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

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151430]Better to die free than live in a communist state.[/QUOTE] You realize that it isn't either communism or libertarianism right One could say you are forming a false dilemma

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151430]Better to die free than live in a communist state.[/QUOTE] You do know that Communism and Libertarianism both advocate a very weak federal government?

Communism advocates no government.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29154884]Communism advocates no government.[/QUOTE] Right, but either way they advocate less government than now.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]i have a question to challenge this logic: how do tobacco companies keep racking in new, young, first-time customers? people arent born addicted, and, like s0beit said, most of their advertising is banned.[/QUOTE] Yes, but as soon as you have a consumer, you'll have them hooked for a life-time. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]pharmaceutical companies go hand in hand with politicians. the amount of lobbying involved in the business is [url=http://spinwatch.org/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/168-big-pharma/639-george-bush-top-lobbyist-for-pharmaceutical]ridiculous.[/url] if the government is wiping their asses then of course they'll spend more money on advertising.[/QUOTE] How so? Please explain how this is relevant. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]prove it xd no, really. i'd like to see evidence.[/QUOTE] I can't find the statistics right now, because I'm horrible at searching and I'm tired, however, I'm pretty certain I read somewhere that, in total, around 400 billion was used on advertising alone in a year. A realistic guess would be at the very least 15% of the revenue would be spent on ads. Possibly more. But again I'm not at all sure. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]it really depends on the case on whether the development will stagnate, but mostly, no, it won't. if that logic is true, why are computers, tvs, game consoles, appliances, etc. getting better (just to mention one category)? if the quality of, for example, a beverage DROPS, not simply stagnates, people will become dissatisfied and buy a different one. a good example is New Coke.[/QUOTE] While it's true that electronic appliance companies and such rely heavily on new technology, other sectors (food companies, cosmetics, clothing, banking and so on) do not. Though, a sector such as pharmaceuticals which should really be heavily reliant on research, clearly spends more on ads than it should, so I don't know. I don't know anything about this New Coke thing. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]werent you blabbering on about how companies buy out eachother? there you go.[/QUOTE] I mentioned that revenue could be gained through the acquisition of other companies, yes, but I did not understand his counter-argument. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29149619]i would find it incredibly sad if anyone was so steeped in FDR-ian progressive bullshit. oh wait...[/QUOTE] To honest I do not know a lot about FDR, but from what I remember, he wasn't such a bad president... Or what? Didn't he do a lot for the civil rights movement? But then again, I guess in the eyes of a libertarian, that's a bad thing.

I can't beleive he said FDR was a bad president

[QUOTE=Taishu;29155835]Yes, but as soon as you have a consumer, you'll have them hooked for a life-time.[/quote] i dont understand what you meant by this. can you go into further detail? [quote]While it's true that electronic appliance companies and such rely heavily on new technology, other sectors (food companies, cosmetics, clothing, banking and so on) do not.[/quote] there are tons of food, cosmetics, and clothing companies that compete with eachother, which is a really poor example on your part. banking is heavily regulated by the government, so again, you've provided a weak example to support your case. learn a bit about Goldman Sachs and the banker bailout and you'll, in turn, learn about corporate welfare, something that true proponents of objectivism/libertarianism do [b]not[/b] advocate. [quote]Though, a sector such as pharmaceuticals which should really be heavily reliant on research, clearly spends more on ads than it should, so I don't know.[/quote] again, read what i showed you, and some more about lobbying and pharmaceuticals. [quote]I don't know anything about this New Coke thing.[/quote] google is your friend. [quote]I mentioned that revenue could be gained through the acquisition of other companies, yes, but I did not understand his counter-argument.[/quote] he was explaining, in part, what does on with the company being acquired. please understand proper context. [quote]To honest I do not know a lot about FDR, but from what I remember, he wasn't such a bad president... Or what? Didn't he do a lot for the civil rights movement? But then again, I guess in the eyes of a libertarian, that's a bad thing.[/QUOTE] the civil rights movement didnt take full swing until the 1960s. FDR died in 1945. youre thinking of JFK, and overall i think he wouldve, for the most part, been a good president. he was working on pulling troops out of vietnam, real civil rights reform, and best of all, systematically dismantling the Federal Reserve. one of my only gripes is that he advocated unrestricted deficit spending. your ad-hominem attacks are pretty weak, so i suggest you step it up a notch. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29156305]I can't beleive he said FDR was a bad president[/QUOTE] well, he certainly expanded the federal government for the worse considering the effects that show up today. that, and he drove us into enormous debt. think of how much of a colossal failure social security has been. how are those who have been paying into it for their entire lives going to be reimbursed given this current mess of a situation?

What reality are you in?

