Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!

[cdc482]

http://www.change.org/petitions/open-up-the-2012-presidential-debates?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_modal&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=7094331

[orenbus]

I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

[orenbus]

Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.

[Darguth]

I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

You and the other 0.003% of the voting population that would tune in for it. :P

[RonRules]

I bet they'll let Jill debate, but not Gary.

[ronpaulfollower999]

They should let every candidate with ballot acces to enough states to get 270 electoral votes debate.

[Todd]

only 97000 more to go.

[tttppp]

I don't have a problem with Stein in the debates. I'm just not interested in hearing her speak, especially about economics. Her economic policies are worse than Obama and Romney.

[tttppp]

Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.

Read her website. Nobody on this site that I know of would agree with her policies.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/261/228/e52.png

http://cdn.blisstree.com/files/2012/08/mckayla-not-impressed-template.jpeg

[jbauer]

You and the other 0.003% of the voting population that would tune in for it. :P

Well that still more then who watch the NHL

[Darguth]

Well that still more then who watch the NHL

Psh, I'm from Metro Detroit. Huge chunk of the population watches the NHL here :)

[orenbus]

Read her website. Nobody on this site that I know of would agree with her policies.

Yea it wasn't someone on this website, just someone I know that was planning on voting for Ron Paul, probably had crossover appeal with some Foreign Policy, Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties issues.

[cdc482]

I would vote for Jill Stein.
I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes. Obama made a decent point. Rich people don't become rich all on their own. They use a lot of society's resources, and with the playing field tilted in their favor, there is no reason they shouldn't give more back to society.

Say whatever you want about how it's wrong to steal from someone to save someone else. But consider this:
America produces enough food to feed the entire world FACT
Billions of people die every year from hunger FACT
Billions of people are malnourished FACT
Billions live on less than $1 a day FACT
Something is very wrong here, and if you really care about freedom, this is where you should start--the billions of people who have almost no freedom.

[tttppp]

I would vote for Jill Stein.
I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes.

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

[tttppp]

Yea it wasn't someone on this website, just someone I know that was planning on voting for Ron Paul, probably had crossover appeal with some Foreign Policy, Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties issues.

She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul

[cdc482]

She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

[dbill27]

I would vote for Jill Stein.
I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes. Obama made a decent point. Rich people don't become rich all on their own. They use a lot of society's resources, and with the playing field tilted in their favor, there is no reason they shouldn't give more back to society.

Say whatever you want about how it's wrong to steal from someone to save someone else. But consider this:
America produces enough food to feed the entire world FACT
Billions of people die every year from hunger FACT
Billions of people are malnourished FACT
Billions live on less than $1 a day FACT
Something is very wrong here, and if you really care about freedom, this is where you should start--the billions of people who have almost no freedom.

How does this guy have more rep than me?

[dbill27]

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

Or a more common sense alternative is to not let the government manage the water supply. "how can we be free when the water we drink is owned by some company?" Be free and pay for your water

[cdc482]

Or a more common sense alternative is to not let the government manage the water supply. "how can we be free when the water we drink is owned by some company?" Be free and pay for your water

Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.

[cdc482]

Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a shitty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating shitty food.
If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.

[dbill27]

Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.

If I study the effects of what americans call free markets? What americans? what free markets? Tell china to stop buying our debt if their people are undernourished.

[tttppp]

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

[dbill27]

mm
Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a shitty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating shitty food.
If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.

BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.

[cdc482]

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.

[tttppp]

I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.

Then why doesn't she change her website and explain this more effectively? She keeps talking about more laws, she never mentions less laws and more competition.

[cdc482]

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.

[cdc482]

mm

BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.

Last time I checked, Mexico was not a socialist country. Am I wrong?
Also, there are LOTS of counter examples to this. The countries with the highest standard of living (a better measure of wealth IMO) in the world are socialist (or as they call it, progressive). Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the list goes on...
The USA may be the richest, but the lower standard of living shows just how corrupt and greedy the people can be.

[orenbus]

She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

[orenbus]

How does this guy have more rep than me?

