RATM guitarist headlining concert for union protesters, says "Madison is the next Cairo"

[jct74]

MADISON, WIS. - For the past week, the protests outside of the Wisconsin statehouse have had a background soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen, Journey and even the Beastie Boys blasting from speakers as marchers walk around chanting "Kill the bill!" and "Recall Walker!" But on Monday, Madison will get some live music -- a concert headlined by Tom Morello, the guitarist for Rage Against the Machine.

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/19/rage-against-machine-tom-morello-wisconsin_n_825627.html


Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/rise-against/come-monday-221-noon-capitol-square-madison-wi/10150092045836143

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=c53f1b5c76ab66f5d08e3151f1eb4867&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.interscope.com%2Fimages%2Fl ocal%2F500%2F184f2da1-2fb1-4fa5-9f21-89e73ca74aae.jpg

[FrankRep]

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/12aJanuary/egyptprotestwashdc-t-ap.001.jpg



As many Americans of Egyptian decent protested in cities across the country, this past weekend, demonstrating in solidarity with their families back in Egypt, forces on the far-Left from ANSWER coalition to the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) have taken advantage of the situation to promote their socialist agendas.


U.S. Socialists and Communists Exploiting Events in Egypt (http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6159-us-socialists-and-communists-exploiting-events-in-egypt)


Christian Gomez | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
02 February 2011

_______


Wisconsin Socialists Want Egypt-style Revolution (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/class-war-is-here-video-of-socialists-rallying-in-wis-supports-becks-theory/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LeqQbf4Rs



Communist Protester in Wisconsin: 'People Are Open' to a 'Revolutionary Movement' (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/communist-protester-in-wis-people-are-open-to-a-revolutionary-movement/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nxSRQNmjs

[Sola_Fide]

Morons...

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah Already posted that under the the Wisconsin thread... AFSCME (Government Unions) trying to unite all the idiots to stop the legislation and recall Walker.


Such idiots... he we go again, American Ignorance turning this into a Circus.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Ugh this is just embarrassing. Someone just told me people from all over the country are calling in pizzas and having them delivered to the Wisconsin capitol for the protesters.

[Bern]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[awake]

All appearances aside, mobs and masses can get very ugly. Especially when their great looting machine isn't bringing home the goods...err, the 'bads'.

Proletariats! do not stand in their way!

[Philhelm]

My two cents? Fuck 'em!

[mczerone]

"Revolution" does not mean "mass demonstration for the continuation or extension of already granted privileges."

I really want to support the protesters in demanding responsiveness from a monopsony employer, but they packaging their message so poorly that I end up just sitting this argument out.

Maybe the protesters would be responsive to forming their own competing school district/service industries? They could negotiate to compete against the state apparatus. Then I could get behind them.

[FrankRep]

I really want to support the protesters in demanding responsiveness from a monopsony employer, but they packaging their message so poorly that I end up just sitting this argument out.

Those Protesters need to make a choice. Either help work out a Budget Deal or Get Fired.


Wisconsin Gov. Warns 12,000 State Workers Could be Fired Without Budget Deal
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?280503-Wisconsin-Gov.-Warns-12-000-State-Workers-Could-be-Fired-Without-Budget-Deal

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

They are greedy just like the sham teacher's union. They want more at OUR expense. It's the enemy fighting with itself.

[Romulus]

I hate when good musicians spoil themselves with collectivists views.

[Ninja Homer]

Rage For The Machine

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I hate when good musicians spoil themselves with collectivists views.

RATM were always commies, but I like their music anyway

[RedStripe]

Budget problems would probably be alleviated if they just increased taxes on the super-rich parasites who have been living off of a government-rigged economic system for centuries. Oh wait, the right-wingers are in complete denial of how the economy actually works. Instead of reducing corporate welfare, they want to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Oh, and they don't believe there is such a thing as class warfare. LOL

If Obama increased taxes on people making $250,000+, right-wing morons would be up in arms. But when the government tries to fuck over the middle class, as long as right-wing demagogues can find a way to demonize the little guy they will cheer it on. You want a revolution in this country? You really want to change things up? You gotta get your heads out of your asses and recognize that class warfare is alive and well in this country - the super rich certainly know this (they take care of their own, in case you haven't noticed). Does Ron Paul advocate immediately ending entitlement programs? No, because he's not a right-wing demagogue like the anti-union people who are barking up the wrong tree by attacking middle-class workers.

Classic elitist strategy is to convince parts of the middle class to throw their lot in with the super-rich rather than the poor/blue-collar class from which they are only a layoff or unexpected illness away. It's been used to suppress populist uprising for centuries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

Rage Against the Machine is Cultural Marxism(tm), right FrankRep? It's all part of an elaborate plan by The Socialist International Bankers to mind control the youth! Ahhh!

No really, FrankRep please lecture us on how RATM is Cultural Marxism(tm). Please. It's hilarious.

[silverhandorder]

Redstripe both are wrong. The poor trying to steal money from the productive are just as wrong as the rich that steal. You are way too biased.

[RedStripe]

Redstripe both are wrong. The poor trying to steal money from the productive are just as wrong as the rich that steal. You are way too biased.

Oh right, in libertarian ethical fantasy-land a starving person is "just as wrong" in "stealing" an apple from a grocery store as a rich businessman using millions taxpayer dollars to enrich himself even though he has everything he could possibly need. Hopefully you are consistent and don't claim to subscribe to the Christian ethic.

But let's stick to the topic at hand - do you use public roads? Have you ever used a public service? So it's ok for you to do what is necessary to survive in a rigged system but not other working class people? Assuming you are middle-class, you realize that you and the poor have no real say over the structure of our system and are forced to simply adapt to it, right?

[silverhandorder]

I don't see starving people out there. I oppose government at every turn, if I have to participate in the system I still know that I do not support it. You on other hand only look at the system and have no problem stooping down to their level. Sorry I am not thief.

[RedStripe]

I don't see starving people out there. I oppose government at every turn, if I have to participate in the system I still know that I do not support it. You on other hand only look at the system and have no problem stooping down to their level. Sorry I am not thief.

Oh, so when you take advantage of government services you aren't a thief, but when poor people do they are thieves. Fascinating philosophy you have there.

:rolleyes:

[Fredom101]

Embarrassing is right.

Do any of the pro-union OR pro-government people have any CLUE as to what is going on in Wisconsin?

[silverhandorder]

Oh, so when you take advantage of government services you aren't a thief, but when poor people do they are thieves. Fascinating philosophy you have there.

:rolleyes:

I do not ask for the services and work to eliminate them. Hence why I support the bill here. See the difference? By your logic one would have to basically reject society from the beginning and if they do not they have to always give in to leeches. I also like how you ignored the crucial part that no one is starving.

[low preference guy]

Oh, so when you take advantage of government services you aren't a thief, but when poor people do they are thieves. Fascinating philosophy you have there.

Yeah, have you ever used a public road, silverhandorder? Yes? Then you should endorse full-scale communism. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite! :D

[RedStripe]

I do not ask for the services and work to eliminate them. Hence why I support the bill here. See the difference? By your logic one would have to basically reject society from the beginning and if they do not they have to always give in to leeches. I also like how you ignored the crucial part that no one is starving.

So you would not call 911 if there was an emergency? That's asking for a service. Do you fly on planes? That's asking for a service largely funded by the government.

Clearly neither you nor "low preference guy" are getting the point here. The point is that poor and middle class people are not "just as wrong" for living within this system (just as you do) as the rich who created it for their own selfish purposes. Do you understand the distinction or do I have to spell it out again?

[Philhelm]

Budget problems would probably be alleviated if they just increased taxes on the super-rich parasites who have been living off of a government-rigged economic system for centuries. Oh wait, the right-wingers are in complete denial of how the economy actually works. Instead of reducing corporate welfare, they want to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Oh, and they don't believe there is such a thing as class warfare. LOL

If Obama increased taxes on people making $250,000+, right-wing morons would be up in arms. But when the government tries to fuck over the middle class, as long as right-wing demagogues can find a way to demonize the little guy they will cheer it on. You want a revolution in this country? You really want to change things up? You gotta get your heads out of your asses and recognize that class warfare is alive and well in this country - the super rich certainly know this (they take care of their own, in case you haven't noticed). Does Ron Paul advocate immediately ending entitlement programs? No, because he's not a right-wing demagogue like the anti-union people who are barking up the wrong tree by attacking middle-class workers.

Classic elitist strategy is to convince parts of the middle class to throw their lot in with the super-rich rather than the poor/blue-collar class from which they are only a layoff or unexpected illness away. It's been used to suppress populist uprising for centuries.

I don't care if individuals freely associate with each other and collectively bargain with their employer. Collective bargaining can be compatible with a truly free market. I differentiate between the public and private sectors on this matter, however. Essentially, we have government workers, paid for by the public, who are collectively bargaining in order to use government force against the very public that funds them. This is much different from individuals doing the same with a private sector employer.

Also, why should the taxpayer have to shoulder the burden when there are plenty of people who would be willing to take their place on the terms suggested? There are plenty of would-be teachers just itching to get their own classroom, not to mention roughly 20% general unemployment. If we took out the government regulations required to be a teacher, and let those hiring use common sense in order to determine if the applicant is capable, we would break the current monopoly on teaching, and allow a larger number of capable people to compete for the positions (I realize that this isn't just about teachers, but it seems to have been the focus for the most part, so I'm sticking with it). As it stands, I don't believe that a mathematician with a PhD would be allowed to teach in a public school. Instead, we have people who take bullshit child psychology classes, dabble in a field of study, and then try to pass on that limited knowledge.

Firing these people would work wonders for those who are already unemployed and seeking employment.

[hugolp]

Budget problems would probably be alleviated if they just increased taxes on the super-rich parasites who have been living off of a government-rigged economic system for centuries. Oh wait, the right-wingers are in complete denial of how the economy actually works. Instead of reducing corporate welfare, they want to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Oh, and they don't believe there is such a thing as class warfare. LOL

If Obama increased taxes on people making $250,000+, right-wing morons would be up in arms. But when the government tries to fuck over the middle class, as long as right-wing demagogues can find a way to demonize the little guy they will cheer it on.

If Obama raised taxes on people making $250.000+ soon there would be another crisis where either you would have to cut government employees wages or raise taxes again. Increase in taxes are only used to spend more.

Btw, I lean left, I have read Kevin Carson and visit mutualist blogs regularly, but I find your attitude in this forum a bit tiring, specially the part where you keep repeating how good person you are and how bad the rest are. Not that you have to care about what I think, but it would serve your message a lot better if you change your attitude towards the people here and specially if you stop always dividing people (left-right, left-right, left-right, ....). People usually dont feel aliance to a side (like you do btw), they only express what they think is just and some are usually willing to accept new ideas or at least changes in their views.

[silverhandorder]

So you would not call 911 if there was an emergency? That's asking for a service. Do you fly on planes? That's asking for a service largely funded by the government.

Clearly neither you nor "low preference guy" are getting the point here. The point is that poor and middle class people are not "just as wrong" for living within this system (just as you do) as the rich who created it for their own selfish purposes. Do you understand the distinction or do I have to spell it out again?

I am forced to pay for 911 and all of that crap no? While I use it I also advocate the end to it. These people are clamming for more government. And lets get something straight the poor and the middle class are not out there. The people out there are a protected class of government workers.

[RedStripe]

I don't care if individuals freely associate with each other and collectively bargain with their employer. Collective bargaining can be compatible with a truly free market. I differentiate between the public and private sectors on this matter, however. Essentially, we have government workers, paid for by the public, who are collectively bargaining in order to use government force against the very public that funds them. This is much different from individuals doing the same with a private sector employer.

Also, why should the taxpayer have to shoulder the burden when there are plenty of people who would be willing to take their place on the terms suggested? There are plenty of would-be teachers just itching to get their own classroom, not to mention roughly 20% general unemployment. If we took out the government regulations required to be a teacher, and let those hiring use common sense in order to determine if the applicant is capable, we would break the current monopoly on teaching, and allow a larger number of capable people to compete for the positions (I realize that this isn't just about teachers, but it seems to have been the focus for the most part, so I'm sticking with it). As it stands, I don't believe that a mathematician with a PhD would be allowed to teach in a public school. Instead, we have people who take bullshit child psychology classes, dabble in a field of study, and then try to pass on that limited knowledge.

Firing these people would work wonders for those who are already unemployed and seeking employment.

Speaking of mathematics, I don't see how firing people and replacing them with other people does a whole lot to improve the unemployment rate, and I'm sure lower wages overall won't do a lot for the economy in Wisconsin (hasn't been working out to well nationally for the past three decades).

The problem with the way you contrast public and private employees is that it rests on the faulty premise that there is some difference between them significant enough to justify a 180 degree shift in attitude about their collective bargaining rights. The truth is, most large private employers are just profiteering branches of the government due to the massive amount of government subsidies at every level which keeps their unsustainable, debt-based business models profitable for the time being.

The public-private paradigm is bunk. With the exception of very small, local businesses (which have as little say as the workers), private employers and public employers are the same thing - it's the same little club of oligarchs and insiders who have effective control over both.

[Mark37snj]

This is the video the goverment and unions DON'T want you to see. This is what really happens when people go against the Union Machine.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154834/cartman-arrested

[low preference guy]

Speaking of mathematics, I don't see how firing people and replacing them with other people does a whole lot to improve the unemployment rate, and I'm sure lower wages overall won't do a lot for the economy in Wisconsin (hasn't been working out to well nationally for the past three decades).


Wages are too high, considering the state of the economy. Things would be better if minimum wage laws were repealed.

[Romulus]

Oh, so when you take advantage of government services you aren't a thief, but when poor people do they are thieves. Fascinating philosophy you have there.

:rolleyes:

Getting back what you are forced to pay into is not stealing. Stealing is taking or using something for nothing.

[Romulus]

Wages are too high, considering the state of the economy. Things would be better if minimum wage laws were repealed.

Amen - let the market drive the wage.

[RedStripe]

If Obama raised taxes on people making $250.000+ soon there would be another crisis where either you would have to cut government employees wages or raise taxes again. Increase in taxes are only used to spend more.

There's a crisis either way, but I agree with Ron Paul that we should keep up the programs that help the poor and working class and ditch the corporate welfare/warfare excesses first. The long-term instability of state-capitalism has already done a lot of damage to poor and working class folks, yet right-wing front groups like the ones who hijacked the Tea Party movement want to make this about "socialism" and "entitlement spending" rather than a populist uprising against the oligarchs who control the system.



Btw, I lean left, I have read Kevin Carson and visit mutualist blogs regularly, but I find your attitude in this forum a bit tiring, specially the part where you keep repeating how good person you are and how bad the rest are. Not that you have to care about what I think, but it would serve your message a lot better if you change your attitude towards the people here and specially if you stop always dividing people (left-right, left-right, left-right, ....). People usually dont feel aliance to a side (like you do btw), they only express what they think is just and some are usually willing to accept new ideas or at least changes in their views.

Thanks for the critique, but I frankly don't consider myself a "good person" to begin with. I realize I'm harsh but I'm sick of browsing through an echo chamber and watching the Ron Paul movement get sucked into the nonsense conservative tea party loony house.

[Michael Landon]

And lets get something straight the poor and the middle class are not out there. The people out there are a protected class of government workers.