[QUOTE=amute;29156305]I can't beleive he said FDR was a bad president[/QUOTE] FDR never really did anything for America than give the country optimism during the depression. The war in the end saved the economy better than any of Roosevelt's programs. Do keep in mind after the war boom we were not that much better off than before mass-mobilization. Many of the decisions Roosevelt made during his presidency are still having negative effects to this very day.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;28983340]It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before. This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have. Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too fucking stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.[/QUOTE] *whacks head on keyboard*

[QUOTE=amute;29153548]Stepping over people?[/QUOTE] Yes, that's called competition and the free market isn't a field of poesies for everyone. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153613]Okay, why is it hard to explain that just because a company once had a quality product that they no longer had to keep quality once they had a large chunk of the market in their pocket and pumped money into advertising, buying out(You don't have to believe it, but you know, a lot of people WILL sell their businesses to make money off them, a lot of people go into business with that idea even) the competition you could buy out, then simply having enough adspace and product to overwhelm the other guys. Stepping over people doesn't hurt. It's not like this doesn't happen in the real world.[/QUOTE] Wow, those all sound like horrible things. Except not really. First, if you have a large "chunk" of the market (not in their pocket, that doesn't make sense) by making a quality product and then later reduce the quality i don't know how you expect to keep your market share. You might be able to draw in additional customers but from experience, once the new customers roll in and find out they're buying a shit product, it doesn't really last very long. People do buy things that suck, I'm not disputing that, but they won't [i]keep[/i] doing it. If somebody gets into the business just to sell their business how does this help the company? The company 'monopoly' you just described would be continuously losing money by buying a business that never intended to compete in the first place, it's a bad investment. Even when companies are bought out that doesn't ensure that everyone will sell out, it also doesn't mean the company that bought the competition will gut the competition or degrade it's quality automatically, otherwise, what's the point? How long do they keep this game up? Buying out competition that pops up due to their incompetence alone seems like a really easy way to waste money. It would be far better for the companies' bottom line to just improve their business and make ALL competitors and future competitors inferior in comparison. It covers all bases, it will prevent them from wasting money just to gut a company every single time a new competitor pops up. If companies are doing that now it's to their own loss. Eventually a competitor will pop up with superior service or prices who won't sell out and they'll be in seriously deep shit. [QUOTE=Taishu;29155835]Yes, but as soon as you have a consumer, you'll have them hooked for a life-time.[/quote] You didn't really answer the question there [QUOTE=Taishu;29155835]While it's true that electronic appliance companies and such rely heavily on new technology, other sectors (food companies, cosmetics, clothing, banking and so on) do not. Though, a sector such as pharmaceuticals which should really be heavily reliant on research, clearly spends more on ads than it should, so I don't know. I don't know anything about this New Coke thing.[/quote] That is just [b]so[/b] false. Food companies can find a way to refine foods faster or cheaper, cosmetics can offer something no other cosmetic companies offer (such as "moral" cosmetics not used on animals, specialized cosmetics that other companies don't offer, so on), clothing can always be improved by using new materials or making things faster, banking is a wholly different beast that i won't even argue about because they're just so fucked up thanks to our wonderful fiat currency system they're not even worth arguing for. [QUOTE=Taishu;29155835]I mentioned that revenue could be gained through the acquisition of other companies, yes, but I did not understand his counter-argument.[/quote] See above response to HumanAbyss [QUOTE=Taishu;29155835] To honest I do not know a lot about FDR, but from what I remember, he wasn't such a bad president... Or what? Didn't he do a lot for the civil rights movement? But then again, I guess in the eyes of a libertarian, that's a bad thing.[/QUOTE] He thought Benito Mussolini's fascist regime was pretty cool. He 'admired' it and portions of "The New Deal" were based directly off of his observations of Mussolini's society. I don't see how this is a good thing to anyone. [QUOTE=Taishu;29145100][url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm]Nope.[/url][/QUOTE] I said producing products not researching it, that article takes the net amount of advertising and compares it to the net amount of research spending, that is unscientific and irrelevant to my point. It also doesn't take into account other expenditures or what role money plays in research. Production costs, how much does research actually cost when they're only researching a few things? What about companies with no research division because they're just selling the product they already know how to make? Finally, this evidence may be anecdotal and irrelevant to some but I'd just like you to consider one thing: Have you ever met one person who bought medicine simply because the pharmaceutical industry advertised it on TV? I haven't, ever. If doctors are recommending it that seems alright with me, as long as they're confident it'll actually solve the problem, if not, it might be an issue to take up with the hospital's administrators. [editline]e[/editline] Also please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying advertising is totally irrelevant, it isn't. It helps to get your name out there and let people know you exist, what you can offer and such. This doesn't mean they can survive as a company on advertising alone or by selling an inferior product. It just isn't enough on it's own to sustain a monopoly when you have horrible prices or horrible products.

