PDA

View Full Version : Attention Flash Card Libertarians: Taxpayer Dollars Paid A Third Of Richest Corporate CEOs: Re




RCA
08-28-2013, 04:47 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"...and on and on...

WASHINGTON -- More than one-third of the nation's highest-paid CEOs from the past two decades led companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Financial bailouts offer just one example of how a significant number of America's CEO pay leaders owe much of their good fortune to America's taxpayers," reads the report. "Government contracts offer another."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/richest-ceos-compensation-ceos_n_3825087.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 04:49 PM
Flash-card libertarians? WTF does that mean? And who in their right mind would consider anything subsidized by taxpayer dollars as equal to a free market approach?

jclay2
08-28-2013, 04:57 PM
Flash-card libertarians? WTF does that mean? And who in their right mind would consider anything subsidized by taxpayer dollars as equal to a free market approach?

Yep. Also interested in the flash-card libertarian?

RCA
08-28-2013, 04:58 PM
Flash-card libertarians? WTF does that mean? And who in their right mind would consider anything subsidized by taxpayer dollars as equal to a free market approach?

I made up the term myself. There's a percentage of libertarians who stick to their flash card, one-liner arguments when discussing most issues. There's also flashcard Democrats, Republicans, etc. Most of them are in their intellectual infancy, but some have been around awhile and still have such a simplistic view of libertarian topics. This article illustrates that a large percentage of the wealthy don't help the economy just like Jim Taggart didn't help the economy in Atlas Shrugged, yet a large portion of the Atlas Shrugged fanbase thinks the novel is in favor of the wealthy. A large portion of libertarians think all rich people are good and virtuous, when clearly they are not. The deeper position to take is to support wealth gained from virtue and not just wealth itself.

Root
08-28-2013, 05:00 PM
I didn't know there were flash cards. Are they laminated or just the cheap paper ones?

RCA
08-28-2013, 05:02 PM
I didn't know there were flash cards. Are they laminated or just the cheap paper ones?

Either or.

HOLLYWOOD
08-28-2013, 05:16 PM
Cody Willard started the clock to his days numbered at FOX NEWS when he covered the TAX DAY Tea Party rallies of 2009 with this LIVE covered scene.

check it out: FOX Reporter: "Wake Up And Smell The Fascism"


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/15/fox_reporter_wake_up_and_smell_the_fascism.html

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 05:38 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"...and on and on...

I don't know any libertarians who claim that rich people are necessarily good? This seems like an over-simplification of defending of capitalism from the Marxist claim that capitalists necessarily exploit workers (when viewed through a Labor Theory of Value).

How does this story reflect negatively on free markets?




I guess I don't really see the difference between the "flash-card"-ness of this post and the abstract "Flash Card Libertarians" that the post is criticizing.

helmuth_hubener
08-28-2013, 05:43 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"...and on and on... Two out of those three, I'd cheer to. I like to think this is not due to an infantile or overly-simplistic mindset on my part. So if you can explain why all three statements are wrong, I would much appreciate it and will modify my opinions accordingly.

Thank you!

Here are some ideas to give you an idea of "where I'm coming from" so you can refute and correct me most effectively:

Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/05/lew-rockwell/everything-you-love/)

Freedom of Association (http://mises.org/daily/4465/)

otherone
08-28-2013, 05:48 PM
This article illustrates that a large percentage of the wealthy don't help the economy just like Jim Taggart didn't help the economy in Atlas Shrugged, yet a large portion of the Atlas Shrugged fanbase thinks the novel is in favor of the wealthy. A large portion of libertarians think all rich people are good and virtuous, when clearly they are not.

What libertarians believe is good or virtuous has nothing to do with libertarianism. If these wealthy got their money from the taxpayers, it has to stop. If the poor get money from taxpayers, it has to stop. If those wealthy got taxed out their butts, it has to stop. Libertarians don't love or hate the wealthy. Libertarians are suspicious and hateful of government.

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 05:49 PM
What libertarians believe is good or virtuous has nothing to do with libertarianism. If these wealthy got their money from the taxpayers, it has to stop. If the poor get money from taxpayers, it has to stop. If those wealthy got taxed out their butts, it has to stop. Libertarians don't love or hate the wealthy. Libertarians are suspicious and hateful of government.

/thread. +rep

angelatc
08-28-2013, 05:50 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"...and on and on...

WASHINGTON -- More than one-third of the nation's highest-paid CEOs from the past two decades led companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Financial bailouts offer just one example of how a significant number of America's CEO pay leaders owe much of their good fortune to America's taxpayers," reads the report. "Government contracts offer another."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/richest-ceos-compensation-ceos_n_3825087.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Here's the deal. You Libs blame the corporations for taking the money, while we blame the government for passing it out in the first place. Hope that helps.

In the meantime, nobody except liberals claim that the Libertarians believe that there are free markets in the USA. I believe that there will never, ever be an entirely unfettered free market. But at this point, taking steps toward the goal is more important than actually reaching it.

RCA
08-28-2013, 05:51 PM
What libertarians believe is good or virtuous has nothing to do with libertarianism. If these wealthy got their money from the taxpayers, it has to stop. If the poor get money from taxpayers, it has to stop. If those wealthy got taxed out their butts, it has to stop. Libertarians don't love or hate the wealthy. Libertarians are suspicious and hateful of government.

You'd be surprised how many libertarians defend those with large bank accounts without ever asking where their money has come from.

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 05:52 PM
You'd be surprised how many libertarians defend those with large bank accounts without ever asking where their money has come from.

Did it ever occur to you that those people may not actually be libertarians? Anyone can attach that label to him/herself (Glenn Beck has tried) but it has to mean something at the end of the day.

Added on edit: or maybe they don't realize there's a reason to ask...perhaps it's assumed those rich bastards (/sarcasm) earned it. Did they have a different opinion after you told them the money was taxpayer-subsidized?

RCA
08-28-2013, 05:53 PM
Here's the deal. You Libs blame the corporations for taking the money, while we blame the government for passing it out in the first place. Hope that helps.

"You libs?" Who are you referring to? I'm a ancap libertarian level 7 alpha ninja......woman.

RCA
08-28-2013, 05:54 PM
Did it ever occur to you that those people may not actually be libertarians? Anyone can attach that label to him/herself (Glenn Beck has tried) but it has to mean something at the end of the day.