According to their salaries, they are middle class, their employer doesn't matter. There are three classes, the poor, the middle and the rich, and being an employee of the government doesn't make them rich.

- ML

[fisharmor]

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'd also say this is probably part of why the people in the middle east hate us.
It also partially vindicates the "they hate us for our freedoms" lie.
This shit gets on television, and I don't know what they'd say about it in Arabic, but it's probably along the lines of
"Get a load of these assholes! They don't even get to the point of actually hurting anybody, and a bunch of people who obviously didn't get the message 20 years ago that communism is an abject failure decide to start comparing people who get to eat regularly with Egyptians who until recently had their testicles in a vise... why should we NOT hate these jackasses?"

[Mark37snj]

For those of you who still feel helpless to defend against the Machine, watch this tutorial video on the warning signs.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103809/hippie-infestation

[RedStripe]

I am forced to pay for 911 and all of that crap no? While I use it I also advocate the end to it. These people are clamming for more government. And lets get something straight the poor and the middle class are not out there. The people out there are a protected class of government workers.

Anyone whose job is dependent on the existence of government roads or government schools (virtually everyone in our twisted state-capitalist economy) could be erroneously accused of being a "protected class." This demonizing of the teachers is just divide and conquer by corporate interests yet again who have been using the government for centuries to harass, arrest and murder employees who decided to stand up for human dignity.

Also, the "more government" and "less government" paradigm sounds solid in theory but isn't clear cut in practice. Should the government institute more oversight over the fed? Banks that received TARP money? Oh noes, that's more BIG GUBERMENT.

[silverhandorder]

According to their salaries, they are middle class, their employer doesn't matter. There are three classes, the poor, the middle and the rich, and being an employee of the government doesn't make them rich.

- ML

Sorry I don't share that view. There are dependent class, productive class and enforcers. Those workers are not producers they are dependent leeches. They earn more then most people in American society.

[RedStripe]

Amen - let the market drive the wage.

lol What freaking market? Honestly it's just so annoying to hear people allude to a "free market" in one context, whereas in another context they would be the first to claim "but this isn't a true free market!"

[Mark37snj]

But a leader has emerged among us. Watch as he couragously orchestrates our master plan to take out the Machine once and for all.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154851/cartmans-plan

[silverhandorder]

Anyone whose job is dependent on the existence of government roads or government schools (virtually everyone in our twisted state-capitalist economy) could be erroneously accused of being a "protected class." This demonizing of the teachers is just divide and conquer by corporate interests yet again who have been using the government for centuries to harass, arrest and murder employees who decided to stand up for human dignity.

Also, the "more government" and "less government" paradigm sounds solid in theory but isn't clear cut in practice. Should the government institute more oversight over the fed? Banks that received TARP money? Oh noes, that's more BIG GUBERMENT.

No there is a clear difference. I would have no problem with anyone working for the government and advocating smaller government. These people are advocating bigger government.


lol What freaking market? Honestly it's just so annoying to hear people allude to a "free market" in one context, whereas in another context they would be the first to claim "but this isn't a true free market!"

There are degrees of the market. The more market there is the better. When people say there was never free market is usually to point out that people like you are attributing problems caused by the government to the market.

[Romulus]

According to their salaries, they are middle class, their employer doesn't matter. There are three classes, the poor, the middle and the rich, and being an employee of the government doesn't make them rich.

- ML
Says who? Total up their salary, benefits and job security and who says the aren't "rich".


lol What freaking market? Honestly it's just so annoying to hear people allude to a "free market" in one context, whereas in another context they would be the first to claim "but this isn't a true free market!"

Strawman. The market that exists between the employer and individual employee.

[Michael Landon]

No there is a clear difference. I would have no problem with anyone working for the government and advocating smaller government. These people are advocating bigger government.

These people aren't advocating bigger government they are fighting for what they already have. It'd be a different story if they were rallying on Madison demanding higher wages and better benefits, but that's not the case.

- ML

[low preference guy]

These people aren't advocating bigger government they are fighting for what they already have. It'd be a different story if they were rallying on Madison demanding higher wages and better benefits, but that's not the case.

- ML

They are advocating to keep taking as much stolen money as they are taking each month. That doesn't seem right to me.

[silverhandorder]

These people aren't advocating bigger government they are fighting for what they already have. It'd be a different story if they were rallying on Madison demanding higher wages and better benefits, but that's not the case.

- ML
LOL big difference. Are you a liberal troll?

[Romulus]

These people aren't advocating bigger government they are fighting for what they already have. It'd be a different story if they were rallying on Madison demanding higher wages and better benefits, but that's not the case.

- ML

The state is broke and they still want their cake. Sounds like wanting bigger govt to me.

Sorry, these are the brats that were never told 'NO' in the toy aisle as children.

[Danke]

So you would not call 911 if there was an emergency? That's asking for a service. Do you fly on planes? That's asking for a service largely funded by the government.

Clearly neither you nor "low preference guy" are getting the point here. The point is that poor and middle class people are not "just as wrong" for living within this system (just as you do) as the rich who created it for their own selfish purposes. Do you understand the distinction or do I have to spell it out again?

I own a phone and have phone service, so I already pay for 911 service. I buy gas, so I pay for the roads. And when I fly, a large portion of the ticket price is tax, so I pay for that infrastructure too. etc. etc.

[FrankRep]

These people aren't advocating bigger government they are fighting for what they already have. It'd be a different story if they were rallying on Madison demanding higher wages and better benefits, but that's not the case.

Gov. Scott Walker: WE'RE BROKE (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wisconsin-gov-vows-protesters-will-not-drown-out-taxpayers/).


Wisconsin Gov. Warns 12,000 State Workers Could be Fired Without Budget Deal
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?280503-Wisconsin-Gov.-Warns-12-000-State-Workers-Could-be-Fired-Without-Budget-Deal



The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
- Margaret Thatcher

[hugolp]

There's a crisis either way, but I agree with Ron Paul that we should keep up the programs that help the poor and working class and ditch the corporate welfare/warfare excesses first. The long-term instability of state-capitalism has already done a lot of damage to poor and working class folks, yet right-wing front groups like the ones who hijacked the Tea Party movement want to make this about "socialism" and "entitlement spending" rather than a populist uprising against the oligarchs who control the system.

That is why is better to protests against corporate walfare and demand a complete end to it. That is something everybody can rally around and shows who is a phony.

Another mesure that I think could work is making it ilegal for any company to receive more than 30-40% (or whatever) of their income from the government. It would help a lot avoiding concentration of power and corporatism. Again, this is something everybody can rally around.

Also, I dislike the union bashing, but honestly when talking about the teachers unions its hard to feel simpathy. The teachers unions in the USA have adopted an attitude of entitlement that has harmed education in a big way and they have become one of the most powerful lobby groups. Its hard to feel pitty.

[Philhelm]

Speaking of mathematics, I don't see how firing people and replacing them with other people does a whole lot to improve the unemployment rate, and I'm sure lower wages overall won't do a lot for the economy in Wisconsin (hasn't been working out to well nationally for the past three decades).

I have to leave in a minute, so I don't have time to comment on the whole response. However, I had stated that it would improve things for those who are already unemployed. I mentioned nothing of unemployment numbers in that regard.

[Mark37snj]

As this undercover video shows, most of our elected officials refuse to recognize the danger or have just plain sold us out.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154835/mayor-visits-cartman

[RedStripe]

There are degrees of the market. The more market there is the better. When people say there was never free market is usually to point out that people like you are attributing problems caused by the government to the market.

You can't point to a single instance of me blaming anything on "the market." You clearly don't understand what I believe at all.

And yes, there are degrees. The world exists in shades of gray not black-and-white. That's why it's ridiculous to base attitudes entirely upon whether something is nominally labeled "private" or "public" when, in reality the distinction is close to meaningless.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/19/rage-against-machine-tom-morello-wisconsin_n_825627.html


Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/rise-against/come-monday-221-noon-capitol-square-madison-wi/10150092045836143

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=c53f1b5c76ab66f5d08e3151f1eb4867&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.interscope.com%2Fimages%2Fl ocal%2F500%2F184f2da1-2fb1-4fa5-9f21-89e73ca74aae.jpg

Oh yea, they're so RAGING against the Machine alright. Should rename themselves 'Sucking off the Machine'. Fucking douchebags.

[RedStripe]

Strawman. The market that exists between the employer and individual employee.

That's not a market. That's called an individual relationship fundamentally rooted in a myriad of external social/economic/historical circumstances. Sorry, try again.

[RedStripe]

Oh yea, they're so RAGING against the Machine alright. Should rename themselves 'Sucking off the Machine'. Fucking douchebags.

lol look who's cheering on the politicians/government! Don't you claim to be anti-government?

[Mark37snj]

We must continue to educate our leaders on the danger. Others have tried but their warnings were summarily dismissed.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154832/cartmans-plea

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

lol look who's cheering on the politicians/government! Don't you claim to be anti-government?

Very funny. I'm not siding with the government. I'm siding with the people that are tired of having guns pointed at them. I'm siding with the people who want to opt out of the system and not be beaten to a pulp or murdered over it

[Mark37snj]

This is new video has just been released. Warning, all accounts are that this video is genuine, what you are about to see may disturb you.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154842/hippie-capital

[FrankRep]

lol look who's cheering on the politicians/government! Don't you claim to be anti-government?


Very funny. I'm not siding with the government. I'm siding with the people that are tired of having guns pointed at them. I'm siding with the people who want to opt out of the system and not be beaten to a pulp or murdered over it

Brooklyn, keep one thing in mind before RedStripe drives you crazy: RedStripe is a self-admitted Socialist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242982-How-do-you-identify-yourself-politically&p=2679717#post2679717). His job is to confuse the issue to push his agenda. Logic and reason will not work on him. Keep that in mind when arguing with him.

[silverhandorder]

You can't point to a single instance of me blaming anything on "the market." You clearly don't understand what I believe at all.

And yes, there are degrees. The world exists in shades of gray not black-and-white. That's why it's ridiculous to base attitudes entirely upon whether something is nominally labeled "private" or "public" when, in reality the distinction is close to meaningless.
It does not matter whether you blame the market or not. Since my defense of those who you attack still stands the same.

The degrees are meaningful you either have more government (bad for everyone) or less government (good for everyone).

Distinction between public and private also holds. It is separate from those who would abuse the state to favor them in the market. Hence there is also a distinction between business who uses the state for advantage and business that does not. Unfortunately for us even many good businesses are forced to use the state or have it used against them.

[Mark37snj]

The final battle to save our way of life has begun. We bring you live coverage of the developing situation.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103812/hippie-digger

[Sentient Void]

Brooklyn, keep one thing in mind before RedStripe drives you crazy: RedStripe is a self-admitted Socialist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242982-How-do-you-identify-yourself-politically&p=2679717#post2679717). His job is to confuse the issue to push his agenda. Logic and reason will not work on him. Keep that in mind when arguing with him.

Exactly. He's a thickist troll who finds property and even many purely voluntary interactions/transactions 'illegitimate'.

He's also a hypocrite who likes to use an anarchy symbol - but is railing support for the public sector and the parasite class.

As you can see, he doesn't quite have his head on straight. Admittedly, it's hard to resist responding to his trolldom and BS, as I also despise seeing fallacies, hypocrisy and misinformation spread around.

Every once in a while, he contributes a gem - but honestly it's quite rare.

[RedStripe]

Brooklyn, keep one thing in mind before RedStripe drives you crazy: RedStripe is a self-admitted Socialist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242982-How-do-you-identify-yourself-politically&p=2679717#post2679717). His job is to confuse the issue to push his agenda. Logic and reason will not work on him. Keep that in mind when arguing with him.

Haha, I've challenged you to debate me on the issues but you're just a coward who posts links to other people's opinions. You are the ultimate example of someone who is "pushing an agenda" of social conservatism and islamophobia. You are nothing more than a social conservative RSS feed, so don't bring up logic and reason when you refuse to engage in real debates.

[college4life]

Haha, I've challenged you to debate me on the issues but you're just a coward who posts links to other people's opinions. You are the ultimate example of someone who is "pushing an agenda" of social conservatism and islamophobia. You are nothing more than a social conservative RSS feed, so don't bring up logic and reason when you refuse to engage in real debates.

You support anarchy and yet you support forced redistribution? Please enlighten us

[Mark37snj]

I've kept this for years, because someday it will be up to you. I don't want you to be afraid. I want you to understand. Knowledge is the only weapon we've got left. In the beginning, it was ignorance that destroyed us. The 60's saw the first, but soon the world saw millions. No one knew how they spawned so fast. They swarmed like locusts, destroying everything in their path, driven by one purpose... to feed. Even then, we couldn't believe they were real. Ancient man had made them into myths, but nature had made something far more terrible. Too late, our scientists discovered their true identity... a species which had destroyed great civilizations, whose debt had brought on depressions, who, in eons past, had scorched the world clean of liberty. Then starved, then slept, waiting for civilization to replenish itself, waiting to start their cycle anew. Our weapons shot fire back at them, yet for every one of them we educated, a hundred took its place. They seemed invulnerable. We could only look on as our leaders used their greatest arsenal to destroy them. But in the end, we only helped them, till congress increased the debt limit to no avail, and the few of us that were left fled the cities, found shelter where we could. You have to understand our past because you will decide our future. They're starving now, and they're more dangerous than ever. But we have to go on. We have to outlast them. Only one species is getting out of this alive.

[RedStripe]

The degrees are meaningful you either have more government (bad for everyone) or less government (good for everyone).

Again with the unrealistic, black-and-white analysis of a complex issue. The fact is, when there is "more government" (the definition of which isn't always clear, such as a government initiative to audit the fed - isn't that technically an increase in government activity?) some people may benefit while others are put at a relative disadvantage. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly not understand this. There are winners and losers in every government policy.



Distinction between public and private also holds. It is separate from those who would abuse the state to favor them in the market. Hence there is also a distinction between business who uses the state for advantage and business that does not. Unfortunately for us even many good businesses are forced to use the state or have it used against them.

This is a perfect example of how biased your attitude is in favor of businesses rather than workers. Notice how you claim that when a "good business" (what a loaded term) abuses state power it is only doing so because it is "forced" to do so, where as when workers do essentially the exact same thing (i.e. use the government to their advantage) you call them parasites, thieves, etc. That is blatant hypocrisy and perfect example of the pro-business/apologist stance inherent in much of the criticism of these protesters.

[RedStripe]

Exactly. He's a thickist troll who finds property and even many purely voluntary interactions/transactions 'illegitimate'.

He's also a hypocrite who likes to use an anarchy symbol - but is railing support for the public sector and the parasite class.

As you can see, he doesn't quite have his head on straight. Admittedly, it's hard to resist responding to his trolldom and BS, as I also despise seeing fallacies, hypocrisy and misinformation spread around.

Every once in a while, he contributes a gem - but honestly it's quite rare.

Ah yes, I'm a troll for pointing out your shallow and contradictory understanding of libertarian political philosophy. I don't have to resort to calling you a troll because I can show why your arguments are bunk.

[silverhandorder]

Again with the unrealistic, black-and-white analysis of a complex issue. The fact is, when there is "more government" (the definition of which isn't always clear, such as a government initiative to audit the fed - isn't that technically an increase in government activity?) some people may benefit while others are put at a relative disadvantage. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly not understand this. There are winners and losers in every government policy.