[QUOTE=amute;29156305]I can't beleive he said FDR was a bad president[/QUOTE] lol FDR was a shit president

[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;29167571]lol FDR was a shit president[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, the whole getting the US out of the depression thing, the progressive stance he took, second bill of rights, and establishing social programmes that, y'know, help people. Yeah, he was a shit president and never did anything.

[quote="Sobeit"]He thought Benito Mussolini's fascist regime was pretty cool. He 'admired' it and portions of "The New Deal" were based directly off of his observations of Mussolini's society. I don't see how this is a good thing to anyone. [/quote] I don't know how deep this admiration for his regime was, but just because the regime was fascist doesn't mean every single measure he took was horrible and murderous.

[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;29167571]lol FDR was a shit president[/QUOTE] Explain.

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151596]Every time communism has been tried, it has completely and utterly failed.[/QUOTE] Communism has never been tried. Socialist dictatorships have. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] Protip: Notice the "dictatorships".

[QUOTE=amute;29167891]Oh yeah, the whole getting the US out of the depression thing, the progressive stance he took, second bill of rights, and establishing social programmes that, y'know, help people. Yeah, he was a shit president and never did anything.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29170036]Explain.[/QUOTE] have you two been ignoring posts in this thread? [QUOTE=s0beit;29161032]He thought Benito Mussolini's fascist regime was pretty cool. He 'admired' it and portions of "The New Deal" were based directly off of his observations of Mussolini's society. I don't see how this is a good thing to anyone.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Derubermensch;29159945]FDR never really did anything for America than give the country optimism during the depression. The war in the end saved the economy better than any of Roosevelt's programs. Do keep in mind after the war boom we were not that much better off than before mass-mobilization. Many of the decisions Roosevelt made during his presidency are still having negative effects to this very day.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29150994]he basically introduced the government social safety net that accumulates more and more debt each year. (ex: social security) he changed americans' attitudes on the role of government in their lives for the worse. i seriously have a problem with both the new deal policies and their effect on america and its citizens in the long run.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29156672]well, he certainly expanded the federal government for the worse considering the effects that show up today. that, and he drove us into enormous debt. think of how much of a colossal failure social security has been. how are those who have been paying into it for their entire lives going to be reimbursed given this current mess of a situation?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29151484]Soviet Union. But America is heading down that path, and it's a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] And I quote a fellow FP member (I think it was Detective P). [quote]For every time you bring up China, Vietnam, N.Korea, Laos, Cambodia, the USSR, or communist Eastern Europe, I'll point out how many times your capitalist, religious or 'democratic' regimes in Africa- those freedom fighters for democracy and freedom, who go around committing genocide and stealing- have succeeded in creating a proper democratic society. Because you always bring those nations up, but you dumbshits never realize that a nation built on lies that was never communist in the first place couldn't fail to be communist since it never was and never tried. I'm sure the current dictator of Liberia is a good example of democracy failing. By your logic, Mr. Genocidal Maniac with an Iron Fist is just as good as an American President. The only communist nation who had a leader who intended to do as Marx wanted was the USSR, with Lenin, but after Lenin, there was no, I repeat, no, communist in power in the USSR, and that nation should not be considered communist anymore than Liberia is a representative democracy. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mihn, etc etc etc were all opportunists, taking advantage of a mislead people in order to create a fascist totalitarian government. This was not a fault of communism, this was a fault in politics and social behavior common to all ideologies and governments. If you insist on bringing up these dictatorships, then I will insist on bringing up Liberia and Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Stupideye;29171289]And I quote a fellow FP member (I think it was Detective P).[/QUOTE] in a way, we can assume what communism in practice amounts to in the long run. it's no different than how religion is exploited by these same people.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29171177]have you two been ignoring posts in this thread?[/QUOTE] Half of those responses are just you criticizing FDR for introducing Social Security (which imo is a good thing) and expanding the federal government's "power" based on his own views. I'll give s0beit credit as that's a relatively legitimate criticism, but what specifically about the New Deal policies was inspired by Fascist ideas? As for Derubermensch's, I'd have to know which of Roosevelt's programs are still affecting us negatively to respond to his. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29171341]in a way, we can assume what communism in practice amounts to in the long run. it's no different than how religion is exploited by these same people.[/QUOTE] Not really. There have been just as many dictators who came into power through preaching freedom or liberation or liberty and one could make the same argument for Capitalism, with the addendum that Capitalism has had more chances to work out than Communism has.