Good point. However, there are several long time users on this forum who also fit this label.

otherone
08-28-2013, 05:56 PM
Here's the deal. You Libs blame the corporations for taking the money, while we blame the government for passing it out in the first place. Hope that helps.

The fox has been in the hen house for so long that it stinks of chicken shit.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 05:57 PM
"You libs?" Who are you referring to? I'm a ancap libertarian level 7 alpha ninja woman.

I don't even care what that means. You post crap that implies that we're all absolutely retarded and under some illusion that our markets are good and free.

There's no other way to be a capitalist in America except to get in bed with the government. I don't like it, but I don't blame business for doing business with the government when the government makes it mandatory for success.

If you're hanging around here trying to teach us things we already know, so be it. But don't expect us to oohhh and aahhhh at your proficiency in that area.

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 05:57 PM
Good point. However, there are several long time users on this forum who also fit this label.

Please note: I added a comment on edit while you were replying.

green73
08-28-2013, 05:58 PM
You'd be surprised how many libertarians defend those with large bank accounts without ever asking where their money has come from.

:rolleyes: Are you sure you're an ancap?

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:00 PM
You'd be surprised how many libertarians defend those with large bank accounts without ever asking where their money has come from.

Yeah, I'd be totally surprised if the number was greater than or equal to 1.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:00 PM
I don't even care what that means. You post crap that implies that we're all absolutely retarded and under some illusion that our markets are good and free.

There's no other way to be a capitalist in America except to get in bed with the government. I don't like it, but I don't blame business for doing business with the government when the government makes it mandatory for success.

If you're hanging around here trying to teach us things we already know, so be it. But don't expect us to oohhh and aahhhh at your proficiency in that area.

So you do support the rich who are corrupt? I don't understand your stance here. Maybe you don't either?

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 06:01 PM
I don't even care what that means. You post crap that implies that we're all absolutely retarded and under some illusion that our markets are good and free.

There's no other way to be a capitalist in America except to get in bed with the government. I don't like it, but I don't blame business for doing business with the government when the government makes it mandatory for success.

If you're hanging around here trying to teach us things we already know, so be it. But don't expect us to oohhh and aahhhh at your proficiency in that area.

What we have is not really capitalism though. It could be described as crony capitalism, perhaps...but more accurately, corporatism.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:01 PM
So you do support the rich who are corrupt? I don't understand your stance here. Maybe you don't either?

What, did Mommy get you a new book for your birthday?

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:01 PM
:rolleyes: Are you sure you're an ancap?

Yes, because I don't idolize the rich who have used the state to succeed, unlike the flash carders.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:02 PM
What, did Mommy get you a new book for your birthday?

Do you ever finish a discussion using logical language? Or is it always 1...2.........batshit time!

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:03 PM
Please note: I added a comment on edit while you were replying.

I don't know how many have changed their views. I know when I was first learning about libertarianism 6 years ago, I tended towards a simplistic flash-card model of the issues. It took me awhile to grow beyond that.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:04 PM
What we have is not really capitalism though. It could be described as crony capitalism, perhaps...but more accurately, corporatism.

Now you're using logic on her, she doesn't like that. Step away son.....step.....away.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:06 PM
What we have is not really capitalism though. It could be described as crony capitalism, perhaps...but more accurately, corporatism.

Absolutely. And the liberals certainly have a point when the say that one of the biggest flaws of capitalism is that it inevitably leads to corporatism, or as we used to call it, fascism.

But these geniuses that think that Libertarians don't understand this, or even worse - that Libertarians spend their lives attacking business instead of the government. That's the influence of the left.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:07 PM
Now you're using logic on her, she doesn't like that. Step away son.....step.....away.

I'm guessing you didn't actually take logic. Let's try this:

a. All government handouts are bad.

b. Businesses have to take handouts to compete.

c. Therefore, all businesses are bad.


Two of those statements are true, one is a false conclusion.

green73
08-28-2013, 06:08 PM
Yes, because I don't idolize the rich who have used the state to succeed, unlike the flash carders.

Yeah, I don't get the flashcard vibe from people here so much. Fascism is pretty much on the top of the menu.

AuH20
08-28-2013, 06:09 PM
So how do we curtail the problem? Hang the CEOs? Repossess their assets? Therein lies the problem. The best and most appropriate solution is to turn off the spigot.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:10 PM
Yeah, I don't get the flashcard vibe from people here so much. Fascism is pretty much on the top of the menu.

Good for you, then you understand all sides. But as I stated, there are some who don't see all sides of the coin. They are all for business/rich/corporations without ever questioning their actions or motives. It's probably a small minority within the movement, but they are around. I just hope they, like me, can grow behind the initial libertarian ideas and delve deeper into their own logic.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 06:12 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like... "yeah free markets!"... and on and on...

Hi.


WASHINGTON -- More than one-third of the nation's highest-paid CEOs from the past two decades led companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Financial bailouts offer just one example of how a significant number of America's CEO pay leaders owe much of their good fortune to America's taxpayers," reads the report. "Government contracts offer another."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/richest-ceos-compensation-ceos_n_3825087.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Free markets would be better than that. Thanks for posting.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:12 PM
Good for you, then you understand all sides. But as I stated, there are some who don't see all sides of the coin. .

No there isn't. You're not any smarter than the rest of us. Not any dumber, but if you're here hoping to teach some people what they don't understand about America, then you should probably be over at Redstate or DU.

otherone
08-28-2013, 06:13 PM
But these geniuses that think that Libertarians don't understand this, or even worse - that Libertarians spend their lives attacking business instead of the government. That's the influence of the left.

The left is dead. There is only the democratic party now. Every Lib I know believe that Libertarians are selfish, idealistic, pot-smoking, isolationist Ayn Rand lovers that love the wealthy. Many also believe that we are patsies of big business.

GregSarnowski
08-28-2013, 06:13 PM
Libertarians understand that big government inevitably leads to corporate fascism. The liberal thought-process on the matter, however, is demonstrated in the cartoon below.

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/realityzone/UFNcognitivedissonancecartoon.jpg

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:15 PM
Hi.



Free markets would be better than that. Thanks for posting.

Reading comprehend much? My point was that these flashcard libertarians scream "free market" when they defend these rich morons and their evil corporations when in fact we've probably never had a free market in this country or maybe the world.