He has 800 more posts than you do, it's a numbers game.

[cdc482]

Then why doesn't she change her website and explain this more effectively? She keeps talking about more laws, she never mentions less laws and more competition.

In all seriousness, this is a small divide. A hump that could be overcome. It takes some work and foresite, but if enough people put their minds to it, many people could consolidate a lot of the laws. Libertarians did a pretty good job at consolidating a lot of social issues into one law--> do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do whatever they want. This is something the Green Party and Libertarian Party could work together on. I'm sure reasonable people would be willing to compromise on this issue.

[cdc482]

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

I think the Republicans are full of shit. The good people in the Republican party, generally support libertarians.
I think the democrats are full of shit. The good people in the democratic party, generally support progressives.

None of the good people are getting anywhere. We need to come together. It's just plain math. If we wiped out all the foreign wars, we'd balance the budget in a matter of YEARS, not decades but years. We could add HUGE social programs onto the budget and still balance the budget in years. We could literally feed all of the hungry people in the world and still balance the budget in a matter of years. Why can't you guys compromise on the social programs? Even Ron Paul did.

And let's not forget the savings from reigning in the Fed-> something the green party was very happy to compromise with Ron Paul on.

[tttppp]

Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.

The problem is those regulations designed to help poor people, end up preventing those poor people from starting their own businesses and making more money, and prevents them from providing better higher paying jobs. Essentially those regulations force poor people into those low paying, lower quality jobs working for rich people. It sounds great on paper to those people without a brain but it doesn't work. What will end up happening is that it will make problems worse, then they will add even more regulations to try to fix the problem again.

[tttppp]

In all seriousness, this is a small divide. A hump that could be overcome. It takes some work and foresite, but if enough people put their minds to it, many people could consolidate a lot of the laws. Libertarians did a pretty good job at consolidating a lot of social issues into one law--> do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do whatever they want. This is something the Green Party and Libertarian Party could work together on. I'm sure reasonable people would be willing to compromise on this issue.

It takes a lot of time and work to convince regulation happy people to understand free markets. It really takes an understanding of management and free markets to get it. I used to go with what my teachers said about needing more regulations until I became a manager and realized that shit just doesn't work. The differences can be bridged but it would take much more than a couple conversations.

[tttppp]

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

Hypothetically if she was elected, she could give us a bad name when she fucks up the economy. People would say the third parties don't work and would go back to democrats and republicans. If we actually get an independent in office, we need someone who will get things done.

[kathy88]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/261/228/e52.png

http://cdn.blisstree.com/files/2012/08/mckayla-not-impressed-template.jpeg

WTF?

[orenbus]

Hypothetically if she was elected, she could give us a bad name when she fucks up the economy. People would say the third parties don't work and would go back to democrats and republicans. If we actually get an independent in office, we need someone who will get things done.

Hypothetically anything can happen, the world could end tomorrow, lol. What you are saying you could say that about anyone, that's why each person makes the best decision they can based on the information they have when voting, and yea I'm going to vote for someone not Romney/Obama, sorry, the only exception would be if it was like the Devil or something cause that's who I equate those two with. :)

[orenbus]

WTF?

Yea I didn't get what the girl from the olympics picture has anything to do with anything either lol.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

This is bullcrap. Toilets sizes don't matter at all. The politicians are idiots. And people pay for the water if they get it from the government, so they run up the costs at their own peril. And if they collect water, they should have whatever toilet they want.

I am surprised I haven't noticed your mindset before. It is completely antithetical to this site.

[tttppp]

Hypothetically anything can happen, the world could end tomorrow, lol. What you are saying you could say that about anyone, that's why each person makes the best decision they can based on the information they have when voting, and yea I'm going to vote for someone not Romney/Obama, sorry, the only exception would be if it was like the Devil or something cause that's who I equate those two with. :)

That couldn't happen to anyone, just someone with her idiotic economic policies.

[orenbus]

That couldn't happen to anyone, just someone with her idiotic economic policies.