[QUOTE=amute;29167891]Oh yeah, the whole getting the US out of the depression thing, the progressive stance he took, second bill of rights, and establishing social programmes that, y'know, help people. Yeah, he was a shit president and never did anything.[/QUOTE] You think he got us out of the depression? lol [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html[/url] [url]http://wallstreetpit.com/23659-did-fdr-end-the-great-depression[/url] They (articles i mentioned from you know, economists) don't even think WW2 was at all responsible, let alone FDR. If you want to know why WW2 was not helpful in the grand scale I'll give a more detailed explanation of that, but the New Deal did not help - like at all. Second bill of rights is a joke, the programs he enacted were also a joke as i explained throughout the topic here. To you they might be good things, I'm not going to argue over this again you can just stroll back about 10 pages or something but you'd have to understand that's subjective and really only the view of you and your political affiliation. He didn't get us out of the depression, though. [QUOTE=torero;29169166]I don't know how deep this admiration for his regime was, but just because the regime was fascist doesn't mean every single measure he took was horrible and murderous.[/QUOTE] Most were pretty bad, he admired his totalitarian control of trade, mostly. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism[/url] [editline]e[/editline] I'd also like to hear from some kind of pro-communist person, how would a governmentless country with "true" communism work exactly? Would it need to be the whole world? Could it work as a country with borders?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29172501]Not really. There have been just as many dictators who came into power through preaching freedom or liberation or liberty and one could make the same argument for Capitalism, with the addendum that Capitalism has had more chances to work out than Communism has.[/QUOTE] though, i never made the case against that.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29171177]have you two been ignoring posts in this thread?[/QUOTE] Only two points out of that list 1: Social Security is a good thing 2: FDR may or may not have modelled certain economic ideals off Mussolini's ideas - so fucking what, if they work, does it matter who it came from?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29172501]Social Security (which imo is a good thing)[/QUOTE] explain how it's a good thing, both on paper and in practice.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29172870]You think he got us out of the depression? lol [URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html[/URL] [URL]http://wallstreetpit.com/23659-did-fdr-end-the-great-depression[/URL] They (articles i mentioned from you know, economists) don't even think WW2 was at all responsible, let alone FDR. If you want to know why WW2 was not helpful in the grand scale I'll give a more detailed explanation of that, but the New Deal did not help - like at all.[/quote] Because two Wall Street sources said so? oklol [quote]Second bill of rights is a joke, the programs he enacted were also a joke as i explained throughout the topic here.[/quote] Yeah, ensuring people have stable lives - WHAT A JOKE LOL [quote]To you they might be good things, I'm not going to argue over this again you can just stroll back about 10 pages or something but you'd have to understand that's subjective and really only the view of you and your political affiliation.[/quote] It's basic human rights. [quote]He didn't get us out of the depression, though.[/quote] Sure, it just magically improved. Like Capitalism always magically fixes its problems. [quote]Most were pretty bad, he admired his totalitarian control of trade, mostly. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism[/URL][/quote] Where he gets the ideas doesn't really matter. And it isn't 'totalitarian' control of trade. Using buzz words doesn't make your argument any more 'scarier' [quote]I'd also like to hear from some kind of pro-communist person, how would a governmentless country with "true" communism work exactly? Would it need to be the whole world? Could it work as a country with borders?[/QUOTE] The idea of a communist society is to remove borders.

[QUOTE=amute;29173067]Only two points out of that list 1: Social Security is a good thing [/quote] that's just flat out false. the entire basis of social security is that people are incapable of managing their own future financial security on their own. [quote] 2: FDR may or may not have modelled certain economic ideals off Mussolini's ideas - so fucking what, if they work, does it matter who it came from?[/QUOTE] but that's the point; they [b]don't[/b] work [quote]Sure, it just magically improved. Like Capitalism always magically fixes its problems. [/quote] it was a temporary post-war economic boom that "fixed" the problems. even then, you'd be incredibly wrong to blame true free-market capitalism for any of this.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173107]explain how it's a good thing, both on paper and in practice.[/QUOTE] it's not, because helping people is just a shitty things. Gotta protect those corporate interests though! [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173137]that's just flat out false. the entire basis of social security is that people are incapable of managing their own future financial security on their own. but that's the point; they [b]don't[/b] work[/QUOTE] What fucking reality are you in? [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] Public works programmes don't work?

[QUOTE=amute;29173136]The idea of a communist society is to remove borders.[/QUOTE] the idea of a communist society is to destroy the meaning of the individual and to collectivize everyone. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29173144]it's not, because helping people is just a shitty things. Gotta protect those corporate interests though![/QUOTE] you completely missed fundamental libertarian values when you stupidly assumed that they work only for corporations. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;29173144]What fucking reality are you in? [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] Public works programmes don't work?[/QUOTE] understand what the national debt and deficit spending mean. social security, medicare, and medicaid suck up a vast majority of the budget and add to the debt every single year with no real prospect.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173202]the idea of a communist society is to destroy the meaning of the individual and to collectivize everyone.[/QUOTE] Andrei Tarkovsky thinks you're retarded. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] And Timur Novikov

[QUOTE=amute;29173228]Andrei Tarkovsky thinks you're retarded. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] And Timur Novikov[/QUOTE] i dont care what a bunch of third world barbarians think of me.