EBounding
08-28-2013, 06:17 PM
So where can I get these flashcards? Do they sell them at RonPaul.com?

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:17 PM
The left is dead. There is only the democratic party now. Every Lib I know believe that Libertarians are selfish, idealistic, pot-smoking, isolationist Ayn Rand lovers that love the wealthy. Many also believe that we are patsies of big business.

This is a perfect example of how the flashcard libertarians easily influence the flashcard Democrats into thinking all libertarians think the same way.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:17 PM
The left is dead. There is only the democratic party now. Every Lib I know believe that Libertarians are selfish, idealistic, pot-smoking, isolationist Ayn Rand lovers that love the wealthy. Many also believe that we are patsies of big business.

The biggest difference between the left and the right is that the left believes that government should pass out money to poor people, thus helping people and the economy. The right believes that the government should pass out money to businesses so that businesses can thrive, thus helping people and the economy.

That's how you get the monstrosities like the Farm Bill, which is nothing but pork for both parties.

AuH20
08-28-2013, 06:18 PM
The left is dead. There is only the democratic party now. Every Lib I know believe that Libertarians are selfish, idealistic, pot-smoking, isolationist Ayn Rand lovers that love the wealthy. Many also believe that we are patsies of big business.

Define the wealthy? The problem with the left is often their envy is so toxic that anyone with seemingly more than them is considered "wealthy." I have no love for the uber rich who hide their riches in trusts, while advocating for micromanaged statism.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 06:19 PM
My point was that these flashcard libertarians scream "free market"

What is your point about people who type "free market" and really mean free market when they type it? Do you have a point about them?

angelatc
08-28-2013, 06:19 PM
Reading comprehend much? My point was that these flashcard libertarians scream "free market" when they defend these rich morons and their evil corporations when in fact we've probably never had a free market in this country or maybe the world.

I have been a libertarian longer than you've been alive, and I've never heard a single person do that. Where are you finding these people who so desperately need you to explain that rich people and corporations are evil?

otherone
08-28-2013, 06:20 PM
Good for you, then you understand all sides. But as I stated, there are some who don't see all sides of the coin. They are all for business/rich/corporations without ever questioning their actions or motives. I just hope they, like me, can grow behind the initial libertarian ideas and delve deeper into their own logic.

As libertarians, it's not our job to question anyone's actions or motives, outside of government. Frankly, it's none of our business. Business can do anything it wants, as long as no one's Rights are infringed. Personally, I believe taxing my income is an infringement of my Rights. Instead of looking at what these corporations gain from government, look at how many corporations are represented not just by, but IN government.

green73
08-28-2013, 06:22 PM
That lipstick libertarian we have here might be what the OP is talking about, the one who vociferously defended the NFL's fascist policies. But really, I think the people the OP is talking about are very few here.

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 06:24 PM
I don't know how many have changed their views. I know when I was first learning about libertarianism 6 years ago, I tended towards a simplistic flash-card model of the issues. It took me awhile to grow beyond that.

Sorry, but this thread doesn't really seem to support that last sentence from the way you've approached the topic and your perceived opponents, IMO. I don't know a single person who believes that "the rich are good", though I know a lot of people who would defend the role of capitalists in society and a lot of people who wouldn't presume guilt simply due to having acquired wealth.

I'd even largely agree with a lot of the subtext of what you're talking about, but the way you've approached it does not sound like you've "grown beyond that".

Paulbot99
08-28-2013, 06:26 PM
The libertarian position is to get rid of handouts. Though, we do not equate wealth with guilt.

fr33
08-28-2013, 06:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYeW0yVRY2s

:toady:

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:32 PM
What is your point about people who type "free market" and really mean free market when they type it? Do you have a point about them?

Yes, the correct use of the term free market is of course benign.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:33 PM
I have been a libertarian longer than you've been alive, and I've never heard a single person do that. Where are you finding these people who so desperately need you to explain that rich people and corporations are evil?

They are around. Can't believe you haven't come across any.

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 06:39 PM
I have been a libertarian longer than you've been alive, and I've never heard a single person do that. Where are you finding these people who so desperately need you to explain that rich people and corporations are evil?
There are a lot of people who do it; Art Carden, Jeffrey Tucker, Tom Woods (sometimes) and Radley Balko, to name a few. The thing is, it's not noticeable unless one reads other sites in addition to LRC and Mises.org. All a matter of perspective.

kcchiefs6465
08-28-2013, 06:45 PM
I'm a little confused at how this thread has turned.

"Corporations" or "rich people" aren't inherently evil.

Does anyone not understand that very basic premise?

How they derived their wealth among other character assessments could be used to determine whether they should be celebrated or boycotted. (Or perhaps imprisoned if they defrauded the American people.) Simply that they're rich means nothing. What if they had a good idea that no one else had thought of? What if they provided a useful service? Are they still evil?

Maybe I'm just reading people's posts wrong.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:53 PM
I'm a little confused at how this thread has turned.

"Corporations" or "rich people" aren't inherently evil.

Does anyone not understand that very basic premise?

How they derived their wealth among other character assessments could be used to determine whether they should be celebrated or boycotted. (Or perhaps imprisoned if they defrauded the American people.) Simply that they're rich means nothing. What if they had a good idea that no one else had thought of? What if they provided a useful service? Are they still evil?

Maybe I'm just reading people's posts wrong.

Yes, you are confused. Of course there's nothing wrong with being rich. In fact, if done the correct way (without force or bribery) it's a great thing. The point of this thread was to illustrate that there are many who take the "being rich is a good thing" too far to the other side of the pendulum and say that most or all rich people are good. That's why I posted the article to illustrate that a HUGE portion of rich people are corrupt.

RCA
08-28-2013, 06:53 PM
There are a lot of people who do it; Art Carden, Jeffrey Tucker, Tom Woods (sometimes) and Radley Balko, to name a few. The thing is, it's not noticeable unless one reads other sites in addition to LRC and Mises.org. All a matter of perspective.

Thanks for agreeing that many, and at all levels of the movement do use libertarian "flashcards" at times. :-)

asurfaholic
08-28-2013, 07:12 PM
I take tax payer funded contracts, and try to bid them as much as I can. If i don't do it, someone will - does that make me evil?