I'd still vote for her over Romney, I think too much emphasis is put on the president as the sole major difference between a good economy and a bad one, this seems to be a major driving force the media uses on the public and the political parties. I'd rather lean towards someone that is going to have a reasonable foreign policy and bring our troops home assuming we are talking about the office of the president and someone that has some semblance of integrity which you are not going to find in either Romney or Obama. Businesses drive the economy not the office of the president and regulations are generated from Congress, sure I'd like someone in the office that will veto legislation but I don't see that happening either with Romney or Obama, so yea...

[JorgeStevenson]

I'd take Jill Stein over Romney & Obama provided that liberty candidates controlled congress.

[cdc482]

The problem is those regulations designed to help poor people, end up preventing those poor people from starting their own businesses and making more money, and prevents them from providing better higher paying jobs. Essentially those regulations force poor people into those low paying, lower quality jobs working for rich people. It sounds great on paper to those people without a brain but it doesn't work. What will end up happening is that it will make problems worse, then they will add even more regulations to try to fix the problem again.

I've thought about this. I completely agree that the welfare system has problems. I've seen people abusing it first hand--more times than I've seen it actually helping people. I think there's a decent solution to all this, kind of similar to the GOP's "Contract with America." In essence, "regulate" welfare, so that those who receive it have to be working x hours per week, meet with a social worker, etc.

[ZenBowman]

Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.

I can tell you've never been to those countries at all.

Why do you think people take those opportunities? Because for those people, those jobs are not slavery, but a ticket to a better life for their children.

I remember going to India in the 80s and the main goal that most people had was to get out of the country. Yeah, there weren't Western companies, but many kids were still "exploited" because they had to work on the streets to make a living, often doing menial meaningless jobs to make ends meet. Now those same kids are being encouraged by their parents to go to school, so that they have a chance at a better life, working those jobs you call "exploitative". They understand the amount of work involved, they understand that they are being underpaid, but they are still better off than they were before.

The average person in those societies works their asses off, and willingly. Government is like a leech which sucks them dry, and the only way they have improved in the last 2-3 decades is by subverting it, working in industries that are harder to regulate (like business process outsourcing and software dev).

If you take those jobs away, you make them worse off. This is something anti-market people will never understand. You can never improve someone's life BY TAKING AWAY A CHOICE.

[cdc482]

I can tell you've never been to those countries at all.

Why do you think people take those opportunities? Because for those people, those jobs are not slavery, but a ticket to a better life for their children.

I remember going to India in the 80s and the main goal that most people had was to get out of the country. Yeah, there weren't Western companies, but many kids were still "exploited" because they had to work on the streets to make a living, often doing menial meaningless jobs to make ends meet. Now those same kids are being encouraged by their parents to go to school, so that they have a chance at a better life, working those jobs you call "exploitative". They understand the amount of work involved, they understand that they are being underpaid, but they are still better off than they were before.

If you take those jobs away, you make them worse off. This is something anti-market people will never understand. You can never improve someone's life BY TAKING AWAY A CHOICE.

I can tell from your post that you have no experience working a mindless job 70 hours per week...Seriously.
Also, I never proposed taking away anyone's jobs. My claim is simply that people should be treated like human beings and compensated fairly.

You're right. I've never been to any of those countries, but I have seen interviews from people who work in sweatshops and I understand what they mean when they describe their life. I have worked mindless physical labor jobs 70 hours per week, and I've met many other people who do. They don't see it as a choice like you do. They see it as "What else can I do? I have kids to feed...I have bills to pay... It's this or death" Some choice.

I did have more of a choice, but I can tell you exactly what it's like working those jobs. You barely exist. You barely think. You feel like a machine. All you have time for in your life is work. When you wake up, you think about work. Once you get to work, you pray for the day to end. When it finally does, you get the to enjoy your only comfort. Sleep. For MAYBE 6 hours before it starts all over again. You are constantly tired, but you can't really feel it. Your feet ache, but you ignore it. You're back aches, but you can't lie down. You're just numb. There's work to do. You finish one task and it's on to the next. Your boss says things to you, and you don't even register it. You just do it without even thinking. You understand only that he wants you to move faster and do more. So you do. After a while, you don't even notice people around you anymore. You are just a machine.
Then I woke up, months later, and it still feels like a dream. I am not exaggerating when I say the highlight of that time was the ice cream cone I would treat myself to once or twice a month. And the day when I got Christmas off, and I got to spend time with my cousins.

