make such a specific claim as "the majority of people who use social services abuse them". You can't say it's unprovable, and then turn around and tell me you still know it's true through "life experience", seeing as we don't know what those experiences are.

ShivanCommander im sorry but not only are you wrong but your wrongness would stop people from getting food because you think all the poor people are lazy. You have no idea what its like to be poor.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078066]im hoping the next one kills you given how stupid you are[/QUOTE] Yes, but has then you not come on down over the then up again for want to go far to do?

[QUOTE=Robbobin;29078081]I don't think "life isn't fair" should be a justification for the exploitation of millions of people tbh.[/QUOTE] what baffles me about your logic is that you believe you can alter the inevitable. clearly you have no grip on reality.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078090]recession due mostly to government regulations and rules on subprime lending, idiot[/QUOTE] I thought it had to do with the banks and that housing thing.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078090]recession due mostly to government regulations and rules on subprime lending, idiot[/QUOTE] Too much regulation is the issue? Do elaborate.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078101]If it isn't provable, you can't make such a specific claim as "the majority of people who use social services abuse them". You can't say it's unprovable, and then turn around and tell me you still know it's true through "life experience", seeing as we don't know what those experiences are.[/QUOTE] my point is youre trying to be objective on something that is only acquired through subjective means. thanks for missing it entirely. must be all that nonsense commie logic about altering the natural order of human nature. [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29078119]I thought it had to do with the banks and that housing thing.[/QUOTE] thats what subprime lending derives from

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29078027]Reading this thread is akin to bashing my head once on the wall for every post. So far 479 bashes and counting.[/QUOTE] Don't worry my undying lord, Emperor, who sits on the golden throne. I declare Exterminatus on the heretics of this discussion. I hereby sign the death warrant and consign 2 souls to oblivion. The Emperor (Sobotnik) protects.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078120]Too much regulation is the issue? Do elaborate.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis[/url] for starters jew bankers pushed their agenda for americans to refinance their homes and for the government to force banks to give loans to unqualified people because "THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO A HOME" [highlight](User was banned for this post ("antisemitism" - GunFox))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29077884]I'm not economically inclined enough? What does that even mean? I understand it's a critique of the current system as a whole, and not just socialized medicine, but I was addressing the parts about socialized medicine, as that was what we were talking about.[/quote] Well then that's the disconnect, i can't reply to this any further as it's clear it was a misunderstanding [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29077884] Not of 'Yours'? Who? You mean the system I live in? Of course a critique of medicine in general is not a critique of socialized medicine, but an endorsement of entirely free market medicine while detailed the negatives of the polar opposite is a critique of socialized medicine.[/quote] There are negatives to every system, it's just the amount of negative you are willing to bear or if it conflicts with your own personal philosophy. His points against social medicine were not as good as his points for free market medicine, granted, but he has some decent proposals in there. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29077884] Perhaps in America, the medical sector is indeed broken and unfair, but to make such a statement as "the free market is the only thing that has worked" is just false. Prices in socialized medicine aren't higher. [b]How would the Free Market be better at addressing price issues[/b]? It would just be better to have everyone have access to medicine that's paid for beforehand, rather than having to worry about paying for insurance on your own. It benefits everyone.[/quote] To understand that you would have to learn a bit about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem]Economic Calculation Problem[/url], without consumer input there can never be a basis for pricing goods or distributing goods efficiently enough to meet the demand (or lack thereof). You can use other market systems as a basis for comparison, though. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29077884] I wouldn't call the American market an entirely free one, because it's not. You're right, that would be ignorant. However, in times when there have been entirely free markets, it hasn't worked out that well.[/quote] How hasn't it? If you're going back to the 1800s the only reason it didn't work out well is because they knew as much about medicine today as we know about quantum physics today. It isn't a fair comparison at all. If you're going back to the 1950s it really wasn't that bad at all. Healthcare was cheap and (somewhat) effective but the technology problem still remained. You can't look at the wild west and see them treating cancer with opium and say, see, free market failure either. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29077884] Need I really point to countries where socialized medicine has turned out better than many other nation's systems? [/quote] I have no doubt that your system may very well be scientifically better than other systems out there, but it's destined (in my opinion) for horrible outcome. If the government ever runs a horrible deficit or approaches a point where it can't afford people's medicine at the same value it could today, then what? Everyone under the system will suffer? It doesn't seem completely fair to me. I don't just mean the rich, either. Furthermore, how do you address the government control problem? By that i mean, how do you address the fact that governments have gotten more intrusive through social medicine in their citizen's lifestyle choices, living in an unhealthy manner and that it costs more to pay for things like smoker's illnesses through social medicine than the common person? It is in your government's best interest to control their lives and take the free will of them away. Even if you say it's for their own good, you'd need to concede it's still forcing them to act a certain way. That is something i would disagree with. How is drug policy factored into the social healthcare system? How are drug laws to be reformed under such a system? How are other things that might effect the health of the citizen factored into the equation? Fatty foods, too much soda, driving unsafely? It just becomes too far reaching for my own taste, even beyond the scope of simple living regulations. It would form laws around it strictly on the basis that the government is footing the bill for your lifestyle and the lifestyles of others. If you say they have no motivation to control the individual it'd be a lie, if you say it's for their own good we don't have much more to talk about because to me, freedom is paramount. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078120]Too much regulation is the issue? Do elaborate.[/QUOTE] It was really more of a banking regulation issue, banks knew they could never lose so handing out loans which were not payable were easier for them. The government's banking regulations actually incentivised them to be lying, cheating fuckers.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29078105]Yes, but has then you not come on down over the then up again for want to go far to do?[/QUOTE] Look at his post count hes just a troll.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078124]my point is youre trying to be objective on something that is only acquired through subjective means. thanks for missing it entirely. must be all that nonsense commie logic about altering the natural order of human nature.[/QUOTE] If it's subject, you can't say that the "majority" do something. The word majority does have a definition you know. And Commie? Seriously? Even my avatar quite clearly says Socialist.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078090]recession due mostly to government regulations and rules on subprime lending, idiot[/QUOTE] Uh, I never said anything about why the recession came to place. I was mearly arguing against Shooter that even if you search and apply for jobs, it is still difficult to get a job.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078170]If it's subject, you can't say that the "majority" do something. The word majority does have a definition you know.[/quote] clearly it was an estimation based on personal experience, and by now i wouldve expected you to infer from that, but clearly you havent [quote]And Commie? Seriously? Even my avatar quite clearly says Socialist.[/QUOTE] it was a joke, calm yourself child [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078183]Uh, I never said anything about why the recession came to place. I was mearly arguing against Shooter that even if you search and apply for jobs, it is still difficult to get a job.[/QUOTE] your swedish safety net bullshit says it all to me