Or corrupt?

green73
08-28-2013, 07:18 PM
There are a lot of people who do it; Art Carden, Jeffrey Tucker, Tom Woods (sometimes) and Radley Balko, to name a few. The thing is, it's not noticeable unless one reads other sites in addition to LRC and Mises.org. All a matter of perspective.

Absolute bunk. WTF are you talking about? Those sites are hardcore anti-cronyism.

green73
08-28-2013, 07:20 PM
Thanks for agreeing that many, and at all levels of the movement do use libertarian "flashcards" at times. :-)

:rolleyes:

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 07:26 PM
Thanks for agreeing that many, and at all levels of the movement do use libertarian "flashcards" at times. :-)

Except all of those people have well-thought out arguments to back up their assertions, even if I don't necessarily agree with their perspective. I'm not a huge fan of McDonalds, but I can understand Jeffrey Tuckers perspective on it, and it's hardly comes from a simpleton's perspective of the world. You're not going to be teaching any of those people anything new by posting this article.

I do understand where you're coming from. It's reminds me of the whole "greed is good" thing. It's a really crappy way of trying to convey the how self-interest is the backbone of the human condition and how it leads to mutually beneficial arrangements and even acts that an outside perspective might perceive to be "selfless". The word greed itself is a negative judgement on the virtue of an act/actions someone takes. Of course it was a memorable tagline in a movie that's become a pop-culture meme. Propagated by both the people who use it as a negative stereotype and people who identified with it and adopted it for their own due to their own perspective of it.

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 07:43 PM
Absolute bunk. WTF are you talking about? Those sites are hardcore anti-cronyism.

http://www.mises.org/daily/1707 Here's an example, one of many; I chose one because if I went through Mises' site and dug up every incriminating article, I'd be at the computer a long time.


Is Taco Bell really "exploiting" and impoverishing workers? The CIW and other anti-labor organizations answer in the affirmative. On their website, the CIW claims that "by contracting for cheap tomatoes grown and picked by farmworkers (sic) paid sub-poverty wages in Florida, Taco Bell contributes significantly to the continued misery of farmworkers and their families."

This is precisely wrong. Taco Bell's wage policy alleviates the "continued misery of farmworkers and their families" rather than contributing to it. Wages are not foisted upon workers; they agree to pick tomatoes for "sub-poverty wages" for a reason. In a market economy, they do so because the 'sub-poverty wages" paid by Taco Bell suppliers are a better deal than anyone else is offering. It's the same reason people line up for "sweatshop" jobs in developing countries. Far from contributing to "continued misery," Taco Bell is making workers' lives a little bit better by offering something better than their next-best option.

Before we rush to condemn free markets and market forces, we have to ask where the workers are coming from.
This is a prime example of what happens when many right-libertarians get mixed up and forget whether they are anti-"cronyism" or apologists for actually-existing capitalism. Defending a feature of cronyism in terms of the free market is just a classic example. Yes, yes, it may be nominally true that sweatshops are "better alternatives" to starving. But this is hardly a new revelation, and many normal people [not (un-free) market fetishists] would probably be more receptive to the argument that in a free market, the worker-employer relationship would be on a more level playing field. This could come through better opportunities for self-employment, alternatives to the typical, hierarchical corporate form, etc. etc.


What the Industrial Revolution made possible, then, was for these people, who had nothing else to offer to the market, to be able to sell their labor to capitalists in exchange for wages. That is why they were able to survive at all.... As Mises argues, the very fact that people took factory jobs in the first place indicates that these jobs, however distasteful to us, represented the best opportunity they had.
If you are going to spend at least some of your time arguing that there has never truly been a free market, why the reflexive defense and attempts at rationalization? These arguments completely ignore capitalism from a historical perspective. In their world, sweatshops just happen to be there randomly. There is no attempt to explain why exactly people choose working conditions that rob them of their health and dignity. I think we can blame a number of things for employers' historically advantageous position, including laws enacted by states that had the effect of chasing everyone off of their land (the enclosure acts in England specifically), and opposition to such things as mutual banks.

RCA
08-28-2013, 07:52 PM
Except all of those people have well-thought out arguments to back up their assertions, even if I don't necessarily agree with their perspective. I'm not a huge fan of McDonalds, but I can understand Jeffrey Tuckers perspective on it, and it's hardly comes from a simpleton's perspective of the world. You're not going to be teaching any of those people anything new by posting this article.

I do understand where you're coming from. It's reminds me of the whole "greed is good" thing. It's a really crappy way of trying to convey the how self-interest is the backbone of the human condition and how it leads to mutually beneficial arrangements and even acts that an outside perspective might perceive to be "selfless". The word greed itself is a negative judgement on the virtue of an act/actions someone takes. Of course it was a memorable tagline in a movie that's become a pop-culture meme. Propagated by both the people who use it as a negative stereotype and people who identified with it and adopted it for their own due to their own perspective of it.

For well written second paragraph...

fr33
08-28-2013, 07:55 PM
http://www.mises.org/daily/1707 Here's an example, one of many; I chose one because if I went through Mises' site and dug up every incriminating article, I'd be at the computer a long time.


This is a prime example of what happens when many right-libertarians get mixed up and forget whether they are anti-"cronyism" or apologists for actually-existing capitalism. Defending a feature of cronyism in terms of the free market is just a classic example. Yes, yes, it may be nominally true that sweatshops are "better alternatives" to starving. But this is hardly a new revelation, and many normal people [not (un-free) market fetishists] would probably be more receptive to the argument that in a free market, the worker-employer relationship would be on a more level playing field. This could come through better opportunities for self-employment, alternatives to the typical, hierarchical corporate form, etc. etc.


If you are going to spend at least some of your time arguing that there has never truly been a free market, why the reflexive defense and attempts at rationalization? These arguments completely ignore capitalism from a historical perspective. In their world, sweatshops just happen to be there randomly. There is no attempt to explain why exactly people choose working conditions that rob them of their health and dignity. I think we can blame a number of things for employers' historically advantageous position, including laws enacted by states that had the effect of chasing everyone off of their land (the enclosure acts in England specifically), and opposition to such things as mutual banks.
WHAAAAT?

You 2 have made the argument that some libertarians are supporting bailouts and cronyism but the examples you give are libertarians supporting free market wages rather than non voluntary union contracts and state mandated minimum wage laws.