How did I get through it? It was temporary, and I knew it. I had to make money fast for a short period of time. It was my own punishment for mistakes I made, but I will never forget my coworkers. They did this for decades. This was their whole life. They were some of the best people I've ever known. Genuine. Kind. Intelligent. The very few interactions we had when we were able to talk always made me feel great. Later, I felt sorry for them. They were reduced to this terrible existence. What for? Because they weren't born in America. Because they didn't go to college, and now they can't afford it (they could barely afford their 20 year old cars, let alone a college education). And even with the loans they'd hear about, they barely had time to sleep, let alone take classes.

Occasionally, someone would get optimistic. "This isn't for me. I'm gonna find a way out of here. This company takes advantage of me. This is temporary, and I will do better." But they were there for 10 years. And before Wal-Mart, it was Rite Aid. Before Rite Aid, it was McDonalds. They never got out. They just changed the environment for a few days before their brain went numb again. One guy talked to the water mechanic for a bit and heard he made $40,000/year with just two years of schooling. He was flipping out. He talked to the water mechanic every day. Then he started talking to HR, since Wal-Mart has a tuition assistance program. This last for about a month. By the time I left, nothing had come of it.

Only a truly heartless person could think these people should be thankful that they are living like slaves rather than dead. Especially when the companies they work for rake in millions a day. I knew a women who spent 18 years of her life at Dunkin Donuts. She made $8 an hour and she worked her ass off. She easily did the work of two people, but the company had her convinced that she was actually only doing the work of one person. In reality, she was proably making over $100/hour for the company, while being paid a tiny fraction of that. It is disgraceful for people to do these kinds of things to others less fortunate than them. I don't care if they have a right to or not. It is absolutely wrong and disgraceful.

And what's really sick and ironic about it--My coworkers back then were better people than many of the people I work with now in the world of office work. I like my office coworkers a lot, but I am sure it is a HUGE slap in the face of my old coworkers to see how people with freedom they dream of spend their days--> sitting around at work doing NOTHING for hours at a time, going to bars, watching football, following celebrity gossip, watching TV, and sitting in front of a computer. It hurts me to imagine what they would think of me now.

and that sums up everything I have to say about the morality of these so-called "free markets."

[ZenBowman]

I can tell from your post that you have no experience working a mindless job 70 hours per week. Seriously.
Also, I never proposed taking away anyone jobs. I just said that they should be compensated fairly and they should be treated like human being.
You're right. I've never been to any of those countries, but I have seen interviews from people who work in sweatshops and I have worked mindless physical labor jobs 70 hours per week, and I met many other people who do. They don't see it as a choice like you do. They see it as "What else can I do? I have kids to feed. I have bills to pay. I don't have any other options. It's this or death." Some choice.

That is a choice.

Prior to those jobs, they may well have had malnourished or starving children - the current situation is an improvement. Why do you think workers line up around the block to try and work at Foxconn?

Want to improve their lives? Offer them better jobs. Don't take away the ones they have.

Markets are neither moral or immoral, they are amoral. They are a mechanism.

[fatjohn]

Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.

Lol, this site is made by a paul supporter for sure...
Q: Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?
A: The Federal Reserve should destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds.

Q:Should gay marriage be allowed in the U.S.?
A:Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision.

etc.

[tttppp]

I've thought about this. I completely agree that the welfare system has problems. I've seen people abusing it first hand--more times than I've seen it actually helping people. I think there's a decent solution to all this, kind of similar to the GOP's "Contract with America." In essence, "regulate" welfare, so that those who receive it have to be working x hours per week, meet with a social worker, etc.