This is a perfect example of how biased your attitude is in favor of businesses rather than workers. Notice how you claim that when a "good business" (what a loaded term) abuses state power it is only doing so because it is "forced" to do so, where as when workers do essentially the exact same thing (i.e. use the government to their advantage) you call them parasites, thieves, etc. That is blatant hypocrisy and perfect example of the pro-business/apologist stance inherent in much of the criticism of these protesters.

Ron Paul asking for an audit is not an increase in government power. It is like saying voting for decrease in government power is first an increase because you vote for action to be taken by the government.

Also I do not excuse "good" business for what they do and certainly do not encourage it continuing.

[RedStripe]

You support anarchy and yet you support forced redistribution? Please enlighten us

I don't "support" forced redistribution.

[low preference guy]

I don't "support" forced redistribution.

You just criticize others for opposing it?

[Slutter McGee]

Red Stripe has again hit the nail on the head. This movement is about promoting communism.

Idiot,

Slutter McGee

[RedStripe]

Ron Paul asking for an audit is not an increase in government power. It is like saying voting for decrease in government power is first an increase because you vote for action to be taken by the government.

But setting up a program to audit the fed is technically a new government initiative/program. So that's more government, yet doesn't fit into the simplistic paradigm.



Also I do not excuse "good" business for what they do and certainly do not encourage it continuing.

Um, lol you just gave an excuse for their use of government power rather than immediately resorting to calling them thieves and parasites, as you do with middle class teachers. Gonna just pretend you don't have a double standard then?

Can you take a step back and think about your initial emotional reaction to the idea of business using government power for their benefit, versus your reaction when workers do the same?

[RedStripe]

Red Stripe has again hit the nail on the head. This movement is about promoting communism.

Idiot,

Slutter McGee

You have nothing intelligent to contribute to this thread, this forum, or society for that matter. Please remove yourself.

[RedStripe]

You just criticize others for opposing it?

I criticize people who are shortsighted and ignorant of how the world actually operates, and who are blatant hypocrites (use government services but call others who use government services parasites and thieves; people who are quick to make up excuses as to why business must seek government aid and protection, but are quick to attack working class people who do the same on a much smaller and transparent scale). Ron Paul doesn't agree with ending social security or other entitlements in the foreseeable future because he's not a naive moron.

He actually understands how society works; how the poor and middle class dependents are really the victims of corporatism, and that the hand-outs they get here are a sad necessity due to the nature of a system of cronyism. Clearly that message has been almost completely lost on this forum.

[low preference guy]

I criticize people who are shortsighted and ignorant of how the world actually operates, and who are blatant hypocrites (use government services but call others who use government services parasites and thieves

So you are actually in favor of stopping the redistribution of wealth, including to public unions in Wisconsin?

[silverhandorder]

But setting up a program to audit the fed is technically a new government initiative/program. So that's more government, yet doesn't fit into the simplistic paradigm.



Um, lol you just gave an excuse for their use of government power rather than immediately resorting to calling them thieves and parasites, as you do with middle class teachers. Gonna just pretend you don't have a double standard then?

Can you take a step back and think about your initial emotional reaction to the idea of business using government power for their benefit, versus your reaction when workers do the same?


You have nothing intelligent to contribute to this thread, this forum, or society for that matter. Please remove yourself.

You misunderstand me I lament that good companies turn to the dark side. Just like I lament good people turning to socialism.

Audit limits FED's ability to print and manipulate money. It is reigning in of government. It reduces government more than it grows it. Or to be frank anyone can nit pick but the larger idea stands the same.

Actually I agree with Slitter McGee you seem to think you pointing out fallacies but in the process you simply showing your own fallacies.

[Slutter McGee]

You have nothing intelligent to contribute to this thread, this forum, or society for that matter. Please remove yourself.
I work for a millionaire. He dropped out of college and started his own business. I work in the private sector, and without his millions I wouldnt have a fucking job. But you...you defend the parasites of society, the leaches...those in the public sector who make hell of a lot more than me, while working half the hours.....who get their benefits paid for off my fucking taxes.

You have no idea what liberty is. Go FUCK YOURSELF,

A VERY SINCERLEY,

Slutter McGee

[Sentient Void]

Ah yes, I'm a troll for pointing out your shallow and contradictory understanding of libertarian political philosophy. I don't have to resort to calling you a troll because I can show why your arguments are bunk.

More arbitrary claims as usual. Haven't seen you done this. But I guess if you tell yourself enough times, it becomes true, right?

I'm just tired of your raging adhockery and crypto-communist tendencies. Sometimes you just gotta call a troll a troll.

[college4life]

Redstripe do you even support RP? Your ideals seem to directly contrast his

[silverhandorder]

Redstripe do you even support RP? Your ideals seem to directly contrast his

No YOU naive fool RP supports communism!

[RedStripe]

So you are actually in favor of stopping the redistribution of wealth, including to public unions in Wisconsin?

Only in conjunction with other drastic free market reforms, such as the abolition of many laws which make it much more difficult for middle class people to provide for themselves, start their own businesses, etc.

[RedStripe]

You misunderstand me I lament that good companies turn to the dark side. Just like I lament good people turning to socialism.

Audit limits FED's ability to print and manipulate money. It is reigning in of government. It reduces government more than it grows it. Or to be frank anyone can nit pick but the larger idea stands the same.

Actually I agree with Slitter McGee you seem to think you pointing out fallacies but in the process you simply showing your own fallacies.

To the bold section: I think this is closer to a reasonable standard we should use when evaluating public policy. That is, we should look at the action's aggregate effects upon the freedom of people rather than simply its nominal label of whether it is "more" or "less" government, because that simply isn't a very meaningful standard.

[Slutter McGee]

Only in conjunction with other drastic free market reforms, such as the abolition of many laws which make it much more difficult for middle class people to provide for themselves, start their own businesses, etc.

Yes. You are right. I see the folly of my ways. Liberty is only the solution if the government makes things fair. Otherwise, YAY FOR SOCIALISM.

Slutter McGee

[RedStripe]

I work for a millionaire. He dropped out of college and started his own business. I work in the private sector, and without his millions I wouldnt have a fucking job. But you...you defend the parasites of society, the leaches...those in the public sector who make hell of a lot more than me, while working half the hours.....who get their benefits paid for off my fucking taxes.

You have no idea what liberty is. Go FUCK YOURSELF,

A VERY SINCERLEY,

Slutter McGee

Look at this big baby throwing a temper tantrum. You are emotionally unstable, get a grip. Alternatively, just get out.

[Sentient Void]

lol @ RedStripe calling libertarians 'hypocrites' for driving on the socialist roads, accepting social security payments, unemployment etc.

Giving to / assisting the State is one thing, taking back what was unjustly stolen - quite another.

I hear this 'argument' all the time. It's quite an exercise in intellectual devoidism.

A little reductio ad absurdum goes a long way... If a slaveworker desires freedom, but accepts food given to him by his overlords while in the meantime yearning for and trying to attain freedom - is he a hypocrite?

It's perfectly just to take back from a thief what was stolen from you, whether it is given back or you take it.

You should know this, RedStripe - being you started a whole thread on such things and where you thought Rothbard was dead-on right about. So now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Libertarian Thickism Fail.

[silverhandorder]

To the bold section: I think this is closer to a reasonable standard we should use when evaluating public policy. That is, we should look at the action's aggregate effects upon the freedom of people rather than simply its nominal label of whether it is "more" or "less" government, because that simply isn't a very meaningful standard.

So what you trying to say is that by paying union benefits and raising taxes we will some how have less government?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Ron Paul doesn't agree with ending social security or other entitlements in the foreseeable future because he's not a naive moron.

This has not one GODDAMN thing to do with Social Security you fucking meathead. This has to do with making the goddamn parasites pay their fucking way the same as the rest of us. This has to do with the fact that they have NO RIGHT to turn guns on US to pay their goddamn salaries. Stop with the red herring bullshit.

[RedStripe]

Redstripe do you even support RP? Your ideals seem to directly contrast his

Let's start out by you telling me what you think my ideals are.

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul and have devoted a ton of my personal time to promoting him. I've met him at least 8 times and I've spoken with him in person about the issues I care about the most.

[Slutter McGee]

Look at this big baby throwing a temper tantrum. You are emotionally unstable, get a grip. Alternatively, just get out.

Hey DICK, Why dont you try and explain how being a parasite of MY MONEY is more noble than me spending my own fucking money as I see fit? Nevermind, YOU convinced me. I am going to be asking my boss to give up his money to pay for people who make more than me, contribute nothing to their own fucking retirement, and give far less to society....I know I may lose my job.....but it is well worth some middle school teacher making 100,000 thousand a year in benefits plus salary. We need teachers making a million a year, even if it destroys us. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT>

Slutter McGee

[RedStripe]

lol @ RedStripe calling libertarians 'hypocrites' for driving on the socialist roads, accepting social security payments, unemployment etc.

Giving to / assisting the State is one thing, taking back what was unjustly stolen - quite another.

I hear this 'argument' all the time. It's quite an exercise in intellectual devoidism.

A little reductio ad absurdum goes a long way... If a slaveworker desires freedom, but accepts food given to him by his overlords while in the meantime yearning for and trying to attain freedom - is he a hypocrite?

It's perfectly just to take back from a thief what was stolen from you, whether it is given back or you take it.

You should know this, RedStripe - being you started a whole thread on such things and where you thought Rothbard was dead-on right about. So now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Libertarian Thickism Fail.

Can you even fucking read?

I did not claim libertarians were hypocrites for using public services - I said people are hypocrites if they actively use and seek out government services WHILE AT THE SAME TIME calling others who are doing essentially the same "parasites" and "thieves."

Re-read it till you get it, for fucks sake.

[Slutter McGee]

Let's start out by you telling me what you think my ideals are.

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul and have devoted a ton of my personal time to promoting him. I've met him at least 8 times and I've spoken with him in person about the issues I care about the most.

That much time without a real clue what liberty is, color me impressed.

Slutter McGee

[Sentient Void]

Can you even fucking read?

I did not claim libertarians were hypocrites for using public services - I said people are hypocrites if they actively use and seek out government services WHILE AT THE SAME TIME calling others who are doing essentially the same "parasites" and "thieves."

Re-read it till you get it, for fucks sake.

Look at this big baby throwing a temper tantrum. You are emotionally unstable, get a grip. Alternatively, just get out.

[Slutter McGee]

Can you even fucking read?

I did not claim libertarians were hypocrites for using public services - I said people are hypocrites if they actively use and seek out government services WHILE AT THE SAME TIME calling others who are doing essentially the same "parasites" and "thieves."

Re-read it till you get it, for fucks sake.

So If i drive down a public road, I am a hyprocrite? Taxes should get results. Communism does not

[RedStripe]

So what you trying to say is that by paying union benefits and raising taxes we will some how have less government?

No. I'm saying that I support the unions because the middle class has been getting fucked by this country for decades, and for them to band together to get back some of the living standard that has been stolen from them by a system run by and for the oligarchs good for them. Taxpayers wanna get pissed at someone? Get pissed at the CORRECT FUCKING PEOPLE: the assholes who comprise the richest 5-10% of this country who have been rigging them game to their advantage for decades.

[low preference guy]

Only in conjunction with other drastic free market reforms, such as the abolition of many laws which make it much more difficult for middle class people to provide for themselves, start their own businesses, etc.

But without those reforms, you are in favor of the redistribution of wealth to go on, if I understand you correctly.

So this statement wasn't accurate:



I don't "support" forced redistribution.

Because you just stated that you support redistribution of wealth to public unions TODAY, when the reforms you proposed won't be achieved.

[RedStripe]

Look at this big baby throwing a temper tantrum. You are emotionally unstable, get a grip. Alternatively, just get out.

Can't admit he was wrong? Check.

Can't come up with anything original to say to me in response? Check.

Come back when you have something to say.

[hugolp]

This recurrent argument and name calling is stupid. We all want a free market, even if RedStripe would favour more "socialistic" organizations in that free market while other would chose more "capitalistic" organizations. It does not matter since it would be a voluntary decision. Since we all want the same it makes no sense to fight and waste energy in stupid discussions. It would be a lot more productive going against the ones that are robbing us with both hands.

There might be differences on how we get to a free market, but that should not blind us from the objective and who the real enemy is.

[RedStripe]

Hey DICK, Why dont you try and explain how being a parasite of MY MONEY is more noble than me spending my own fucking money as I see fit? Nevermind, YOU convinced me. I am going to be asking my boss to give up his money to pay for people who make more than me, contribute nothing to their own fucking retirement, and give far less to society....I know I may lose my job.....but it is well worth some middle school teacher making 100,000 thousand a year in benefits plus salary. We need teachers making a million a year, even if it destroys us. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT>

Slutter McGee

What do you do for a living?

[Sentient Void]

Can't admit he was wrong? Check.

Can't come up with anything original to say to me in response? Check.

Come back when you have something to say.

Missed the point? Check.

[silverhandorder]

No. I'm saying that I support the unions because the middle class has been getting fucked by this country for decades, and for them to band together to get back some of the living standard that has been stolen from them by a system run by and for the oligarchs good for them. Taxpayers wanna get pissed at someone? Get pissed at the CORRECT FUCKING PEOPLE: the assholes who comprise the richest 5-10% of this country who have been rigging them game to their advantage for decades.

Sorry but that don't sound like less government to me.

@Hugo the above quote does not seem to sound like he wants free market.

[RedStripe]

But without those reforms, you are in favor of the redistribution of wealth to go on, if I understand you correctly.

So this statement wasn't accurate:




Because you just stated that you support redistribution of wealth to public unions TODAY, when the reforms you proposed won't be achieved.


The vast majority of the redistribution of wealth is from the bottom up, if you care to actually take more than a surface-level, cursory look at how the economic system of this country actually operates. Thus, any redistribution from the top down is more or less an attempted correction of that problem, just as one might justify driving on public roads, going to public schools, etc.

[Sentient Void]

No. I'm saying that I support the unions because the middle class has been getting fucked by this country for decades, and for them to band together to get back some of the living standard that has been stolen from them by a system run by and for the oligarchs good for them. Taxpayers wanna get pissed at someone? Get pissed at the CORRECT FUCKING PEOPLE: the assholes who comprise the richest 5-10% of this country who have been rigging them game to their advantage for decades.

Can't rig the game without the State. The State is at the root of it - the largest corporations and 'richest 5-10% rigging the the game to their advantage' are just parasites that found a way to use the government to further their ends at the expense of individuals and the market.

The right non-person to get angry at is the STATE.

Fucking thickists.

[RedStripe]

Missed the point? Check.

Were you wrong or not?

[low preference guy]

The vast majority of the redistribution of wealth is from the bottom up, if you care to actually take more than a surface-level, cursory look at how the economic system of this country actually operates. Thus, any redistribution from the top down is more or less an attempted correction of that problem, just as one might justify driving on public roads, going to public schools, etc.

OK. So you're saying that you:

1. Don't support redistribution of wealth
2. Support the public unions in Wisconsin keeping their benefits, because getting paid what they get paid is not redistribution of wealth, but getting their money back.

Is that correct?

[RedStripe]

Can't rig the game without the State. The State is at the root of it - the largest corporations and 'richest 5-10% rigging the the game to their advantage' are just parasites that found a way to use the government to further their ends at the expense of individuals and the market.

lol and where the fuck do you think the state comes from? The stork?