RCA
08-28-2013, 07:55 PM
Superb examples! Even better than my original article!


http://www.mises.org/daily/1707 Here's an example, one of many; I chose one because if I went through Mises' site and dug up every incriminating article, I'd be at the computer a long time.


This is a prime example of what happens when many right-libertarians get mixed up and forget whether they are anti-"cronyism" or apologists for actually-existing capitalism. Defending a feature of cronyism in terms of the free market is just a classic example. Yes, yes, it may be nominally true that sweatshops are "better alternatives" to starving. But this is hardly a new revelation, and many normal people [not (un-free) market fetishists] would probably be more receptive to the argument that in a free market, the worker-employer relationship would be on a more level playing field. This could come through better opportunities for self-employment, alternatives to the typical, hierarchical corporate form, etc. etc.


If you are going to spend at least some of your time arguing that there has never truly been a free market, why the reflexive defense and attempts at rationalization? These arguments completely ignore capitalism from a historical perspective. In their world, sweatshops just happen to be there randomly. There is no attempt to explain why exactly people choose working conditions that rob them of their health and dignity. I think we can blame a number of things for employers' historically advantageous position, including laws enacted by states that had the effect of chasing everyone off of their land (the enclosure acts in England specifically), and opposition to such things as mutual banks.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:00 PM
WHAAAAT?

You 2 have made the argument that some libertarians are supporting bailouts and cronyism but the examples you give are libertarians supporting free market wages rather than non voluntary union contracts and state mandated minimum wage laws.

All I'm saying and anyone else who understands what I'm saying is that despite certain things being beneficial (sweat shops, wealth) that, in many cases, there are related non-beneficial factors that tie-in with the beneficial ones. For instance, yes, sweatshops are better than no jobs, but if there was no taxation, inflation, etc, then sweatshops would probably become extinct fairly quickly. So the libertarians that espouse the "good" of sweatshops and wear t-shirts saying "sweatshop or die", usually don't mention the conditions that are preventing them from becoming a thing of the past. The same people support the rich "blindly" and say "they create jobs/investment/blah", without mentioning that a large portion (apparently this article pegs the number to at least 1/3) of the rich people are corporatist hacks. So in other words, arguing with your liberal friend that the wealthy are better than welfare recipients is quite literally a level 1 ultra-basic libertarian stance. After a few months of being libertarian one should move deeper into this stance by realizing that why rich people can and a lot of times are great for the economy, many in fact are hurting the economy.

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 08:01 PM
WHAAAAT?

You 2 have made the argument that some libertarians are supporting bailouts and cronyism but the examples you give are libertarians supporting free market wages rather than non voluntary union contracts and state mandated minimum wage laws.
Please explain why someone would voluntarily choose sweatshops over self-employment. I'm not suggesting to ban sweatshops or anything - as AuH20 alluded to, the solution is to work from the top and eliminate existing privileges and subsidies.

fr33
08-28-2013, 08:02 PM
Superb examples! Even better than my original article!

The next time you buy a car, be sure to pay an extra 20 grand because the guy washing it before you take it off the lot isn't making much money. Otherwise you are a flash card libertarian.

I'm guessing that you support mandatory unions and wage laws....

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 08:04 PM
All I'm saying and anyone else who understands what I'm saying is that despite certain things being beneficial (sweat shops, wealth) that, in many cases, there are related non-beneficial factors that tie-in with the beneficial ones. For instance, yes, sweatshops are better than no jobs, but if there was no taxation, inflation, etc, then sweatshops would probably become extinct fairly quickly. So the libertarians that espouse the "good" of sweatshops and wear t-shirts saying "sweatshop or die", usually don't mention the conditions that are preventing them from becoming a thing of the past. The same people support the rich "blindly" and say "they create jobs/investment/blah", without mentioning that a large portion (apparently this article pegs the number to at least 1/3) of the rich people are corporatist hacks.

Do you hear voices from bad libertarians in your head?

HOLLYWOOD
08-28-2013, 08:04 PM
Bailouts: FORBES: General Electric - GE, other mega co's, paid ZERO Corporate TAXES in 2009 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?239283-FORBES-General-Electric-GE-other-mega-co-s-paid-ZERO-Corporate-TAXES-in-2009&highlight=General+Electric) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?207363-General-Electric-and-its-PAC-strongarming-for-government-handouts&highlight=General+Electric)
Buffett's General Electric attacks schiff (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?204117-Buffett-s-General-Electric-attacks-schiff&highlight=General+Electric)

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:07 PM
The next time you buy a car, be sure to pay an extra 20 grand because the guy washing it before you take it off the lot isn't making much money. Otherwise you are a flash card libertarian.

I'm guessing that you support mandatory unions and wage laws....

You're spewing nonsense. Wha, wha....wut?

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:07 PM
Do you hear voices from bad libertarians in your head?

Yes, dammit!

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:08 PM
More superb examples! The flashcard crowd sure is getting a workover tonight! Actually, it's good for 'em...


Bailouts: FORBES: General Electric - GE, other mega co's, paid ZERO Corporate TAXES in 2009 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?239283-FORBES-General-Electric-GE-other-mega-co-s-paid-ZERO-Corporate-TAXES-in-2009&highlight=General+Electric) General Electric and its PAC strongarming for government handouts (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?207363-General-Electric-and-its-PAC-strongarming-for-government-handouts&highlight=General+Electric)

Buffett's General Electric attacks schiff (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?204117-Buffett-s-General-Electric-attacks-schiff&highlight=General+Electric)

fr33
08-28-2013, 08:09 PM
Please explain why someone would voluntarily choose sweatshops over self-employment.
Because they do not yet have the capital built up to employ themselves. Such capital is not a right by default nor is the job they seek. It must be earned. Just because they don't, does not make their employer a bad person.


I'm not suggesting to ban sweatshops or anything - as AuH20 alluded to, the solution is to work from the top and eliminate existing privileges and subsidies.

If you will point out subsidies or other privileges granted by the state, I will condemn them.

fr33
08-28-2013, 08:11 PM
You're spewing nonsense. Wha, wha....wut?

You quoted examples of people working for what you deem an unacceptable wage. It had nothing to do with cronyism. It was the free market at work (in the quoted examples).