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078170]If it's subject, you can't say that the "majority" do something. The word majority does have a definition you know. And Commie? Seriously? Even my avatar quite clearly says Socialist.[/QUOTE] Like I said just report. Look at his post count and his posts hes just a troll.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29078206]Like I said just report. Look at his post count and his posts hes just a troll.[/QUOTE] only ignorance would point you to such a conclusion. might as well report you too. [img]http://gyazo.com/0e4ad3bac7ce477f8aa58807a2e33d98.png[/img]

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078001]"prove it xd" but really, life isnt fair. the social ladder is there for a reason. if someone acquires that quantity of money through legal means then you have no right to direct how they use it, you manipulative fuck. keep in mind that i use the term legal loosely.[/QUOTE]No, there's no way to justify that some people in America have multiple billions of money while others are under the poverty line. Government has all the right in the world to impose a proggressive tax in order to even out gaps.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078107]what baffles me about your logic is that you believe you can alter the inevitable. clearly you have no grip on reality.[/QUOTE] I find it more baffling that people are willing to rationalise the whole system by saying it's inalterable, or the best possible system, or that it's because of human nature. I don't want to live in a world where the number of millionaires grows by 10% (50% in India) every year, while the poorest classes in society get poorer and poorer. And neither should you.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29078140]I have no doubt that your system may very well be scientifically better than other systems out there, but it's destined (in my opinion) for horrible outcome. If the government ever runs a horrible deficit or approaches a point where it can't afford people's medicine at the same value it could today, then what? Everyone under the system will suffer? It doesn't seem completely fair to me. I don't just mean the rich, either.[/quote] Then simply have a system where both public and private hospitals exist. That is what I'd go for. [QUOTE=s0beit;29078140]How is drug policy factored into the social healthcare system? How are drug laws to be reformed under such a system? How are other things that might effect the health of the citizen factored into the equation?[/QUOTE] I'd say if they've been doing excessive amounts of heroin or something, then the treatment for that shouldn't be as free as if it was an illness outside of your control.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29078102]ShivanCommander im sorry but not only are you wrong but your wrongness would stop people from getting food because you think all the poor people are lazy. You have no idea what its like to be poor.[/QUOTE] Dude, I can barely afford an apartment.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29078253]Dude, I can barely afford an apartment.[/QUOTE] Then how do you say most poor people are lazy and don't want to better them selves? Thats just plain wrong.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078195]your swedish safety net bullshit says it all to me[/QUOTE] Why do you think a safety net for the public is a bad thing?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078135][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis[/url] for starters [b]jew[/b] bankers pushed their agenda for americans to refinance their homes and for the government to force banks to give loans to unqualified people because "THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO A HOME"[/QUOTE] WHAT?