This isn't some random phenomenon or recent development. The economic elite and the political elite are one in the same - have been and always will be. It's not a matter of the rich "taking advantage" of the system so much as it is a matter of the system operating as intended. Empowering the rich at the expense of the masses, regardless of whether some Koch-funded blowhard beltway think tank labels it as "fiscally conservative," is ultimately counter-productive to the libertarian cause because libertarianism which is true to its roots is a populist revolutionary ideology.

[silverhandorder]

@RedStripe but you advocate more government services not less. I don't get how you think you are advocating anything different but taking over the state apparatus for your favor.

[Slutter McGee]

What do you do for a living?

Banking technologies, and if the government would cut out its bullshit regulations, I might be making ten thousand more a year easy.

Slutter McGee

[AuH20]

lol and where the fuck do you think the state comes from? The stork?

This isn't some random phenomenon or recent development. The economic elite and the political elite are one in the same - have been and always will be. It's not a matter of the rich "taking advantage" of the system so much as it is a matter of the system operating as intended. Empowering the rich at the expense of the masses, regardless of whether some Koch-funded blowhard beltway think tank labels it as "fiscally conservative," is ultimately counter-productive to the libertarian cause because libertarianism which is true to its roots is a populist revolutionary ideology.

You know damn well if the unions had carte blanche they'd do the same as the banksters. It's human nature. That's why power should be dispersed and restrained. I don't see anything wrong with telling the unions enough is enough. And this is coming from someone who would be clapping if we had a public gallows set up for the Goldman execs.

[heavenlyboy34]

lol and where the fuck do you think the state comes from? The stork?

This isn't some random phenomenon or recent development. The economic elite and the political elite are one in the same - have been and always will be. It's not a matter of the rich "taking advantage" of the system so much as it is a matter of the system operating as intended. Empowering the rich at the expense of the masses, regardless of whether some Koch-funded blowhard beltway think tank labels it as "fiscally conservative," is ultimately counter-productive to the libertarian cause because libertarianism which is true to its roots is a populist revolutionary ideology.

This ^ is probably your best post ever. FTW. :cool:

[RedStripe]

OK. So you're saying that you:

1. Don't support redistribution of wealth
2. Support the public unions in Wisconsin keeping their benefits, because getting paid what they get paid is not redistribution of wealth, but getting their money back.

Is that correct?

Generally speaking, yes. I support unemployment benefits because most of the people who need them have been fucked over by this corporatist system and deserve restitution for it. Think of it this way: the benefits received by middle class service workers, when considered in the aggregate actually constitute a reduction in the amount of money being redistributed from the masses to the rich parasites at the top of the pyramid. Now, there's a legitimate criticism that things like these are funded by taxing the very same middle class which is already getting screwed - and I agree that it's a problem because it's basically just treading water.

Politically, there's no way the super rich are going to allow an increase of their taxes (even if the plan also included the elimination of all income taxes for the "bottom" 80% of Americans - because democracy is a farce). That's why my priority is getting rid of corporate welfare, both overt as well as structural. The federal reserve is a great example of a structural form of welfare for the rich - it literally facilitates the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer... I would hope to God we can at least agree on that. Problem is, the Fed is just one of many structural aspects of our economy, largely resulting from a complex history of government involvement in the economy that stretches back for centuries, which likewise redistribute wealth from the bottom up.

You don't need unions or benefits if you aren't forced by the laws to be totally depended upon employment (whether public or private). I'm extremely confident in the ability of a radically free market to provide all the things we need as a society, but any serious thinker on the subject of a transition to that sort of system needs to have a realistic grasp of the nature of this convoluted mess falsely touted as a free market by demagogues on the right and left. Fact is, there is undeniably a class war aspect to this issue, and it's an aspect being totally ignored by people who are cheering on as the middle class gets shafted yet again (while the rich parasites remain basically unaffected - your money is paying for private tutors for their children, after all, and no one would dare suggest they chip in more to pay for a system they designed and profited from).

[RedStripe]

@RedStripe but you advocate more government services not less. I don't get how you think you are advocating anything different but taking over the state apparatus for your favor.

Would you say that in response to Ron Paul stating that he opposed to the elimination of entitlement programs? If not, why?

[silverhandorder]

Would you say that in response to Ron Paul stating that he opposed to the elimination of entitlement programs? If not, why?

He never said what you claim he said. He wants to cut everything. He also wants to have a transition period. However you are not saying either of those things. You are clearly asking for more government.

[RedStripe]

You know damn well if the unions had carte blanche they'd do the same as the banksters. It's human nature. That's why power should be dispersed and restrained. I don't see anything wrong with telling the unions enough is enough. And this is coming from someone who would be clapping if we had a public gallows set up for the Goldman execs.

I think there is legitimate criticism to be leveled at the unions as hierarchical bureaucracies (just like their corporate/state counterparts). They only really became that way because the labor movement was assimilated into the state-capitalist system, and it's unfortunate how pathetic they have become. Modern strikes are to old school strikes as modern street protests are to old school street protests. They've become largely impotent cogs in the very machine they were originally designed to disrupt.

But there are still a lot of grassroots unions out there which remain committed to actually representing the interests of labor.

[FrankRep]

Would you say that in response to Ron Paul stating that he opposed to the elimination of entitlement programs? If not, why?

RedStripe, Ron Paul supports ending entitlement programs. Not overnight obviously.


Ron Paul on Entitlement Programs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNs4jbUjgg

[RedStripe]

Banking technologies, and if the government would cut out its bullshit regulations, I might be making ten thousand more a year easy.

Slutter McGee

Ahahahahahahaha

*deep breath*

ahahahahahahahaha

you make your money from a government-mandated cartel industry and have the gall be self-righteous about the money you make from being the beneficiary of probably the worst example of corporate cronyism in the modern world aside from military contractors.... ahahahahahahahaha

your posts in this thread, with this amazing revelation finale, should be fucking engraved in stone so that future generations can stare in awe at the sheer level of stupid hypocrisy the internet is capable of producing

You. Are. A. Huge. Fucking. Parasite.

[low preference guy]

Ahahahahahahaha

*deep breath*

ahahahahahahahaha

you make your money from a government-mandated cartel industry and have the gall be self-righteous about the money you make from being the beneficiary of probably the worst example of corporate cronyism in the modern world aside from military contractors.... ahahahahahahahaha

your posts in this thread, with this amazing revelation finale, should be fucking engraved in stone so that future generations can stare in awe at the sheer level of stupid hypocrisy the internet is capable of producing

You. Are. A. Huge. Fucking. Parasite.

Banking isn't necessarily immoral. Receiving bailouts is immoral. Not every bank received bailouts.

[RedStripe]

He never said what you claim he said. He wants to cut everything. He also wants to have a transition period. However you are not saying either of those things. You are clearly asking for more government.

I just described my ideal transition period to a system in which it would not longer be damaging to the middle class for all forms of entitlements to be removed.

Yes, in my ideal world there is no government which clearly implies that there would be no public service unions. That doesn't mean I'm going to be a complete retard and just advocate kicking the stool out from beneath middle class workers simply for the sake of ideological purity.

[RedStripe]

Banking isn't necessarily immoral. Receiving bailouts is immoral. Not every bank received bailouts.

Bailouts?

The bailouts?

The bailouts aren't even the tiniest tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the banking industry has been coddled and protected by the government for centuries. God damn do I have to point out the obvious in every post?

[low preference guy]

Yes, in my ideal world there is no government which clearly implies that there would be no public service unions. That doesn't mean I'm going to be a complete retard and just advocate kicking the stool out from beneath middle class workers simply for the sake of ideological purity.

What about advocating "kicking the stool out from beneath middle class workers" simply because you want to have lower taxes?

[RedStripe]

This ^ is probably your best post ever. FTW. :cool:

Thanks, but you might want to be careful around these parts. They might call you a socialist/communist/something.

[low preference guy]

Thanks, but you might want to be careful around these parts. They might call you a socialist/communist/something.

No, people call you socialist because you admitted you are one.

[silverhandorder]

I just described my ideal transition period to a system in which it would not longer be damaging to the middle class for all forms of entitlements to be removed.

Yes, in my ideal world there is no government which clearly implies that there would be no public service unions. That doesn't mean I'm going to be a complete retard and just advocate kicking the stool out from beneath middle class workers simply for the sake of ideological purity.


Bailouts?

The bailouts?

The bailouts aren't even the tiniest tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the banking industry has been coddled and protected by the government for centuries. God damn do I have to point out the obvious in every post?

Well your current solution will only yield higher taxes and higher spending. I don't see how this step is necessary at all.

And banking certainly been captured by a cartel. That does not mean there are bankers that work outside of this. For example he said his boss is a millionaire. The guys who control the banking system are billionaires.

[RedStripe]

What about advocating "kicking the stool out from beneath middle class workers" simply because you want to have lower taxes?

Lower taxes how exactly? By placing the tax burden more proportionately on the class of people who designed and profited from the mixed economic model? Fine. Hell I'm all for that. I'd love it if someone in congress had the balls to propose an elimination of all income taxes on anyone making less than 100k a year, while increasing taxes for those who make more than, say, 5 million.

See, "lower taxes" isn't really a self-contained policy. There are millions of ways to do it, and millions of possible repercussions. Ron Paul doesn't believe in cutting entitlement spending until a humane transition can be developed because he's a realist who understands this and correctly points to a bloated defense budget as the most logical and just method of cutting federal expenditures. Most politicians rely on speaking in vague abstractions like your "want to have lower taxes?" tatement which doesn't really answer the hard policy questions, some of which are as simple as "how?". One reason Ron Paul stands out is the fact that he actually has a logical plan for doing so that doesn't involve further screwing over the victims of corporatism.

[Sentient Void]

lol and where the fuck do you think the state comes from? The stork?

This isn't some random phenomenon or recent development. The economic elite and the political elite are one in the same - have been and always will be. It's not a matter of the rich "taking advantage" of the system so much as it is a matter of the system operating as intended. Empowering the rich at the expense of the masses, regardless of whether some Koch-funded blowhard beltway think tank labels it as "fiscally conservative," is ultimately counter-productive to the libertarian cause because libertarianism which is true to its roots is a populist revolutionary ideology.

The State has mostly come from the elite looking to ensure their status at the expense of everyone, but the State can *only* be created and maintained with the support of the People. People unfortunately have been historically economically ignorant, and believed you couldn't have society or an economy without the State (I actually still talk to people who believe this). This is why education of the masses, the use of the spontaneous order and power of the internet and spreading the libertarian philosophy is so important.

Regardless, the *source of their power* is the STATE. With education of the people, showing how the market, capitalism and *property* can do anything and everything the State does, but more effectively, less expensively, and while respecting the dignity of individuals, people will abandon the need for the State.

You're focusing on the wrong source of power, and your so-called 'solution' is potentially *more* destructive than even the current Statist system, where as a thickist you want to abolish all property and even many voluntary interactions. Coordination, calculation, information and thus civilization is impossible under the 'solution' you advocate, and we would be forever stuck in a tribal and hunter-gatherer society, or have to hand over all means of production and allocation to a small group of individuals. BAM - immaculate conception of the State.

More thickism fail.

[low preference guy]

Lower taxes how exactly? By placing the tax burden more proportionately on the class of people who designed and profited from the mixed economic model? Fine. Hell I'm all for that. I'd love it if someone in congress had the balls to propose an elimination of all income taxes on anyone making less than 100k a year, while increasing taxes for those who make more than, say, 5 million.

LOL. You don't put higher taxes on a "class of people". You are a collectivist. There are tons of millionaires who came from nothing. For example, the guy who created Jimmy John's. You want to screw that guy and take his money? You're a joke.

[low preference guy]

Lower taxes how exactly?

If government spending increases, it needs to be funded, that usually is done through taxation. If you reduce spending, it is likely that taxes would be less than otherwise.

[FrankRep]

RedStripe: Workers of the World, Unite! Tax the Rich!

Capitalists: Who is John Galt?

[RedStripe]

No, people call you socialist because you admitted you are one.

Oh right, the same people whose understanding of the meaning of that term is about as informed as Bill O'Reilly's. Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker and other early American libertarian/anarchists were considered part of the socialist radical movement of the 1800s, I guess we have to crucify them too, because apparently the majority of the people on this forum have decided to forgo intelligent discussion/research and instead rely on FrankRep-style smear attacks, fear-mongering and the use of political labels they barely understand.

Most important, I said I was in favor of socialist ends through libertarian means. No one who has tried to slander me with the label of socialist has, of course, ever attempted to actually debate me on the broad meaning and objectives of populist or anarchist socialism, especially not the intellectual midgets like FrankRep.

[low preference guy]

Most important, I said I was in favor of socialist ends through libertarian means.

You want to achieve economic equality though libertarian means? Hmmm... Good luck!

[FrankRep]

Most important, I said I was in favor of socialist ends through libertarian means. No one who has tried to slander me with the label of socialist has, of course, ever attempted to actually debate me on the broad meaning and objectives of populist or anarchist socialism, especially not the intellectual midgets like FrankRep.

Yet you keep promoting Big Government to accomplish your "socialist ends."

[RedStripe]

Well your current solution will only yield higher taxes and higher spending. I don't see how this step is necessary at all.

I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension. Explain how my approach to "entitlement" programs/systems for the poor/middle class differs significantly from Ron Paul's.



And banking certainly been captured by a cartel. That does not mean there are bankers that work outside of this. For example he said his boss is a millionaire. The guys who control the banking system are billionaires.

Is this an argument? He SELLS PRODUCTS TO A CARTEL. It must take an obscene amount of cognitive dissidence to fail to see how this is profiting directly from a system of government protectionism (VIOLENCE!!11).

[Slutter McGee]

Ahahahahahahaha

*deep breath*

ahahahahahahahaha

you make your money from a government-mandated cartel industry and have the gall be self-righteous about the money you make from being the beneficiary of probably the worst example of corporate cronyism in the modern world aside from military contractors.... ahahahahahahahaha

your posts in this thread, with this amazing revelation finale, should be fucking engraved in stone so that future generations can stare in awe at the sheer level of stupid hypocrisy the internet is capable of producing

You. Are. A. Huge. Fucking. Parasite.

And you are a fucking moron. Only a small perentage of our business is dealing with current government regulations. And since we would prefere our clients stay in business, we provide them with the means of working their banking without violating government regulations.... despite the fact that it costs both of us money.

And since we work with smaller community banks, the bank must work a profit before providing us our own profit. YOU are a fucking DICK. you should GO FUCK YOUR SELF. RUB OFF YOUR FUCKING COCK before accusing me...SOMEONE WHO ACUTUALLY WORKS FOR A FUCKING LIVING...of somehow fucking you over with the fucking tiny banks I work with.

YOU ARE A FUCKING PRICK. DICK. GODAMN MOTHER FUCKER, WHO HAS NO CLUE WHAT LIBERTY IS

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Sola_Fide]

Rage For The Machine

Lolololol

True.

[QueenB4Liberty]

So you would not call 911 if there was an emergency? That's asking for a service. Do you fly on planes? That's asking for a service largely funded by the government.

Clearly neither you nor "low preference guy" are getting the point here. The point is that poor and middle class people are not "just as wrong" for living within this system (just as you do) as the rich who created it for their own selfish purposes. Do you understand the distinction or do I have to spell it out again?