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:13 PM
You quoted examples of people working for what you deem an unacceptable wage. It had nothing to do with cronyism. It was the free market at work (in the quoted examples).

I didn't mention anything about wages during this discussion.

Feeding the Abscess
08-28-2013, 08:13 PM
Please explain why someone would voluntarily choose sweatshops over self-employment. I'm not suggesting to ban sweatshops or anything - as AuH20 alluded to, the solution is to work from the top and eliminate existing privileges and subsidies.

Woods' context was farming vs sweatshops in the 'Robber Baron' era, which was essentially the choice people had to make. Technology doesn't drop out of the sky. This was especially the case in the 19th century, when even the very wealthy lived a lifestyle that was, by today's standards, poor.

Woods would agree with you in opposing state-imposed restrictions on individuals, so I'm not sure what your beef is, here.

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 08:15 PM
How can anyone define what is an "unacceptable" wage? If an employer offers an amount of money for a particular job and someone accepts the offer...by definition, doesn't that make that wage "acceptable"? Who is to say what is "unacceptable" to someone else? Based on what?

fr33
08-28-2013, 08:16 PM
I didn't mention anything about wages during this discussion.

You quoted examples that were specifically about wages and called them superb. Please keep up.


Superb examples! Even better than my original article!

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:19 PM
How can anyone define what is an "unacceptable" wage? If an employer offers an amount of money for a particular job and someone accepts the offer...by definition, doesn't that make that wage "acceptable"? Who is to say what is "unacceptable" to someone else? Based on what?

Ok, this thread is officially derailed (not by just you). The point of my original post, and others who have posted similar examples, is that there is always more at play than the front-line topic. So let's take sweatshops. Whether or not they play a positive role in society is not the point. The point is the possible hidden factors (in regards to my original post). So...let's say this wage the sweatshop earns is $.50 per hour. The next question should not be whether this is fair or not, but what are the hidden factors? How much of that wage is taxed? How many handouts is the owner of the business receiving? What is the corporate tax on the business? Is it a corporation at all or just voluntary interactions among humans? These are the deeper levels that one must reach AFTER deciding whether or not a sweatshop is good/bad, because that is already known after level 1 class is over with.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:21 PM
You quoted examples that were specifically about wages and called them superb. Please keep up.

But you weren't in the mindset of the original topic. I said superb examples to my original subject, which are the hidden factors that are often left out of the picture. Rothbardgirl mentioned sweatshops having hidden factors like a terrible economy (due to the State) forcing people to only be able to take a sweatshop job. My accolades to her were for mentioning these hidden aspects and had nothing to do with the wage issue. I could have bolded her exact text to show what I was referring to, but anyone following the spirit of this thread could easily know what I meant by superb examples.

cajuncocoa
08-28-2013, 08:23 PM
Ok, this thread is officially derailed. The point of my original post, and others who have posted similar examples, is that there is always more at play than the front-line topic. So let's take sweatshops. Whether or not they play a positive role in society is not the point. The point is the possible hidden factors (in regards to my original post). So...let's say this wage the sweatshop earner is $.50 per hour. The next question should not be whether this is fair or not, but what are the hidden factors? How much of that wage is taxed? How many handouts is the owner of the business receiving? What is the corporate tax on the business? Is it a corporation at all or just voluntary interactions among humans? These are the deeper levels that one must reach AFTER deciding whether or not a sweatshop is good/bad, because that is already known after level 1 class is over with.

I apologize if my questions are derailing the thread...I was responding to something someone said, but let's bring it back full circle. It's not how much money someone makes (or not), it's the intervention of the state in the transactions. In the above response, it all comes back to what the state is demanding from the little guy and giving to the Big Man. See bolded text.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:25 PM
Exactamundo!

And I'm not saying there are not any beneficial rich people or beneficial minds or talents. Of course there are. In fact, I'd say many of them are. I just don't like when I see others give the knee-jerk response to a "rich/poor" argument that is nauseating simplistic.


I apologize if my questions are derailing the thread...I was responding to something someone said, but let's bring it back full circle. It's not how much money someone makes (or not), it's the intervention of the state in the transactions. In the above response, it all comes back to what the state is demanding from the little guy and giving to the Big Man. See bolded text.

otherone
08-28-2013, 08:28 PM
These are the deeper levels that one must reach AFTER instead of deciding whether or not a sweatshop is good/bad, because that is already known after level 1 class is over with.

FIFY

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 08:29 PM
Because they do not yet have the capital built up to employ themselves. Such capital is not a right by default nor is the job they seek. It must be earned. Just because they don't, does not make their employer a bad person.
Not disputing that people aren't automatically entitled to a job and/or capital. I'm just saying the process of capital accumulation now is made artificially more difficult by such things as zoning/licensure laws, intellectual property laws, enforcing absentee claims to property (even if you disagree that "absentee landlordism" is wrong, which is fine as I'm not 100% sold on it either, it HAS had an effect on exactly what type of land is cultivated), and other things. Most of which I'm sure you would agree with. Benjamin Tucker spoke about the "Big Four" - monopolies on land, money, tariffs and patents. It's not necessarily anti-business to point this out, but I think the traditional business model would certainly play a smaller role in people's lives in a free market. That's really all I'm saying.

I think most of the disagreements tend to stem from my observation that libertarians don't realize their own power, in a sense. They correctly identify the problems but sometimes they might not see how much these problems actually affect people's lives.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:29 PM
FIFY

Point received.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:33 PM
Not disputing that people aren't automatically entitled to a job and/or capital. I'm just saying the process of capital accumulation now is made artificially more difficult by such things as zoning/licensure laws, intellectual property laws, enforcing absentee claims to property (even if you disagree that "absentee landlordism" is wrong, which is fine as I'm not 100% sold on it either, it HAS had an effect on exactly what type of land is cultivated), and other things. Most of which I'm sure you would agree with. Benjamin Tucker spoke about the "Big Four" - monopolies on land, money, tariffs and patents. It's not necessarily anti-business to point this out, but I think the traditional business model would certainly play a smaller role in people's lives in a free market. That's really all I'm saying.

I think most of the disagreements tend to stem from my observation that libertarians don't realize their own power, in a sense. They correctly identify the problems but sometimes they might not see how much these problems actually affect people's lives.