That's an improvement. We should not be paying people not to work indefinetly without them working or going to school. Of course it would help if the minimum wage was ended, that way unemployed workers could work instead of receiving unemployment. Plus that would give them chances to get in the door of a company and get promoted. Stein actually wants to increase the minimum wage which is just going to make the problem worse. It will be difficult for people to get jobs and more people will be on some form of welfare. Additionally, privatization of education would lower costs and decrease time needed in school, that way young people and people layed off can more quickly become competent in a certain field. Stein is against private education. I think you can start to see how she is part of the problem, not the solution. Its possible she might be more open minded than Obama and Romney, and might be willing to change her mind, but as it is now she is going to create more problems than she is going to fix.

[tttppp]

I can tell from your post that you have no experience working a mindless job 70 hours per week...Seriously.
Also, I never proposed taking away anyone's jobs. My claim is simply that people should be treated like human beings and compensated fairly.

You're right. I've never been to any of those countries, but I have seen interviews from people who work in sweatshops and I understand what they mean when they describe their life. I have worked mindless physical labor jobs 70 hours per week, and I've met many other people who do. They don't see it as a choice like you do. They see it as "What else can I do? I have kids to feed...I have bills to pay... It's this or death" Some choice.

I did have more of a choice, but I can tell you exactly what it's like working those jobs. You barely exist. You barely think. You feel like a machine. All you have time for in your life is work. When you wake up, you think about work. Once you get to work, you pray for the day to end. When it finally does, you get the to enjoy your only comfort. Sleep. For MAYBE 6 hours before it starts all over again. You are constantly tired, but you can't really feel it. Your feet ache, but you ignore it. You're back aches, but you can't lie down. You're just numb. There's work to do. You finish one task and it's on to the next. Your boss says things to you, and you don't even register it. You just do it without even thinking. You understand only that he wants you to move faster and do more. So you do. After a while, you don't even notice people around you anymore. You are just a machine.
Then I woke up, months later, and it still feels like a dream. I am not exaggerating when I say the highlight of that time was the ice cream cone I would treat myself to once or twice a month. And the day when I got Christmas off, and I got to spend time with my cousins.

How did I get through it? It was temporary, and I knew it. I had to make money fast for a short period of time. It was my own punishment for mistakes I made, but I will never forget my coworkers. They did this for decades. This was their whole life. They were some of the best people I've ever known. Genuine. Kind. Intelligent. The very few interactions we had when we were able to talk always made me feel great. Later, I felt sorry for them. They were reduced to this terrible existence. What for? Because they weren't born in America. Because they didn't go to college, and now they can't afford it (they could barely afford their 20 year old cars, let alone a college education). And even with the loans they'd hear about, they barely had time to sleep, let alone take classes.

Occasionally, someone would get optimistic. "This isn't for me. I'm gonna find a way out of here. This company takes advantage of me. This is temporary, and I will do better." But they were there for 10 years. And before Wal-Mart, it was Rite Aid. Before Rite Aid, it was McDonalds. They never got out. They just changed the environment for a few days before their brain went numb again. One guy talked to the water mechanic for a bit and heard he made $40,000/year with just two years of schooling. He was flipping out. He talked to the water mechanic every day. Then he started talking to HR, since Wal-Mart has a tuition assistance program. This last for about a month. By the time I left, nothing had come of it.

Only a truly heartless person could think these people should be thankful that they are living like slaves rather than dead. Especially when the companies they work for rake in millions a day. I knew a women who spent 18 years of her life at Dunkin Donuts. She made $8 an hour and she worked her ass off. She easily did the work of two people, but the company had her convinced that she was actually only doing the work of one person. In reality, she was proably making over $100/hour for the company, while being paid a tiny fraction of that. It is disgraceful for people to do these kinds of things to others less fortunate than them. I don't care if they have a right to or not. It is absolutely wrong and disgraceful.