I read a really fascinating article by Murray Rothbard that I thought was totally relevant to what was happening.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard232.html

What he is basically saying is that it isn't immoral/hypocritical/unLibertarian to drive on government roads, use money, get a job, etc. Because to reject everything the government provides would be crazy because they have a monopoly on basically everything. It's very hard to not use government something sometime in your life.

But what is bad is like taking a job as an IRS agent or signing up to serve in an unjust war because that is inherently immoral. There's nothing even inherently wrong working for the state according to Murray, except when you try and take advantage of the state and use it to screw your fellow Americans, which is what these people in Wisconsin protesting are doing. Trying to use the state to extract more money from the taxpayers.

[Sentient Void]

Ahahahahahahaha

*deep breath*

ahahahahahahahaha

you make your money from a government-mandated cartel industry and have the gall be self-righteous about the money you make from being the beneficiary of probably the worst example of corporate cronyism in the modern world aside from military contractors.... ahahahahahahahaha

your posts in this thread, with this amazing revelation finale, should be fucking engraved in stone so that future generations can stare in awe at the sheer level of stupid hypocrisy the internet is capable of producing

You. Are. A. Huge. Fucking. Parasite.

WTF are you talking about? Do you really think that banking can only exist if it is 'government-mandated'? How the fuck is it 'government-mandated'? You're being absurd, as usual.

The banking industry is surely regulated by the government to shit - and we have coerced legal tender laws and a government-mandated central bank, but how does any of this make it 'government-mandated'? You're a fucking fool and your desperation to marginalize Slutter McGee here only further exposes your heinous trolling ways.

But as was said before, not *all* banks received bailouts. There are quite a few even very large banks (like TD Bank) that outright *refused* bailouts. So you're being intellectually dishonest and lazy, once again.

Fail, fail, and more fail.

[Romulus]

That's not a market. That's called an individual relationship fundamentally rooted in a myriad of external social/economic/historical circumstances. Sorry, try again.

lol @ myriad of circumstances. The employer/employee relationship is this thing called the labor market.


I criticize people who are shortsighted and ignorant of how the world actually operates, and who are blatant hypocrites (use government services but call others who use government services parasites and thieves; people who are quick to make up excuses as to why business must seek government aid and protection, but are quick to attack working class people who do the same on a much smaller and transparent scale). [/U][/I]


So if I force you to eat dogshit while you say that you don't like it, and you eat it that makes you a hypocrite? lol O. K.

[RedStripe]

the State can *only* be created and maintained with the support of the People.

Thanks for showing us that you don't even have a basic understanding of human history. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Ever heard of this thing call conquest? Violence? Repression? Extortion? Genocide? Hmm, might want to visit a library some time.



You're focusing on the wrong source of power, and your so-called 'solution' is potentially *more* destructive than even the current Statist system, where as a thickist you want to abolish all property and even many voluntary interactions. Coordination, calculation, information and thus civilization is impossible under the 'solution' you advocate, and we would be forever stuck in a tribal and hunter-gatherer society, or have to hand over all means of production and allocation to a small group of individuals.

Ahaha. You live in such a cramped, black-and-white ideological shoebox that my arguments go straight over your head. I raise the issue of what, exactly constitutes justly acquired property and how the myriad of rules which surround ought to be developed and since you can't wrap your mind around the issue you result to a binary test where either someone is against "property" or for it (never bothering to figure out what exactly it is). Someone questions the very concept of an absolute distinction between voluntary and involuntary and you immediately interpret it as "they want to 'ban' voluntary interactions" because that's the only reaction your simplistic ideology has prepared you to experience.

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm advocating. You are afraid of "thick" (aka real) libertarianism because it's not the simplistic black-and-white world that you feel comfortable living in.

[silverhandorder]

I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension. Explain how my approach to "entitlement" programs/systems for the poor/middle class differs significantly from Ron Paul's.



Is this an argument? He SELLS PRODUCTS TO A CARTEL. It must take an obscene amount of cognitive dissidence to fail to see how this is profiting directly from a system of government protectionism (VIOLENCE!!11).

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the services and will do it given the chance. You make all types of pre requisites and even asking for more given that the corps stay in power. But strike all that for some strategy that I can not comprehend. How is giving awesome benefits at the cost of raising taxes for the rich helping the poor or shrinking government. Let's say you take this step when if ever are you going to take the step to grow the government smaller?

Banking cartel does not mean all banks are in the cartel. It also does not mean that he is giving his services to the cartel banks. But instead of making assumptions you should probably ask first?

[Romulus]

You want to achieve economic equality though libertarian means? Hmmm... Good luck!

Hey its the Venus Project! haha

[RedStripe]

And you are a fucking moron. Only a small perentage of our business is dealing with current government regulations. And since we would prefere our clients stay in business, we provide them with the means of working their banking without violating government regulations.... despite the fact that it costs both of us money.

And since we work with smaller community banks, the bank must work a profit before providing us our own profit. YOU are a fucking DICK. you should GO FUCK YOUR SELF. RUB OFF YOUR FUCKING COCK before accusing me...SOMEONE WHO ACUTUALLY WORKS FOR A FUCKING LIVING...of somehow fucking you over with the fucking tiny banks I work with.

YOU ARE A FUCKING PRICK. DICK. GODAMN MOTHER FUCKER, WHO HAS NO CLUE WHAT LIBERTY IS

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Your clients are government-licensed members of a government-created cartel who profit from privilege granted by the government. Read that sentence like 10 times or however many times it takes your noodle brain to comprehend a basic fact. You directly and personally profit from the government's grant of exclusive privileges to your clients. You are a direct beneficiary of government protectionism.

You are a direct beneficiary of government protectionism.

You are a direct beneficiary of government protectionism.

You are a direct beneficiary of government protectionism.

And not just any old parasite, but a parasite who lives off of one of the most disgusting examples of corporatism in a sea of crony government-industry relationships. And you call other people parasites for trying get themselves government benefits? Haha, god DAMN. You are just a self-entitled baby who refuses to acknowledge how you have benefited extensively from government favoritism because you enjoy calling the kettle black. Fucking pathetic.

PS: I'm not accusing you of "fucking me over" or even saying you are a bad person simply because you make a living from a government-protected industry. I'm saying you are a bad person because you are a fucking hypocrite. That should have been plenty clear, but I get the strange feeling that reading isn't your strength.

[RedStripe]

lol @ myriad of circumstances. The employer/employee relationship is this thing called the labor market.

Haha yea, and you think the labor market is a free market which goes to show just how incredibly uninformed you are about the world.




So if I force you to eat dogshit while you say that you don't like it, and you eat it that makes you a hypocrite? lol O. K.

This is the most incoherent and nonsensical analogy I've ever had the displeasure of attempting to read through without rolling my eyes.

[RedStripe]

You want to achieve economic equality though libertarian means? Hmmm... Good luck!

In a free market would wealth be based on personal ability?

[RedStripe]

WTF are you talking about? Do you really think that banking can only exist if it is 'government-mandated'? How the fuck is it 'government-mandated'? You're being absurd, as usual.

How is the banking industry government-mandated? Do I have to teach you everything? Where are the parents!

Just about every aspect of the banking industry is mandated by the government. Can't believe you didn't know this, and of course I don't believe that banking would disappear without the state (but it would obviously be very different).



The banking industry is surely regulated by the government to shit - and we have coerced legal tender laws and a government-mandated central bank, but how does any of this make it 'government-mandated'? You're a fucking fool and your desperation to marginalize Slutter McGee here only further exposes your heinous trolling ways.

But as was said before, not *all* banks received bailouts. There are quite a few even very large banks (like TD Bank) that outright *refused* bailouts. So you're being intellectually dishonest and lazy, once again.

Fail, fail, and more fail.

All banks benefit enormously from greatly restricted competition as result of many government policies. The fact that it is necessary for me to point this out is pretty amazing.

People who think the bailouts were a significant form of protectionism, relative to the passive forms of protectionism which have been operative for at least 100 years, are stupid.

[ClayTrainor]

In a free market would wealth be based on personal ability?

In a free-market wealth is based on what people voluntarily decide is valuable. If no one wants your signed copy of the communist manifesto enough to trade anything for it, it has no value. If people are willing to trade for it, it has some value in the free-market, based on what they're willing to trade.

[Sentient Void]

Thanks for showing us that you don't even have a basic understanding of human history. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Ever heard of this thing call conquest? Violence? Repression? Extortion? Genocide? Hmm, might want to visit a library some time.

Haha, you're such an intellectually dishonest douche. We were speaking in the context of an immaculate conception of the State. Not conquest.


Ahaha. You live in such a cramped, black-and-white ideological shoebox that my arguments go straight over your head. I raise the issue of what, exactly constitutes justly acquired property and how the myriad of rules which surround ought to be developed and since you can't wrap your mind around the issue you result to a binary test where either someone is against "property" or for it (never bothering to figure out what exactly it is). Someone questions the very concept of an absolute distinction between voluntary and involuntary and you immediately interpret it as "they want to 'ban' voluntary interactions" because that's the only reaction your simplistic ideology has prepared you to experience.

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm advocating. You are afraid of "thick" (aka real) libertarianism because it's not the simplistic black-and-white world that you feel comfortable living in.

lol - bullshit. You've said nothing of substance here, as usual. I'm familiar with "thick" libertarianism, and it's pure bullshit, unworkable, and economically destructive as described above. You guys make a lot of talk about injustice and how any and all hierarchical authority is 'wrong' and question it all, yet you avoid how it could at all work - what I've stated above would be the natural result of your preposterous philosophy.

A usual, you just make false arbitrary claims and contribute nothing of real value, once exposed. Nor could you *logically* refute what I've said about thickism. Pathetic.

[Romulus]

Haha yea, and you think the labor market is a free market which goes to show just how incredibly uninformed you are about the world.
Full circle now.. never said it was free - thats why I said abolish the min wage to make it more free and you cried foul and threw up a strawman.



This is the most incoherent and nonsensical analogy I've ever had the displeasure of attempting to read through without rolling my eyes.

Are you leaching off the dog, eating free dogshit while its being forced down your thoat? What dont you get?

[RedStripe]

In a free-market wealth is based on what people voluntarily decide is valuable. If no one wants your signed copy of the communist manifesto enough to trade anything for it, it has no value. If people are willing to trade for it, it has some value in the free-market, based on what they're willing to trade.

edit: see below

[RedStripe]

In a free-market wealth is based on what people voluntarily decide is valuable. If no one wants your signed copy of the communist manifesto enough to trade anything for it, it has no value. If people are willing to trade for it, it has some value in the free-market, based on what they're willing to trade.

That's a micro theory of value. I'd like to know what free market advocates believe about the relationship between natural ability and wealth accumulation in a free market.

[RedStripe]

Haha, you're such an intellectually dishonest douche. We were speaking in the context of an immaculate conception of the State. Not conquest.

You said that all governments require the support of the people. That is objectively false, so you were once again wrong. And just like when you totally misread my comment about hypocrisy earlier in the thread and refused to even acknowledge your simple mistake, you switch to attacking me for point out that you are wrong.

You clearly don't understand what "intellectual dishonesty" means.



lol - bullshit. You've said nothing of substance here, as usual.

I'm familiar with "thick" libertarianism, and it's pure bullshit, unworkable, and economically destructive as described above. You guys make a lot of talk about injustice and how any and all hierarchical authority is 'wrong' and question it all, yet you avoid how it could at all work - what I've stated above would be the natural result of your preposterous philosophy.

A usual, you just make false arbitrary claims and contribute nothing of real value, once exposed. Nor could you *logically* refute what I've said about thickism. Pathetic.

Here we go again, more of the same fluff. Again, you don't understand my position because you claim that I believe that all property should be abolished. That is objectively false and I challenge you to back up your claim.

Since you don't even know what I've advocating, your lackluster attempts to critique it just a fruitless exercise of mental masturbation for you. If you want to wrestle around with a strawman and claim victory that's intellectual dishonesty and totally your choice.

[ClayTrainor]

That's a micro theory of value not a theory of wealth accumulation in relation to physical ability.

Value is subjective.

If no one is willing to trade for your communist manifesto, it has no value in the market. Do you disagree?

[Sentient Void]

How is the banking industry government-mandated? Do I have to teach you everything? Where are the parents!

Just about every aspect of the banking industry is mandated by the government. Can't believe you didn't know this, and of course I don't believe that banking would disappear without the state (but it would obviously be very different).

You're being absurd, as usual. Feel free to engage in your incessant ad-hoc reasoning as to how 'Just about every aspect of of the banking industry is mandated by the government'. Without the government mandates that do exist (central bank, legal tender laws, other absurd A through Z regulations), obviously the banking industry would be different (and much better, in numerous ways), but you made the *absolutely fucking retarded claim* that the banking industry is a government mandated cartel.


All banks benefit enormously from greatly restricted competition as result of many government policies. The fact that it is necessary for me to point this out is pretty amazing.

People who think the bailouts were a significant form of protectionism, relative to the passive forms of protectionism which have been operative for at least 100 years, are stupid.

Oh, stop. No one around here doesn't think the passive forms of protectionism aren't significant. The bailout was a major hit all at once that saved their asses where they otherwise would have collapsed and been liquidated, and rightly so.

But ultimately, this says nothing in regards to your fucking idiotic claim that the industry exists due to government mandate. More BS spin and dishonesty. Pathetic.

[ClayTrainor]

That's a micro theory of value.

The macro scale is derivative of the micro scale. Thus, Subjective theory of value is valid on the micro and macro scale



I'd like to know what free market advocates believe about the relationship between natural ability and wealth accumulation in a free market.

Can you rephrase/clarify what you mean by this? I want to be sure I understand what you mean...

[RedStripe]

You're being absurd, as usual. Feel free to engage in your incessant ad-hoc reasoning as to how 'Just about every aspect of of the banking industry is mandated by the government'. Without the government mandates that do exist (central bank, legal tender laws, other absurd A through Z regulations), obviously the banking industry would be different (and much better, in numerous ways), but you made the *absolutely fucking retarded claim* that the banking industry is a government mandated cartel.



Oh, stop. No one around here doesn't think the passive forms of protectionism aren't significant. The bailout was a major hit all at once that saved their asses where they otherwise would have collapsed and been liquidated, and rightly so.

But ultimately, this says nothing in regards to your fucking idiotic claim that the industry exists due to government mandate. More BS spin and dishonesty. Pathetic.

Maybe you don't understand what a mandate is?

The government literally set up the banking system. Like, it established regional federal reserve branches and everything. Wow I'm really having to explain this on Ron Paul forums. Strange.

[Romulus]

In a free market would wealth be based on personal ability?

Wealth is based on your ability to produce. Its about production. If you cant produce, its no ones fault but yours or your creator. No one should be FORCED to pick up the slack of non producers.

[Andrew-Austin]

lol look who's cheering on the politicians/government! Don't you claim to be anti-government?

Are you really that dense? Of course we are in favor of the government limiting itself and cutting back.




You can't point to a single instance of me blaming anything on "the market." You clearly don't understand what I believe at all.

That is probably because you have never made it clear, and your post history consists of snide disagreeing remarks towards people who argue we should move towards free markets.