I'm curious why would absentee landlordism (had to look that up) be a bad thing if everything is voluntary? Also how is that different than just owning and renting a house in one state but living in another state? Many people want to rent a house over an apartment and you are providing a service the market wants. I must be missing something about the issue. Is it because it has to do with country to country?

GopBlackList
08-28-2013, 08:34 PM
"You libs?" Who are you referring to? I'm a ancap libertarian level 7 alpha ninja......woman.

Then aren't you a "flash card" libertarian too because there are anarcho capitalists that say the same thing?

green73
08-28-2013, 08:34 PM
http://www.mises.org/daily/1707 Here's an example, one of many...

You seem to imply that in these cases, Taco Bell or the multi-national is responsible for those people’s living conditions. They most certainly are not. I could see your point if Taco Bell had greased politicians to make or maintain laws that gave them a market advantage, or if the corporation did the same in the impoverished country.

I really think it's disingenuous to imply they (the writers) overlooked the role of government in the making those people's hardships. The two, the companies and the people's government, are mutually exclusive (unless said cronyism has occurred). These companies are providing a better option to what these people currently have. These companies are not responsible for what these people's governments are doing to them. That's on the people.

Also, it's not always a government keeping these people down alone. Their economies are shit. Their only capital is labor. Is that the fault of the companies who pump wealth into their economies at a market rate?

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:35 PM
Then aren't you a "flash card" libertarian too because there are anarcho capitalists that say the same thing?

She was calling me a liberal...for no reason...and then later said she couldn't explain what she meant by that comment. So, I'm not sure what your comment is about exactly.

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 08:37 PM
I could have bolded her exact text to show what I was referring to, but anyone following the spirit of this thread could easily know what I meant by superb examples.

I must admit, I've been confused by many of your posts as well. For instance, you mentioned her "superb examples", directly followed with a quote of hers that says:


http://www.mises.org/daily/1707 Here's an example, one of many; I chose one because if I went through Mises' site and dug up every incriminating article, I'd be at the computer a long time.

Which made me think you were (also) referring to what she was calling "examples". Now that you've clarified, I understand what you were referring to, but there were other confusing posts, including what you meant with your initial post. Especially when it seemed like you were chastising libertarians for supporting free markets ("yay free markets!"), which you later clarified as well.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:37 PM
You seem to imply that in these cases, Taco Bell or the multi-national is responsible for those people’s living conditions. They most certainly are not. I could see your point if Taco Bell had greased politicians to make or maintain laws that gave them a market advantage, or if the corporation did the same in the impoverished country.

I really think it's disingenuous to imply they (the writers) overlooked the role of government in the making those people's hardships. The two, the companies and the people's government, are mutually exclusive (unless said cronyism has occurred). These companies are providing a better option to what these people currently have. These companies are not responsible for what these people's governments are doing to them. That's on the people.

Also, it's not always a government keeping these people down alone. Their economies are shit. Their only capital is labor. Is that the fault of the companies who pump wealth into their economies at a market rate?

You speak as if cronyism is a rare bird. I would say that it'd be hard NOT to find examples of cronyism in modern day America. So, while Rothbardgirl was not saying it WAS Taco Bell's fault, she was saying that many factors beyond Taco Bell are are work and the issue wasn't as black and white as some like to make it out to be.

RCA
08-28-2013, 08:39 PM
I must admit, I've been confused by many of your posts as well. For instance, you mentioned her "superb examples", directly followed with a quote of hers that says:



Which made me think you were (also) referring to what she was calling "examples". Now that you've clarified, I understand what you were referring to, but there were other confusing posts, including what you meant with your initial post. Especially when it seemed like you were chastising libertarians for supporting free markets ("yay free markets!"), which you later clarified as well.

And I fessed up to the lack of detail in both cases...thanks to those like you who requested that I expound upon my statements.

pcosmar
08-28-2013, 08:40 PM
How does this story reflect negatively on free markets?


Was my thought.

"yeah free markets!"

What Free market??

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 08:41 PM
What Free market??

I think that was pretty much his point, but the way he presented it was very confusing.

green73
08-28-2013, 08:54 PM
You speak as if cronyism is a rare bird. I would say that it'd be hard NOT to find examples of cronyism in modern day America. So, while Rothbardgirl was not saying it WAS Taco Bell's fault, she was saying that many factors beyond Taco Bell are are work and the issue wasn't as black and white as some like to make it out to be.

Why not focus on the government? The government enables it. Without the government it wouldn't exist. Why hate on private enterprise?

Again, I don't think anybody at Mises ignores the effect of cronyism.

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 08:57 PM
You seem to imply that in these cases, Taco Bell or the multi-national is responsible for those people’s living conditions. They most certainly are not. I could see your point if Taco Bell had greased politicians to make or maintain laws that gave them a market advantage, or if the corporation did the same in the impoverished country.

I really think it's disingenuous to imply they (the writers) overlooked the role of government in the making those people's hardships. The two, the companies and the people's government, are mutually exclusive (unless said cronyism has occurred). These companies are providing a better option to what these people currently have. These companies are not responsible for what these people's governments are doing to them. That's on the people.

Also, it's not always a government keeping these people down alone. Their economies are shit. Their only capital is labor. Is that the fault of the companies who pump wealth into their economies at a market rate?

In this day and age, we may not see corporations explicitly heading to a politician's office and saying "OK, let's figure out which laws we can get passed so we can take advantage of an economic system", but I assure you this certainly did happen during the heyday of actually-existing capitalism in the US (the Gilded Age, which ironically is defended by some libertarians as being the "free market"). There are congressional records of executives testifying before Congress how a policy would benefit their company. There is also private correspondence between many denizens of the Gilded-Age industrial era that details exactly why they wanted more regulations passed. One book that details this is "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko. It may be difficult to find, but it's certainly a rewarding read and certainly filled in the background rather than just spouting sketchy details like I've been able to give you here, in the interest of keeping your attention. I am sure the same thing happens on a daily basis nowadays, but no one has had the fortitude to wade through hundreds of documents and write a book about it yet.

I've met Art Carden in person before and he definitely does not see his defense of corporatism as a problem. In fact, he made some rather cheap jokes about how much he loved his iPhone because poor workers made it, and no, I am not exaggerating. He did not once mention how the government intervenes on Apple's behalf using the methods I have detailed in my earlier posts.