And what's really sick and ironic about it--My coworkers back then were better people than many of the people I work with now in the world of office work. I like my office coworkers a lot, but I am sure it is a HUGE slap in the face of my old coworkers to see how people with freedom they dream of spend their days--> sitting around at work doing NOTHING for hours at a time, going to bars, watching football, following celebrity gossip, watching TV, and sitting in front of a computer. It hurts me to imagine what they would think of me now.

and that sums up everything I have to say about the morality of these so-called "free markets."

I've worked a brainless job as an auditor before, working 80 hours a week sometimes, with there being no point of the work. You want to know why the work was so pointless? Because the government was regulating it. There was no room for innovation, or no need for employees who could improve the product. The only thing that matter was filing papaerwork that nobody would ever see. Just to give you an idea how stupid they are, when I was in college I developed an eniterly new system that would have fixed all the industries probelms, something top government officials couldn't even figure out. So what do they do with me when I was hired? Photocopying, filing of paperwork, and a bunch of other pointless shit. You would think you would use your best minds for something useful.

[cdc482]

That's an improvement. We should not be paying people not to work indefinetly without them working or going to school. Of course it would help if the minimum wage was ended, that way unemployed workers could work instead of receiving unemployment. Plus that would give them chances to get in the door of a company and get promoted. Stein actually wants to increase the minimum wage which is just going to make the problem worse. It will be difficult for people to get jobs and more people will be on some form of welfare. Additionally, privatization of education would lower costs and decrease time needed in school, that way young people and people layed off can more quickly become competent in a certain field. Stein is against private education. I think you can start to see how she is part of the problem, not the solution. Its possible she might be more open minded than Obama and Romney, and might be willing to change her mind, but as it is now she is going to create more problems than she is going to fix.

Minimum wage is very tough for me. There are a lot of economists smarter than me who claim raising the minimum wage will cause businesses to mechanize their jobs and export overseas. However, minimum wage has drastically declined (accounting for inflation), while executive salaries have increased exponentially. Minimum wage is not enough to live in many parts of the country and workers should be compensated more fairly. Mandating this via something like minimum wage seems like the right solution, but it may not be the case. Hopefully, great minds can come up with another solution...

[tttppp]

Minimum wage is very tough for me. There are a lot of economists smarter than me who claim raising the minimum wage will cause businesses to mechanize their jobs and export overseas. However, minimum wage has drastically declined (accounting for inflation), while executive salaries have increased exponentially. Minimum wage is not enough to live in many parts of the country and workers should be compensated more fairly. Mandating this via something like minimum wage seems like the right solution, but it may not be the case. Hopefully, great minds can come up with another solution...

Base pay is not necessarily designed for people to live off of. Its designed for new people starting a job, just giving them enough to get by while they get trained. If you are not on the track to getting higher than min wage, you are at the wrong job.

People suporting min wage argue that reducing jobs is not a big deal because the job was low pay anyways. That is incorrect because it prevents poor people from getting their butt in the door and proving themselves and getting higher pay. Even if the jobs are permentantly low pay, its still better than paying people to do nothing. There is zero chance of advancement from being on welfare, and its completely unproductive.

Additionally the min wage makes it more difficult for smaller companies to compete, which further reduces jobs. I could go on.

Its not horrible that there is a small min wage. Most companies are not going to go too much lower than that anyways. But when you talk about doubling it, you can really reck the economy.

Personally, I would have no problem starting out at min wage at a company if they would consider me for advancement once they saw my work. Any poor person who would have a problem with that arrangement is not confident about their abilities.

[FrankRep]

I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate.

Why not just support Obama if you're into Socialism?

[cdc482]

Why not just support Obama if you're into Socialism?

Why not support Jill Stein if you're into peace? Because, that's not my only issue. There are a handful of issues I care about and Obama isn't so great on all of them.
One thing I will say about libertarians. You guys make fun of social conservatives claiming they aren't really pro-life--but you are. Well, you guys claim to be so humanitarians--yet you have little problem with the many issues caused by economic inequality. If you really cared you would support all humanitarian efforts. You can claim that stealing is wrong and you'll never compromise and so on...well our whole economic system is based on theft. People steal from the earth. People stealing from other people. That's not right. But taking care of the least fortunate. That is right. You can't claim to be more moral than democrats, while millions starve based on your "consistent" pro-life policies.