Again with the unrealistic, black-and-white analysis of a complex issue. The fact is, when there is "more government" (the definition of which isn't always clear, such as a government initiative to audit the fed - isn't that technically an increase in government activity?) some people may benefit while others are put at a relative disadvantage. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly not understand this. There are winners and losers in every government policy.

Its pretty fucking clear when there is more government. An audit the Fed bill is a weird example, yes its a bill saying the government should do something, but its extremely small, and strategically aimed at limiting government in the long term (ending the Fed).

I would like to see you try and think of a better example, because that one was horribly weak sauce.



I criticize people who are shortsighted and ignorant of how the world actually operates, and who are blatant hypocrites (use government services but call others who use government services parasites and thieves; people who are quick to make up excuses as to why business must seek government aid and protection, but are quick to attack working class people who do the same on a much smaller and transparent scale). Ron Paul doesn't agree with ending social security or other entitlements in the foreseeable future because he's not a naive moron.

He actually understands how society works; how the poor and middle class dependents are really the victims of corporatism, and that the hand-outs they get here are a sad necessity due to the nature of a system of cronyism. Clearly that message has been almost completely lost on this forum.

Its amazing how much arrogance and condescension you can muster up, over so very little. Just more proof you are a troll I guess.

There is a big difference between:

A) a libertarian who happens to (for example) drive on state roads, while advocating that state ownership of roads should be abolished

and

B) a socialist/communist government worker, who has worked for the government the majority of their life and produced hardly anything that can be called a decent service, who then begs the government to continue extorting money from others and giving it to them in the form of lavish benefits that are far above what private sector workers make

I'm not sure why you even brought up social security and entitlements, this is about the government workers in Wisconsin. These people are throwing titty-fits that they should be paid more not less, when they undoubtedly make much more than I do in the private sector. For all you know, their benefits and wages could be extorted from people "poorer" than themselves. I put "poor" in quotations because these people undoubtedly make more than I do, and I'm perfectly happy with my standards of living. I guess you are just trying to twist the issue again, and you wonder why people here think you are a douche bag.

[ClayTrainor]

Wealth is based on your ability to produce. Its about production. If you cant produce, its no ones fault but yours or your creator. No one should be FORCED to pick up the slack of non producers.

And to argue otherwise, is to argue for taxation, which is the fundamental principle of statism.

[RedStripe]

Value is subjective.

If no one is willing to trade for your communist manifesto, it has no value in the market. Do you disagree?

If value is subjective, the fact that something cannot be exchanged on the market does not preclude it from having value, right? Say, for example, a good which has value to one person but for which others will not exchange their goods.


The macro scale is derivative of the micro scale. Thus, Subjective theory of value is valid on the micro and macro scale

What exactly is the macro version of the subjective theory of value? It has always seemed to me to be a micro theory as it is focused on the subjective choices of individual people.



Can you rephrase/clarify what you mean by this? I want to be sure I understand what you mean...

What are the extent of the predictive powers of the subjective theory of value in the context of wealth distribution within a free market?

Alternatively, what would one expect the distribution of wealth to look like in a free market? Would it correlate with personal ability?

[low preference guy]

If value is subjective, the fact that something cannot be exchanged on the market does not preclude it from having value, right? Say, for example, a good which has value to one person but for which others will not exchange their goods.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about market value when he said value.

[RedStripe]

Wealth is based on your ability to produce. Its about production. If you cant produce, its no ones fault but yours or your creator. No one should be FORCED to pick up the slack of non producers.

Strange. Seems like the people who actually produce things - or "labor" as it is sometimes called, are the poorest people. Hmm, do you think it would be that way in a free market?

[low preference guy]

What are the extent of the predictive powers of the subjective theory of value in the context of wealth distribution within a free market?

Alternatively, what would one expect the distribution of wealth to look like in a free market? Would it correlate with personal ability?

I'm not sure what the theory says, but why don't you just look at the countries with freest markets? Look at Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Australia. I don't think they have economic equality, which is expected.

[zade]

Red how do you not get that the government exists as a mechanism to enable poor people to steal from libertarians

[Anti Federalist]

I'd also say this is probably part of why the people in the middle east hate us.
It also partially vindicates the "they hate us for our freedoms" lie.
This shit gets on television, and I don't know what they'd say about it in Arabic, but it's probably along the lines of
"Get a load of these assholes! They don't even get to the point of actually hurting anybody, and a bunch of people who obviously didn't get the message 20 years ago that communism is an abject failure decide to start comparing people who get to eat regularly with Egyptians who until recently had their testicles in a vise... why should we NOT hate these jackasses?"

A vice supplied by and screwed down tight by our own government.

Shit, I live here and hate it.

[Romulus]

Strange. Seems like the people who actually produce things - or "labor" as it is sometimes called, are the poorest people. Hmm, do you think it would be that way in a free market?

Lots of producers are rich. Lots of poor become rich by producing. Some stay poor. Whats your point? That we need a Venus Project to distribute wealth because of peoples inabilities?

[RedStripe]

Are you really that dense? Of course we are in favor of the government limiting itself and cutting back.

Hmm, don't think I was talking to you.



That is probably because you have never made it clear, and your post history consists of snide disagreeing remarks towards people who argue we should move towards free markets.

You must not have read my posts because I made it explicitly clear that:
1. Like Ron Paul I am AGAINST cutting welfare/entitlement benefits for the working class and poor in the foreseeable future until a transition to a different system is possible.

2. Like Ron Paul my first priority is cutting corporate welfare both overt ($$$$$) and structural (Fed - I would extend this to patents, copyrights, tariffs, military and other R&D using tax dollars) for two reasons: to level the playing field between spontaneous grassroots/democratic egalitarian libertarian cooperative structures and their corporate/government/hierarchical counterparts and to reduce government spending thereby allowing some entitlement programs to wind down in a stable manner without increasing taxes.

It's actually really fucking simple if you would take the time to read what I write.



Its pretty fucking clear when there is more government. An audit the Fed bill is a weird example, yes its a bill saying the government should do something, but its extremely small, and strategically aimed at limiting government in the long term (ending the Fed).

I would like to see you try and think of a better example, because that one was horribly weak sauce.

The creation of the class action lawsuit mechanic, vicarious employer liability, products liability laws, certain regulations of credit card companies, and many other examples of laws which have lessened the damage caused by excessive government protectionism and cronyism. Renter's rights come to mind. Nice improvement over feudalism is you ask me.

[low preference guy]

Strange. Seems like the people who actually produce things - or "labor" as it is sometimes called, are the poorest people. Hmm, do you think it would be that way in a free market?

When an entrepreneur coordinates and decides how other people's labor will be used, he is doing a much more difficult job than his employees, and he is rewarded accordingly.

[ClayTrainor]

If value is subjective, the fact that something cannot be exchanged on the market does not preclude it from having value, right?

If no one is willing to trade for it, where does it get its value from?



Say, for example, a good which has value to one person but for which others will not exchange their goods.


Than the value is subjective to that one person. If it has no value to anyone else, than it has no market value. If other people are willing to trade for it, than the value is based on how much they are willing to trade.

You might value your signed copy of the communist manifesto, but just because you value it, doesn't mean it has value in the marketplace. it gets value in the market from people who are willing to trade for it.



What exactly is the macro version of the subjective theory of value? It has always seemed to me to be a micro theory as it is focused on the subjective choices of individual people.


The macro economic scale is just the aggregate of all the choices made on the micro scale, like Macro-evolution is the aggregate of the effects micro-evolution. Like i said, the macro scale is completely derivative of the micro scale.


What are the extent of the predictive powers of the subjective theory of value in the context of wealth distribution within a free market?

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking here...




Alternatively, what would one expect the distribution of wealth to look like in a free market? Would it correlate with personal ability?

The distribution of wealth would be based on what people value as individuals. If no one is willing to trade you their labor and/or resources for your item(s), than they have no value. If someone is willing to trade labor and/or resources for them, than they have value.

[RedStripe]

When an entrepreneur coordinates and decides how other people's labor will be used, he is doing a much more difficult job than his employees, and he is rewarded accordingly.

The irony that this is exactly the type of justification that was given for feudalism's stratification of power is probably completely lost on you, isn't it?

I mean, of course some people just magically start off with all the money and we should be thankful that these people are gracious enough to tell the rest of the brutes how to organize production! Of course!

[Slutter McGee]

Oh dear lord. I wish I was not so fucking gorgeous.

[low preference guy]

The irony that this is exactly the type of justification that was given for feudalism's stratification of power is probably completely lost on you, isn't it?

What a retarded argument.

When an entrepreneur coordinates production in a free market, all his workers are voluntary, and all his clients also buy their products without being forced.

If you think they're being paid too much, why don't you do the same thing they do, and instead of keeping the profits, go ahead and pay the workers. Do what the Jimmy John's guy did. He didn't even go to freaking college. He is a millionaire. And you're saying I'm justifying "power stratification"? What a fucking joke.

[RedStripe]

Red how do you not get that the government exists as a mechanism to enable poor people to steal from libertarians

lol

I finally see the light. All this time.. the masses have been conspiring against white-bread suburban internet libertarians to enslave us. The evidence is overwhelming - I have yet to see a single poor person reading a Mises treatise as they sit at the public (SOCIALST) bus stop waiting to head to work at 6:30pm. Those smug fuckers...

[Romulus]

What a retarded argument.

When an entrepreneur coordinates production in a free market, all his workers are voluntary, and all his clients also buy their products without being forced.

If you think they're being paid too much, why don't you do the same thing they do, and instead of keeping the profits, go ahead and pay the workers. Do what the Jimmy John's guy did. He didn't even go to freaking college. He is a millionaire. And you're saying I'm justifying "power stratification"? What a fucking joke.

He does not understand the fundamental difference between voluntarism and coercion. Not a lick. lol.

[ClayTrainor]

What a retarded argument.

When an entrepreneur coordinates production in a free market, all his workers are voluntary, and all his clients also buy their products without being forced.

A perfect example.. Right now, me and my cousin are developing an iphone app for small businesses. The app will give people discounts to certain businesses that we sign on to our network.

The purpose of the app, is to offer savings to consumers, as well as driving customers to businesses. The businesses enter into the contract voluntarily in order to get more customers. The customers download the app voluntarily in order to save money. The entrepreneurs who built the app make a profit by setting up the network that establishes mutually profitable relationships, and taking a cut for their efforts.

If the app is successful, everybody wins. If it is not, it is likely that we were not providing enough value.

Redstripe, would you argue that I'm participating in some sort of evil by doing this?

[RedStripe]

If no one is willing to trade for it, where does it get its value from?

At this moment, I not willing to trade with anyone in exchange for air, but it is still highly valuable to me. So things can be valuable even if people are not willing to trade for them, correct?



Than the value is subjective to that one person. If it has no value to anyone else, than it has no market value. If other people are willing to trade for it, than the value is based on how much they are willing to trade.

So by market value, you really just mean price, correct?



You might value your signed copy of the communist manifesto, but just because you value it, doesn't mean it has value in the marketplace. it gets value in the market from people who are willing to trade for it.

I agree that it would have no price, but that does not make it not valuable in a subjective sense. I'm not arguing that to be the case with all or even many goods, but it is still true for some.



The macro economic scale is just the aggregate of all the choices made on the micro scale, like Macro-evolution is the aggregate of the effects micro-evolution. Like i said, the macro scale is completely derivative of the micro scale.

I just don't see how it is a macro theory since it does not seem predictive of any macro economic phenomenon.



I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking here...

What is the use of the subjective theory of value? What insight does it provide about the world that we would not otherwise understand? How does it help us understand the economy? To me, it just sounds like a truism which doesn't really have much significance.



The distribution of wealth would be based on what people value as individuals. If no one is willing to trade you their labor and/or resources for your item(s), than they have no value. If someone is willing to trade labor and/or resources for them, than they have value.

Eh, never mind.

[Sentient Void]

You said that all governments require the support of the people. That is objectively false, so you were once again wrong. And just like when you totally misread my comment about hypocrisy earlier in the thread and refused to even acknowledge your simple mistake, you switch to attacking me for point out that you are wrong.

You clearly don't understand what "intellectual dishonesty" means.

/Sigh. Once again. We were speaking in the context of the immaculate conception of the State. NOT conquest. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Yes, you are being intellectually dishonest. Strawmen galore - repeating them over and over doesn't make them any more legitimate.


Here we go again, more of the same fluff. Again, you don't understand my position because you claim that I believe that all property should be abolished. That is objectively false and I challenge you to back up your claim.

Since you don't even know what I've advocating, your lackluster attempts to critique it just a fruitless exercise of mental masturbation for you. If you want to wrestle around with a strawman and claim victory that's intellectual dishonesty and totally your choice.

Thick libertarians find any and all forms of authority and hierarchy completely illegitimate. Even some voluntary ones. Or as you refer to them, 'voluntary ones' (probably referring to such concepts as 'wage slavery', parent/child, landlord/tenant, employer/employee, husband breadwinner/stay-at-home-wife, etc, etc, etc). Statism may be 'illegitimate' (ansocs, ansynds, ancoms, etc to merely be crypto-statists, mutualism is just retarded and ad-hoc incarnate), but corporations, businesses, etc are illegitimate as well. Naturally, it must follow that anyone with ownership of capital, would have an 'illegitimate' authority and result in hierarchy. The natural result in the desire to abolish hierarchy must result in the abolition of property, as the concept of property itself results in hierarchy.

but, lol, I don't think you know even know what you're advocating. Thick libertarianism is such a nebulous and absurd concept, not even many thickists themselves know what they really advocate. As mentioned by someone else, all you do is chime in and make slights and bullshit arguments against anyone advocating a move towards a freer market, or a pure free market.

You never provide solutions absent purely Statist or crypto-Statist ones. Based on your proposed 'solutions' and things you've advocated in the aggregate of your time here at RPF, you aren't even a real anarchist - you're just a joke.

[low preference guy]

Hmm, don't think I was talking to you.



You must not have read my posts because I made it explicitly clear that:
1. Like Ron Paul I am AGAINST cutting welfare/entitlement benefits for the working class and poor in the foreseeable future until a transition to a different system is possible.

2. Like Ron Paul my first priority is cutting corporate welfare both overt ($$$$$) and structural (Fed - I would extend this to patents, copyrights, tariffs, military and other R&D using tax dollars) for two reasons: to level the playing field between spontaneous grassroots/democratic egalitarian libertarian cooperative structures and their corporate/government/hierarchical counterparts and to reduce government spending thereby allowing some entitlement programs to wind down in a stable manner without increasing taxes.

You forgot to add taxing the rich to fund unemployment benefits and the wages of public union workers.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh dear lord. I wish I was not so fucking gorgeous.

LoL, Slutter's getting pissed...he's not signing his name anymore.

[RedStripe]

What a retarded argument.

When an entrepreneur coordinates production in a free market, all his workers are voluntary, and all his clients also buy their products without being forced.

If you think they're being paid too much, why don't you do the same thing they do, and instead of keeping the profits, go ahead and pay the workers. Do what the Jimmy John's guy did. He didn't even go to freaking college. He is a millionaire. And you're saying I'm justifying "power stratification"? What a fucking joke.


Do you know why people work at Jimmy Johns? Do you know why people work hard jobs that don't pay well? It's because the vast majority of their living expenses have been inflated by government intervention into the economy, and a web of laws and economic monopolization poses a massive barrier to their ability to be self-sufficient. The labor market is largely an artificial product of massive state intervention, and just because someone manages to exploit the subsidized price of labor doesn't make them a fucking hero.