I am aware how businesses are capable of nominally improving the quality of people's lives, but that's not really what I'm interested in, because I think that viewpoint tends to gloss over problems that are capable of being fixed.

noneedtoaggress
08-28-2013, 09:07 PM
It seems like there's some pretty decent conversations to be had here, but I think it started off on awkward footing which perhaps caused people to position themselves in a more adversarial way than necessary.

green73
08-28-2013, 09:07 PM
In this day and age, we may not see corporations explicitly heading to a politician's office and saying "OK, let's figure out which laws we can get passed so we can take advantage of an economic system", but I assure you this certainly did happen during the heyday of actually-existing capitalism in the US (the Gilded Age, which ironically is defended by some libertarians as being the "free market"). There are congressional records of executives testifying before Congress how a policy would benefit their company. There is also private correspondence between many denizens of the Gilded-Age industrial era that details exactly why they wanted more regulations passed. One book that details this is "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko. It may be difficult to find, but it's certainly a rewarding read and certainly filled in the background rather than just spouting sketchy details like I've been able to give you here, in the interest of keeping your attention. I am sure the same thing happens on a daily basis nowadays, but no one has had the fortitude to wade through hundreds of documents and write a book about it yet.

But who is disputing that Big Money has and will always affect government? It's one of the primary reasons why government will always fail. I just don't know why, from a Rothbardian perspective, you're bemoaning the likes of Carden and Woods, saying they don't recognize the effects of government.

Rothbardian Girl
08-28-2013, 09:15 PM
But who is disputing that Big Money has and will always affect government? It's one of the primary reasons why government will always fail. I just don't know why, from a Rothbardian perspective, you're bemoaning the likes of Carden and Woods, saying they don't recognize the effects of government.
Perhaps we all secretly agree with each other, but the "difference" can be attributed to focus. People like me generally believe the state was created to serve the interests of feudal landlords and their predecessors and later became a vehicle for what would be termed capitalists in nearly everyone's discourse. I don't really separate government and see cronies as leeches trying to line up at the trough, I see them as intrinsically linked and interdependent. I rarely see people like Woods or Carden condemn capitalism in favor of a free market based on a historical perspective. I don't know why Woods in particular is so reluctant to do this since he is primarily a historian, if my memory serves me correctly.

helmuth_hubener
08-28-2013, 09:17 PM
RCA,

You have written many things in this successful thread of yours. I am just humbly wondering if you could quickly refute me and thus clear up my flashcard misunderstanding. Thanks!


Two out of those three, I'd cheer to. I like to think this is not due to an infantile or overly-simplistic mindset on my part. So if you can explain why all three statements are wrong, I would much appreciate it and will modify my opinions accordingly.

Thank you!

Here are some ideas to give you an idea of "where I'm coming from" so you can refute and correct me most effectively:

Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/05/lew-rockwell/everything-you-love/)

Freedom of Association (http://mises.org/daily/4465/)

green73
08-28-2013, 09:27 PM
Perhaps we all secretly agree with each other, but the "difference" can be attributed on focus. People like me generally believe the state was created to serve the interests of feudal landlords and later became a vehicle for what would be termed capitalists in nearly everyone's discourse. I don't really separate government and see cronies as leeches trying to line up at the trough, I see them as intrinsically linked and interdependent. I rarely see people like Woods or Carden condemn capitalism in favor of a free market based on a historical perspective. I don't know why Woods in particular is so reluctant to do this since he is primarily a historian, if my memory serves me correctly.

I guess it depends on how you define capitalism. History is more than replete with cases of enterprise rising up despite the landed aristocracy. That's what started happening en masse during the enlightenment, the entire industrial revolution. Capitalism is not inherently crony. You can define that way if you like, but most will disagree.

RCA
08-29-2013, 11:51 AM
RCA,

You have written many things in this successful thread of yours. I am just humbly wondering if you could quickly refute me and thus clear up my flashcard misunderstanding. Thanks!

The point is that while these statements are often true: "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"......OFTEN times these statements are way too simplistic to stand behind in many cases. For instance, the "rich are good"...while sometimes can be true, the article in my original post states that at least 1/3 of them are bloodsucking leeches. So the flashcard stance becomes an error when you apply the knowledge that some rich people are beneficial into a belief that ALL rich people are beneficial (and yes there are libertarians that do that and they point at Dems and Repubs for blindly choosing sides). The same goes for blindly supporting "the market" or "the company" while using the reasoning that free markets are about free choices, which is true in a pure sense, but we have almost the exact opposite of a free market. So in most cases, when an employee is being screwed over by a company, it MAY not be proper to spout the flashcard response of "if you don't like it then leave", because while the employee does have the choice to quit, most likely the company doing the dirty bits is knee deep in pork and handouts. So it doesn't make logical sense to require the employee to posit themselves in a puritanical manner while completely ignoring the fact that not only is the company not playing fair, but it may be complicit in making it harder for the employee to quit by corrupting the marketplace and most likely desires and has designed the market to be this way. So, the overall point is to include the big picture when taking stances on the issues.

Cleaner44
08-29-2013, 12:32 PM
What I don't get is why so many liberals endorse a system of government props up companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers.

otherone
08-29-2013, 01:28 PM
This is for those who love to pull out their libertarian slogans like "the rich are good!", "yeah free markets!", "if you don't like the company then quit!"...and on and on...


It's becoming apparent from the topic about striking fast-food workers that some libertarians don't love the rich, they merely despise the working poor.

RCA
08-29-2013, 01:53 PM
It's becoming apparent from the topic about striking fast-food workers that some libertarians don't love the rich, they merely despise the working poor.

I can believe that. Also, when discussing minimum wage (which is wrong) they never mention taxation in the same discussion. In other words, these flashcard libertarians like to strike down the idea of a minimum wage or raising it, which is all good, but you must also discuss payroll taxes as well if you are to be taken seriously.

limequat
08-29-2013, 02:31 PM
I can believe that. Also, when discussing minimum wage (which is wrong) they never mention taxation in the same discussion. In other words, these flashcard libertarians like to strike down the idea of a minimum wage or raising it, which is all good, but you must also discuss payroll taxes as well if you are to be taken seriously.

It's a logical fallacy to apply an unbelievable belief to your opponent.

Who despises poor people?

Also, how much in taxes do minimum wage earners pay? I would bet that they get back more than they pay in.