[cdc482]

Base pay is not necessarily designed for people to live off of. Its designed for new people starting a job, just giving them enough to get by while they get trained. If you are not on the track to getting higher than min wage, you are at the wrong job.

People suporting min wage argue that reducing jobs is not a big deal because the job was low pay anyways. That is incorrect because it prevents poor people from getting their butt in the door and proving themselves and getting higher pay. Even if the jobs are permentantly low pay, its still better than paying people to do nothing. There is zero chance of advancement from being on welfare, and its completely unproductive.

Additionally the min wage makes it more difficult for smaller companies to compete, which further reduces jobs. I could go on.

Its not horrible that there is a small min wage. Most companies are not going to go too much lower than that anyways. But when you talk about doubling it, you can really reck the economy.

Personally, I would have no problem starting out at min wage at a company if they would consider me for advancement once they saw my work. Any poor person who would have a problem with that arrangement is not confident about their abilities.

This is extremely inconsiderate. Some people don't have advancement opportunities. You call it the wrong job. They call it the only job. Not everyone has the same opportunities as you. "Not confident about their abilities."--stop talking like this. You are tremendously judgmental about something you can't even begin to understand. These things happen to good people. I've seen it, and nothing you say can change that. Tell your philosophies to those working at sweatshops making clothes for Tommy Hilfiger. They would spit in your face, and I'm not so sure they'd be wrong to do so. Don't assume so much. The real world doesn't work exactly how Mises said so.

[cdc482]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL3E3500F1878995CC&v=hoLxuyV9qz8&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL3E3500F1878995CC&v=hoLxuyV9qz8&feature=player_detailpage

[Aratus]

the debate cut-off point has to be the size of the 3rd party in question.

jill stein pulls votes from barack obama and gary johnson pulls votes from

mitt romney. remember ralph nader's support in florida in the year 2000???

[Danan]

I've thought about this. I completely agree that the welfare system has problems. I've seen people abusing it first hand--more times than I've seen it actually helping people. I think there's a decent solution to all this, kind of similar to the GOP's "Contract with America." In essence, "regulate" welfare, so that those who receive it have to be working x hours per week, meet with a social worker, etc.

This is what's done Europe and it's horrible. You end up micro-managing the lifes of more and more people, telling them what to do, like children - and they don't even complain about it, 'cause if they do, others say (and to a degree understandably) that they don't have to let bureaucrats control their lifes, if they chose to decline the government checks. But nobody does that, they've been conditioned for far to long at that point. You end up with a situation where the working class is willing to ban alcohol, cigarettes, etc. for wellfare recipients. That's a disgusting thing, to regulate other people's lifes in that way. But it's what follows, once you put a system in place, where some people are forced to pay for others.

In fact I would support every legislation that changes our welfare system in a way, that everyone who applies for government money gets it, without having to meet any requisites. Don't get me wrong, I'm advocating the total dismantling of the welfare state as fast as technically possible, but everything is better than the current form of micro-management. It's the same problem with socialized medizine, where one group suddenly feels entitled to tell others how to live their lifes, because they have to bear the costs. It is aweful. It does nothing, but to divide the general public and to obfuscate the real underlying issues.

The only group of people benefitting from those policies are mentioned "social workers" and similar government paper-shufflers. The fact that those assholes recieve tax money is far more concerning to me, than someone who is to lazy to go to work. At least the latter is not trying to impose his will on others.

It's the classical way to implement socialism gradually.

First, hand out tax money. Then, make those who have to pay pissed off and show how some lazy people are wasting their money. After that, push for control mechanisms for the "more efficient" use of that money. Simultaniously destroy the economy so that ever more people get trapped in wellfare programms. And after some time, almost everybody is in government control and the people won't even know what happened to them.