I know it's hard to believe but most people would rather work for themselves and have an ownership stake in the work they do rather than take orders from an employer all day (although the school system and popular culture have done a pretty good job conditioning people to be subservient). I'm sure the extent of government distortion of something like the labor market rarely crosses your mind as you parrot the simplistic and context-less account of how entrepreneurs "do us all a favor" by "telling us what to do."

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the Jimmy Johns guy is a jerk - I don't know him. He's not a saint and he's not a devil, he's just a dude making his way in the world like everyone. I realize Ayn Rand like to idolize these people but she had an excuse - she was batshit insane and had all sorts of fucked up suppressed sexuality issues and insecurities.

The economy is far more complex than your silly little narrative of business-employee relationship I might read in a high school civics book.

[angelatc]

Redstripe both are wrong. The poor trying to steal money from the productive are just as wrong as the rich that steal. You are way too biased.

Not to mention that I'm firmly planted in the Middle Class, and have never belonged to a union. This has nothing to do with "class," which is just a word that socialists use to divide us anyway.

[RedStripe]

You forgot to add taxing the rich to fund unemployment benefits and the wages of public union workers.

If it comes to that, absolutely. Simply giving back to the little guy what the rich obtained thanks to the state.

[angelatc]

Oh dear lord. I wish I was not so fucking gorgeous.

We thank God for you every day, Slutter.

[mczerone]

That's a micro theory of value. I'd like to know what free market advocates believe about the relationship between natural ability and wealth accumulation in a free market.

That's not the question you asked. You asked "is value X?" and he replied "no, its Y."

Then you come back with, "well I'd like to hear about X."

Typically you can add nuance to a debate, and I like what you add, because, for one example, I'd like to see the "left" side of politics be able to thrive without state involvement. You know, personal liberties and tolerance and peace. But this whole thread you've done nothing but play games and obfuscate what you really mean. Please just drop the bickering, add one post detailing your thoughts on the OP (bands lending support to the union side of the debate), and tolerate differences people may have with you.

[low preference guy]

Do you know why people work at Jimmy Johns? Do you know why people work hard jobs that don't pay well? It's because the vast majority of their living expenses have been inflated by government intervention into the economy, and a web of laws and economic monopolization poses a massive barrier to their ability to be self-sufficient. The labor market is largely an artificial product of massive state intervention, and just because someone manages to exploit the subsidized price of labor doesn't make them a fucking hero.

I know it's hard to believe but most people would rather work for themselves and have an ownership stake in the work they do rather than take orders from an employer all day (although the school system and popular culture have done a pretty good job conditioning people to be subservient). I'm sure the extent of government distortion of something like the labor market rarely crosses your mind as you parrot the simplistic and context-less account of how entrepreneurs "do us all a favor" by "telling us what to do."

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying the Jimmy Johns guy is a jerk - I don't know him. He's not a saint and he's not a devil, he's just a dude making his way in the world like everyone. I realize Ayn Rand like to idolize these people but she had an excuse - she was batshit insane and had all sorts of fucked up suppressed sexuality issues and insecurities.

The economy is far more complex than your silly little narrative of business-employee relationship I might read in a high school civics book.

A bunch of distracting points(*) that don't change the fact you started arguing against :

The job of an entrepreneur is much more difficult than the job of his workers. He is naturally rewarded more. And that's the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be much less motivation to do a more difficult job, because you would be paid the same as if you did an easier job.

(*) Like whether entrepreneurs are heroes, something I haven't claimed

[angelatc]

When an entrepreneur coordinates and decides how other people's labor will be used, he is doing a much more difficult job than his employees, and he is rewarded accordingly.

It's supply and demand. Ditch diggers are in high supply because a monkey can do it. They're easily replaced. The more sophisticated your skill set, the higher the wage you can command. RedStripe seems to come from the communist wing of the revolution, believing that the workers should be compensated according to need.

If most people would rather work for themselves, then why don't they? Too expensive? Too scary? Most small business owners aren't born with silver spoons. They take risks with their money, their families, their assets. Most people don't have the guts to do that, because failure can mean you lose everything.

[ClayTrainor]

At this moment, I not willing to trade with anyone in exchange for air, but it is still highly valuable to me. So things can be valuable even if people are not willing to trade for them, correct?


It has value to us all, sure, but it has no market value, if no one is willing to trade for it. A compressed oxygen tank on the other hand would have market value to people who need oxygen tanks to breath properly, and nature does not automatically produce these in abundance for everyone.

Therefore, someone who has trouble breathing, or wants to help someone who has trouble breathing is more likely to pay for an oxygen tank than someone who breathes just fine and doesnt know anyone with breathing problems. The market value of this oxygen tank is based on whether or not anyone is willing to trade labour and/or resources for it.



So by market value, you really just mean price, correct?


Sure. And by price, I mean that which is determined through subjective value of voluntary trade.

So the air I'm breathing in my home right now, has no market value, because no one is willing to trade for it. I could go downtown and say "hey, i have a bunch of air in my home, and want to sell it for $10,000" and people would just look at me like I'm crazy. It has no trading power and therefore no market value.



I agree that it would have no price, but that does not make it not valuable in a subjective sense. I'm not arguing that to be the case with all or even many goods, but it is still true for some.

It would only have value in the market, if people are willing to trade for it.



I just don't see how it is a macro theory since it does not seem predictive of any macro economic phenomenon.


Evolution isn't a macro or micro theory, either. You cannot understand macro-evolution without first understanding micro-evolution. in the same respect, you cannot understand the effects macro-economics without first understanding the effects of micro-economics.



What is the use of the subjective theory of value? What insight does it provide about the world that we would not otherwise understand? How does it help us understand the economy? To me, it just sounds like a truism which doesn't really have much significance.

It is a theory, which can only be validated by evidence. The theory suggests that value is based on the wants and needs of indivduals, rather than the value being inherent in the object.





Eh, never mind.

I'm probably just too dumb and brainwashed by capitalist propaganda to understand. :p

[PBrady]

Ok, so I didn't read the thread, but I just wanted to say that if I was in the area, I'd go just for free concert of Tom Morello, Tom Gabel, and The Streetdogs. Who cares about what they say in between.

Too bad all of RATM isn't playing...that'd be sick.

[low preference guy]

It's supply and demand. Ditch diggers are in high supply because a monkey can do it. They're easily replaced. The more sophisticated your skill set, the higher the wage you can command. RedStripe seems to come from the communist wing of the revolution, believing that the workers should be compensated according to need.

If most people would rather work for themselves, then why don't they? Too expensive? Too scary? Most small business owners aren't born with silver spoons. They take risks with their money, their families, their assets. Most people don't have the guts to do that, because failure can mean you lose everything.

Right. I bet RedState is lazy or lacks ambition to try things, so he wants the government to tax the rich and give him money. He probably envies and hates the successful.

[Sola_Fide]

Down with bourgeoise! Right Red Stripe?

[mczerone]

lol

I finally see the light. All this time.. the masses have been conspiring against white-bread suburban internet libertarians to enslave us. The evidence is overwhelming - I have yet to see a single poor person reading a Mises treatise as they sit at the public (SOCIALST) bus stop waiting to head to work at 6:30pm. Those smug fuckers...

Actually, the only person I've ever seen in public reading Mises was on a subway, at night, and they looked "poor". And the joke that you're responding to wasn't meant to imply that they are plotting how to steal, but merely that the institution of the state exists to bring about results that differ from what the market can produce - many times via wealth redistribution. That means to take physical items from one person, and to give them to another. That's theft if its involuntary, gift if voluntary. I'd like to see people free to give more gifts, you seem to want to give gifts via theft.


A bunch of distracting points(*) that don't change the fact you started arguing against :

The job of an entrepreneur is much more difficult than the job of his workers. He is naturally rewarded more. And that's the way it should be. Otherwise, there would be much less motivation to do a more difficult job, because you would be paid the same as if you did an easier job.

(*) Like whether entrepreneurs are heroes, something I haven't claimed

Don't forget that there are real capital goods that must be purchased prior to any profits can be realized from the production. The entrepreneur bears the risk, while paying for labor up front. There are many examples of co-ops where workers start their own company with their own savings, and act collectively as an entrepreneur. Each are paid according to how society values what they produce, no matter the role played in the firm.

RedStripe seems to have a problem with entrepreneurs making poor people wealthier.

[Sentient Void]

Air has no price because it is basically a non-scarce resource.

Prices are information/signals for understanding the relationship between, and coordinating and calculating for, the supply/demand for scarce resources.

[ClayTrainor]

Air has no price because it is basically a non-scarce resource.

Prices are information/signals for understanding the relationship between, and coordinating and calculating for, the supply/demand for scarce resources.

That's a much shorter and sweeter version of what I was trying to say, haha.

[Andrew-Austin]

Hmm, don't think I was talking to you.

Right, I was just pointing out how you were obviously twisting the meaning of his post and attacking a strawman.



You must not have read my posts because I made it explicitly clear that:
1. Like Ron Paul I am AGAINST cutting welfare/entitlement benefits for the working class and poor in the foreseeable future until a transition to a different system is possible.

2. Like Ron Paul my first priority is cutting corporate welfare both overt ($$$$$) and structural (Fed - I would extend this to patents, copyrights, tariffs, military and other R&D using tax dollars) for two reasons: to level the playing field between spontaneous grassroots/democratic egalitarian libertarian cooperative structures and their corporate/government/hierarchical counterparts and to reduce government spending thereby allowing some entitlement programs to wind down in a stable manner without increasing taxes.

Well that is the first time I've seen you type that out, I was probably confused in the past because you seem to extrapolate this position in to a blanket condemnation of rich people and blanket free pass for anyone who isn't rich.

I don't give a shit if you agree or don't agree with Ron Paul by the way, and I don't take appeals to authority very seriously.

Let me make a distinction, there are:

a) people who pay taxes in to the system and then later take back from the system in the form of benefits

and

b) government workers who are blatant net-leeches upon others. that would include the government workers in Wisconsin.

This thread is about the latter group, yet you are trying to throw them in with the former.

I understand there are corporations, banks, etc that also leech off the state and make others worse off. That does not make it okay for relatively "poor" people to do so.

My income and status could qualify me as "poor", does that mean I should sign up as a government worker and leech off of others for the rest of my life, and to add insult to injury argue for this to be so in perpetuity? No, just because I don't make much, and people richer than myself have done some leeching, does not give me a right to leech off of others. And doing so would only perpetuate the system. But that isn't a problem for the people protesting in Wisconsin, many of them seem to be socialists and communists. Why would I not denounce them, just as I denounce rich leeches?
Because there are people richer than themselves that just magically makes it okay, even though their pay is most likely extorted from people who make as much as they do if not less?

Its kind of hard for me to give a shit about government workers who undoubtedly make more than I, even though they don't perform legitimate services, and who argue for extortion in perpetuity regardless of whether corporate subsidies, welfare, etc are eliminated. These people are diametrically opposed to moving towards a free stateless society, even if they were not their enrollment in the state only perpetuates it. They just don't want to accept a lower paying, more difficult, more uncertain job on the free market, period. Even though, really, they could be just as happy with a lower paying job, they could be just as happy if their government wages were slashed (studies show there is no correlation between wealth and happiness).

[RedStripe]

Bed time.


/Sigh. Once again. We were speaking in the context of the immaculate conception of the State. NOT conquest. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Yes, you are being intellectually dishonest. Strawmen galore - repeating them over and over doesn't make them any more legitimate.

Still can't admit you were wrong. Is it hard for you to admit you were wrong or something?

And violence is clearly associated with the initial development of a government. The U.S. Government 2.0 which was established after the Civil War is one example. The revolutionary government of Russia is another.



Thick libertarians find any and all forms of authority and hierarchy completely illegitimate. Even some voluntary ones. Or as you refer to them, 'voluntary ones' (probably referring to such concepts as 'wage slavery', parent/child, landlord/tenant, employer/employee, husband breadwinner/stay-at-home-wife, etc, etc, etc).

*buzzer*

WRONG.

Left-libertarians believe that authority and hierarchy come into existence largely because of state-based historical developments. After all, the state was essentially the first hierarchical/authoritarian social structure in human history. All forms of authoritarianism and hierarchical power relationships - one person imposing his will upon subordinates - stems from the development of the state and the economies and cultures it poisoned.

Hierarchy and authoritarianism are some of the most fundamental symptoms of the state, an institution founded on the concept of centralized power and which is the pinnacle of hierarchy and authority in every society. The closer you get to the state, institutionally and culture, the stronger the stench of authoritarian culture. The farther away, the more decentralized and egalitarian the organizations/culture.

People who are indoctrinated into the authoritarian/hierarchical regime from childhood tend to remain the most ardent supporters of statism. Concepts like loyalty to large institutions, respect for authority figures, and a willingness to follow the directions of others are extremely valuable attributes to both the state and its powerful ally institutions.

Left-libertarians don't live in the simplistic world of right-wing libertarians - it's not a matter of "legitimacy" because that's a meaningless term. Authoritarianism and hierarchy tend to be enemies of liberty because the state is an enemy of human freedom and dignity. It has nothing to do with "legitimacy" and there's no dogmatic definition of what forms of relationships are authoritarian and which are more voluntary than authoritarian. It's a grayscale because this is a complex world, not a cartoonish right-wing libertarian fantasy land where a black man in the South in the 1920s is "free" depending solely on the level of government intervention in his life.



Statism may be 'illegitimate' (ansocs, ansynds, ancoms, etc to merely be crypto-statists, mutualism is just retarded and ad-hoc incarnate), but corporations, businesses, etc are illegitimate as well. Naturally, it must follow that anyone with ownership of capital, would have an 'illegitimate' authority and result in hierarchy. The natural result in the desire to abolish hierarchy must result in the abolition of property, as the concept of property itself results in hierarchy.

Wrong again. It's not about legitimacy or illegitimacy, which are meaningless terms in this context. It's about being aware of reality - the reality in which the modern economic system is fundamentally intertwined with the evolution of the state as an ancient institution. That businesses and corporations did not spring up in a vacuum, but developed as primary economic actors in conjunction with the rise and growth of the modern nation-state. They are symbiotic entities in that one could not exist, in its current form, without the other.

Most large business rely on ever-increasing levels of state inputs to remain functional. This is not a moral judgment, it is a fact. I certainly won't miss them, and I certainly won't pretend that they ought to be treated as if they have the same "rights" as actual human beings, just like I have no "moral" respect for the state as an institution.

And LOL at the claim that left-libertarians think property should be abolished. God, read something before you speak.



but, lol, I don't think you know even know what you're advocating. Thick libertarianism is such a nebulous and absurd concept, not even many thickists themselves know what they really advocate.

Yea, real philosophies aren't simplistic dogmas like right-wing libertarianism. Left-libertarians know enough about the world to know that we don't have all the answers especially in the really gray areas. The real distinction is that we actually care about a liberty in the fullest sense possible, rather than "liberty" to choose between obeying master or starving. We don't think it's possible, in a true free market, for people to dominate and oppress each other on an institutional scale because we have a better grasp of what a true free market means.

Speaking of which, and speaking of nebulous concepts, property is a great example. Property is a nebulous concept. Left-libertarianism is "murky" because we actually have the intellectual guts to deal with property issues while right-wing libertarianism basically just takes the government's version for granted (no surprise there).



As mentioned by someone else, all you do is chime in and make slights and bullshit arguments against anyone advocating a move towards a freer market, or a pure free market.

Gee, sorry I don't have time to make an elaborate response to each fuckwit who decides to throw the same tired and uninformed attacks at me throughout a 16 page thread.



You never provide solutions absent purely Statist or crypto-Statist ones. Based on your proposed 'solutions' and things you've advocated in the aggregate of your time here at RPF, you aren't even a real anarchist - you're just a joke.

Right. I'm a crypto-Statist! Hahaha, I'm not going to call you a statist because you aren't one. You're just informed enough to think you know what's going on, but your fear of being proven wrong prevents you from realizing the flaws in your belief structure (such as your naive understanding of property, the origin/nature/history of the state, the meaning of "freedom", and oppression).

You couldn't admit you were wrong on minor points earlier in this thread which says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

[Sentient Void]

Oh, God. You've said mostly nothing in that entire response.

There was nothing I was wrong in - apart from earlier where I misread your post about thinking you believed libertarians were hypocrites for using government services. In regards to how the State comes into existence, *once again*, we were speaking about the immaculate conception of the State. You're fucking hopeless and it seems you'll latch on to anything that will make you feel better about your ridiculous, unworkable and absurd philosophy.

Fine, instead of 'illegitimate', let's use the word 'immoral', or 'unjust', if it makes you happy. Pure semantics, and shows you don't have much of a leg to stand on here.

But I love how you say 'WRONG' - then you go off on what is mostly a long-winded strawman without coming out and saying *why I'm 'WRONG'*. It's because I'm not - you just want to say I'm wrong, but can't. So you go off on tangents and don't address the actual claim that you are *against all hierarchies* and authority, regardless of if they're voluntary or not. Oops, I mean - 'voluntary' or not.

You are against all hierarchies and authority - 'property', or rather 'individual ownership of scarce resources', creates hierarchies and authority, even in what you refer to as 'voluntary' relationships. The logical result of being against all hierarchy and authority, *is being against individual ownership of scarce resources* aka PROPERTY.

Of course, you seem to claim that you are not against property - or don't wish to abolish property. Feel free to give me a few non-Statist examples of where there is individual ownership/control of scarce resources, yet no possibility for hierarchy / authority. This will be entertaining.

And don't try to sit there and say you 'left-libertarians know more about the world', blablabla. That's bullshit. You guys are the most fantastical, reality-ignoring fools out there where economic realities just don't exist according to you, or can be wished away. It's an utterly absurd philosophy with no basis in reality.

The point is, your responses in the aggregate have always been in this regard. Even your long-winded diatribes have little to no real substance in them, no offering of any solutions - just bullshit criticisms, strawmen and red herrings. Intellectual dishonesty time and time again.

And yet, throughout this entire response - is simply more arbitrary claims with no logical ammo to back them up. Yeah - claiming others just don't understand anything, or are naive, etc *does not qualify as a legitimate argument*, you fucking tool. Give it up.

[Mark37snj]

As the battle rages a new and horrifying weapon is unleashed. Bereft of any individuality or critical thought processes, this new weapon epitomizes the danger of collective thought and collective bargaining. Faced with such a single minded obsession and the destruction it will cause if unchallanged ordinary Americans, who had seen this danger looming, who had organized and warned their peers only to be laughed at, rediculed, and marganilized, now fight against this new weapon of terror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc&feature=related

[Mark37snj]

As is with every great war, heroes emerge. When the need is dire their only thought is of sacrifice.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154857/chef-volunteers

[Mark37snj]

OMG can it be true...is it really over...I'll be damed if I'm gona clean up this mess!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103818/buzz-killer

[fisharmor]

And don't try to sit there and say you 'left-libertarians know more about the world', blablabla. That's bullshit....
The point is, your responses in the aggregate have always been in this regard. Even your long-winded diatribes have little to no real substance in them, no offering of any solutions... simply more arbitrary claims with no logical ammo to back them up. Yeah - claiming others just don't understand anything, or are naive, etc *does not qualify as a legitimate argument*

Well, I think RedStripe has added perspective to this, and I agree with what I understand to be the essence of at least some of his argument.
I agree with the suggestion that the system is so entrenched that ideological purity isn't going to get us anywhere in the short term.
However, I don't believe that ideological purity should ever be forsaken in the simple pursuit of a short term goal. If that short term goal is a milestone, it ought to be said, and loudly, that it is ONLY a milestone.

However, Red, I think there are two problems with your argumentation -

First, Sentient has a point that you seem to offer no real argument. I've been reading what you wrote and filtering it through what I already know. What I know isn't the same as what other people know.

For instance, I understand that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent, that the regulations on banking are only nominally to prevent abuses and misuses of the fractional reserve system, and that the regulations more often have negative effects that further screw the customer.
So you have a point that the whole thing is crooked - but I only truly believe this because I believe that the single fundamental basis of our banking system is crooked, which point has not been made prior to this post.

I only needed to get screwed by a bank once to realize that they are not operating in my best interests, that they exist strictly to separate me from my money in as many confusing and insidious ways as possible, and that the services they offer are nothing more than loss leaders intended to get me plugged in to their money sucking machine.
But I didn't believe the whole thing was flat-out evil until I read Rothbard's treatment of fractional reserves.

Not everybody knows this. We ought never to assume that they do, even if they're on this forum.

Second, you need to cut out all the potty talk and name-calling, you fucking dick.
All of you kidney-sniffing asshats need to.
Whatever point I made above those two statements is now lost, because I stooped to that level.
Cut that shit out.
When readers don't have all the info, and you stoop to name-calling, the entire conversation becomes totally fruitless.
I can't stop you. But I can point out that you're not getting anywhere.


You are against all hierarchies and authority - 'property', or rather 'individual ownership of scarce resources', creates hierarchies and authority, even in what you refer to as 'voluntary' relationships. The logical result of being against all hierarchy and authority, *is being against individual ownership of scarce resources* aka PROPERTY.Again picking on Red here - yeah, you do come off as rather collectivist in this thread.
You assumed everyone here knows the same stuff you know.
You seem to make the point that authority and hierarchies are generally bad things.
You mentioned class several times, as if it means the same thing here that it does on the other side of the world.
Now, I'm not gonna shut down and stop reading what you wrote because one facet of what you're saying is distasteful, but other people will.
They vote, too.
If you treat them like individuals, they may be inspired to vote that way.


Red, I'm interested in hearing more about your views on state hierarchies and violence. I agree with what you wrote, but right now all we have is a gratuitous assertion. I would back it up by restating in this thread that every functional anarchy in history has been eliminated by a state. But I don't think that equates to your axiom that authority and hierarchy are enemies of liberty.

[Cutlerzzz]

As many Americans of Egyptian decent protested in cities across the country, this past weekend, demonstrating in solidarity with their families back in Egypt, forces on the far-Left from ANSWER coalition to the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) have taken advantage of the situation to promote their socialist agendas.


U.S. Socialists and Communists Exploiting Events in Egypt (http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6159-us-socialists-and-communists-exploiting-events-in-egypt)



Wisconsin Socialists Want Egypt-style Revolution (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/class-war-is-here-video-of-socialists-rallying-in-wis-supports-becks-theory/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LeqQbf4Rs





It's amazing, but after governments around the world killed over 200 million people during the 20th century, and well over 100 million of them by communists, people still call for out right socialism.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Budget problems would probably be alleviated if they just increased taxes on the super-rich parasites who have been living off of a government-rigged economic system for centuries. Oh wait, the right-wingers are in complete denial of how the economy actually works. Instead of reducing corporate welfare, they want to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Oh, and they don't believe there is such a thing as class warfare. LOL

If Obama increased taxes on people making $250,000+, right-wing morons would be up in arms. But when the government tries to fuck over the middle class, as long as right-wing demagogues can find a way to demonize the little guy they will cheer it on. You want a revolution in this country? You really want to change things up? You gotta get your heads out of your asses and recognize that class warfare is alive and well in this country - the super rich certainly know this (they take care of their own, in case you haven't noticed). Does Ron Paul advocate immediately ending entitlement programs? No, because he's not a right-wing demagogue like the anti-union people who are barking up the wrong tree by attacking middle-class workers.

Classic elitist strategy is to convince parts of the middle class to throw their lot in with the super-rich rather than the poor/blue-collar class from which they are only a layoff or unexpected illness away. It's been used to suppress populist uprising for centuries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

Rage Against the Machine is Cultural Marxism(tm), right FrankRep? It's all part of an elaborate plan by The Socialist International Bankers to mind control the youth! Ahhh!

No really, FrankRep please lecture us on how RATM is Cultural Marxism(tm). Please. It's hilarious.

Your entire post is based on the factually inaccurate statement that the super rich pay less in taxes than the lower/middle class.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

Do some research. The super wealthy in America pay both the largest amount in taxes, and they pay the most in taxes as a percentage of income. You can't argue either way that they're getting a break, really.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Surely, RedStripe isn't arguing in favor of Government schools? Red, put down Hegels, Marx, and Proudhon (some qualities to like, but on the whole, no thanks). You've de-evolved so far down the class warfare schtick. Is there anything of Marx and Hegels you don't follow because you seem to buy them wholesale. How about reading some Oppenheimer and Nock about the origins of the State. As for your hypothesis about the nature of heirarchies, once again you are wrong. The family or tribal unit usually with Elders appointed as head masters were the original state of humanity, and have stayed nearly the same even up until today. Granted, the Elders are no longer leaders, and instead thieves are, but the family structure has remained intact. You aren't arguing for a K-PAXIAN society are you? :p

Now, I do agree with you that hierarchies in such quantities as they seem fit today are as a result of Statism, and that up until around the Civil War 75% of Americans were independent proprietors. JT Gatto goes pretty in-depth into this in his books and interviews you can find on LRC. So there is a distinct correlation where less Statism produces less hierarchies and a plethora of innovative spirit. Defending the thieves and degenerates in society whom seek to plunder their neighbor isn't exactly going to usher in your desired outcomes.

[Chieppa1]

How can someone be Socialist? Really. I mean, if you read enough, and use mental powers called "critical thinking" it makes no sense.

[VBRonPaulFan]

How can someone be Socialist? Really. I mean, if you read enough, and use mental powers called "critical thinking" it makes no sense.

They want to take the morally high road. The problem is, you can't force people to do the morally right thing... so the entire system fails and creates abuse. And instead of beating up on the 'wealthy' or the 'poor' for paying too much or not paying enough taxes, why don't you attack the politicians that have made such fundamentally poor choices that we're required to pay an income tax system at all?

[Danke]

LoL, Slutter's getting pissed...he's not signing his name anymore.

lol. Good catch Chubby Chaser.

[TheeJoeGlass]

Why do they have a branch in Wisconsin? Of all the places...

[Mini-Me]

Budget problems would probably be alleviated if they just increased taxes on the super-rich parasites who have been living off of a government-rigged economic system for centuries. Oh wait, the right-wingers are in complete denial of how the economy actually works. Instead of reducing corporate welfare, they want to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain. Oh, and they don't believe there is such a thing as class warfare. LOL

If Obama increased taxes on people making $250,000+, right-wing morons would be up in arms. But when the government tries to fuck over the middle class, as long as right-wing demagogues can find a way to demonize the little guy they will cheer it on. You want a revolution in this country? You really want to change things up? You gotta get your heads out of your asses and recognize that class warfare is alive and well in this country - the super rich certainly know this (they take care of their own, in case you haven't noticed). Does Ron Paul advocate immediately ending entitlement programs? No, because he's not a right-wing demagogue like the anti-union people who are barking up the wrong tree by attacking middle-class workers.

Classic elitist strategy is to convince parts of the middle class to throw their lot in with the super-rich rather than the poor/blue-collar class from which they are only a layoff or unexpected illness away. It's been used to suppress populist uprising for centuries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

Rage Against the Machine is Cultural Marxism(tm), right FrankRep? It's all part of an elaborate plan by The Socialist International Bankers to mind control the youth! Ahhh!

No really, FrankRep please lecture us on how RATM is Cultural Marxism(tm). Please. It's hilarious.

RedStripe, let's pretend that increasing the taxes on the rich helps alleviate budget problems. (BTW, who's rich? Are you talking about only the truly rich or even the semi-rich? Please note that the very people you're defending are at roughly the 90th percentile in terms of income. Taxing only the truly rich isn't going to solve shit if you look at it analytically instead of emotionally, and taxing the crap out of anyone making $250,000 or more isn't going to help as much as you think either. It's actually more likely to create more economic stagnation, given that the $250,000 crowd is the "small business owner" crowd. So, you're going to have to go lower and start taxing the crap out of larger numbers of people, easily including the 90th percentiles you're currently defending. Do you really think that's going to solve anything except help make government bigger and harder to stop?)

Anyway, let's pretend the immediate budget problems are relieved by your ideas. THEN WHAT? After you increase taxes and the size of government, what's the rest of your master plan for going the rest of the way? Think it through instead of just "raging against the machine" with your emotions alone!

"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." So long as the public unionists know they're Pauls (which is obvious from their actions), what kind of action do you actually expect them to come together with us on?
Tax revolts? NEVER. The rich are not the obstacle here, because the rich are not numerous enough to comprise any real public resistance to overhauls. The government's real support base here comes in the form of large numbers of government employees and dependents, who will fight with everything they have against anything remotely resembling a tax revolt. (The economy is a tangled web, and all of us receive privilege in some form or another, but that's irrelevant here. What's relevant is each person's subjective viewpoint on whether they're dependent on or subjugated by taxation, expressed through whether they would fight for or against a tax revolt.)
Agorism? That "cuts into" their livelihoods, too. People who are dependent upon government taxation are MUCH more likely to be the government's informants to crack down on agorists.
Libertarian politics or education? Please.
The only thing left is, what...a Bolshevik-style revolution? That's the only kind of radical change government dependents will support (aside from more rapid growth of the state maintaining continuity), so long as they're government dependents. I don't know about you, but that's not my style, and I don't think the Bolshevik-style revolutions have turned out particularly well in the past. Do you? The ONLY way to open up any of the other possibilities is to fold large numbers of direct government dependents into the rest of the public that's fed up with huge, unsustainable, and oppressive government.

You're right that the establishment manipulates the masses into fighting each other, but you're WRONG about which group they've created to perpetuate that. To be perfectly blunt, I think it's because of identity politics, and you're forcing yourself to self-identify with any traditionally leftist cause (such as unions and non-rich government dependents). It may be easy and fun to use FrankRep as a straw man for the hoard of vulgar libertarians and unwashed paleocons, but is it really fair? I don't know why, but maintaining your "leftist" identity, elevating yourself over the stupid redneck "vulgars," and maintaining your distance from anything remotely "right wing" seems somehow more important to you than actually working toward the dismantling of the system.

[Chieppa1]

Why do they have a branch in Wisconsin? Of all the places...

Can we sell Wisconsin to Canada?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Can we sell Wisconsin to Canada?

Oh no, the Union is a suicide pact and goddamn anyone who even THINKS of advocating secession! :p:p

[low preference guy]

lol. Good catch Chubby Chaser.

That would make a great a screen name.