[Danan]

Why not support Jill Stein if you're into peace? Because, that's not my only issue. There are a handful of issues I care about and Obama isn't so great on all of them.
One thing I will say about libertarians. You guys make fun of social conservatives claiming they aren't really pro-life--but you are. Well, you guys claim to be so humanitarians--yet you have little problem with the many issues caused by economic inequality. If you really cared you would support all humanitarian efforts. You can claim that stealing is wrong and you'll never compromise and so on...well our whole economic system is based on theft. People steal from the earth. People stealing from other people. That's not right. But taking care of the least fortunate. That is right. You can't claim to be more moral than democrats, while millions starve based on your "consistent" pro-life policies.

Ok I didn't realize that you are a socialist, when I wrote my previous comment. Since you don't understand basic economics, there is no point in arguing with you really. Especially since you are very confidently defending that BS on a free-market based board.

[tttppp]

This is extremely inconsiderate. Some people don't have advancement opportunities. You call it the wrong job. They call it the only job. Not everyone has the same opportunities as you. "Not confident about their abilities."--stop talking like this. You are tremendously judgmental about something you can't even begin to understand. These things happen to good people. I've seen it, and nothing you say can change that. Tell your philosophies to those working at sweatshops making clothes for Tommy Hilfiger. They would spit in your face, and I'm not so sure they'd be wrong to do so. Don't assume so much. The real world doesn't work exactly how Mises said so.

No its not inconsiderate. Its the opposite. Ideally people should only be doing roles where they can be successful. And when there is a real free market, somebody will be willing to pay what someone is worth. Either way, mandating a certain pay for people doesn't work. The only thing it does is prevent good workers from getting in the door. Getting a higher pay is meaningless if nobody will hire you.

Also, I've been fired from a job where they didn't value my work. I wasn't too pissed because if they were not valuing my work, fuck them, Ill work someplace where my work is valued. I've worked at many other jobs where I was promoted several times and other where I was considered for promotions. If an employer isn't considering me for higher pay and more responsibility, Id rather work elsewhere.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Not that this is the end all be all, but even Hayek argued that a country as rich as ours can afford to have welfare programs to support the poor. But he also made the argument they shouldn't have all the choices someone not supported by welfare should, i.e. no doritos and mountain dew on the food stamps, probably no cancer treatment, etc.

I personally have no problems with welfare programs, other than the government treating them like handouts to corporations, i.e. no negotiations on prescription drug costs. I'd rather see see these programs ran on the state level to avoid putting money in the federal government's hand, and also to allow for competition between states to make these programs more efficient. I'm not advocating for guaranteed paychecks like Stein is and I disagree with minimum wage laws and other central economic planning, but providing people who couldn't afford otherwise food and reasonably limited healthcare is something I support. Even if it is their own mistakes/choices that led them to the situation they are in. I just don't see much difference between providing welfare and providing the protections like police, judges, and the laws that protect our liberties.

[tttppp]

Not that this is the end all be all, but even Hayek argued that a country as rich as ours can afford to have welfare programs to support the poor. But he also made the argument they shouldn't have all the choices someone not supported by welfare should, i.e. no doritos and mountain dew on the food stamps, probably no cancer treatment, etc.

I personally have no problems with welfare programs, other than the government treating them like handouts to corporations, i.e. no negotiations on prescription drug costs. I'd rather see see these programs ran on the state level to avoid putting money in the federal government's hand, and also to allow for competition between states to make these programs more efficient. I'm not advocating for guaranteed paychecks like Stein is and I disagree with minimum wage laws and other central economic planning, but providing people who couldn't afford otherwise food and reasonably limited healthcare is something I support. Even if it is their own mistakes/choices that led them to the situation they are in. I just don't see much difference between providing welfare and providing the protections like police, judges, and the laws that protect our liberties.

I don't think most people have a problem with a safety net. I prefer a very small safety net where the government is only involved when the free market can't handle the problem. The problem most people here have with safety nets, is right now there is a safety net for every damn thing. Its so severe, people just prefer the safety net than taking their chances with the free market. Now that is a problem. Government safety nets should not be providing more benefits than the free market.