Define welfare state. Let’s at least have a clue to your beliefs. Do you hate Social Security which is not paid for by taxes as much as you hate tax relief to corporations ?
**TWEEET!
Enough. No more comments about other posters’ beliefs or intelligence or personalities.
Either post support or refutation for the OP, or don’t post.
I kept hoping that an actual debate would break out, but neither side appears to want one. From this point, if your post is not a substantive discussion of the OP, (and not silly broadsides at libertarians or progressives and liberals), then simply do not post.
[ /Moderating ]**
“In the end, we’re all dead” means that you cannot wait for the market to correct economic deprivation because people are suffering now.
The Tea Partiers don’t represent an opportunity for the implementation of libertarian economics. Just try to take away their Medicare and Social Security and they’ll burn you in effigy faster than you can say “laissez faire.”
Oh goodie, a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist as well. How could anyone question the validity of such pearls of wisdom like this from your link:
Now, now…I’m sure jrodefeld would tell you that he doesn’t necessarily believe everything on that site - you’re just picking out the nutty stuff.
Just like I’m unfair in criticizing him for citing rense.com as a good source of news, when he doesn’t necessarily agree with all the pearls of wisdom on that site…like the latest revelations on how Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy, UFO updates, the Big Pharma plan to kill Alternative Medicine, and wonderfully tolerant articles like “Are Jews Today Guilty For The Crucifixion?” (hint: yes) and “Israeli Rabbis On God-Ordained Child Sex Mission”.
Put down that New York Times and Wall St. Journal, people…this is the real dope!!!
Here’s another gem from the same site. Wow.
This is very optimistic view that simple won’t come true. If things were this simple there would never be any problems between people in the first place. Taking it in pieces:
You really think that’s how it would work? What if the Supreme Court stood up tomorrow and announced, “Hey, that whole same sex marriage thing? We don’t care. At all. It’s not the government’s concern. Go marry whoever the heck you want. Hell, marry several people so long as they’re all consenting adults. Just shut up about it.”
Would everyone just drop it? Would it take a few weeks and then fade out? Just like Roe v Wade did? Hell, there is currently an argument about building an Islamic Center in New York, and that’s covered by the First Admendment. We still haven’t fully grasped that one as a nation.
No, not everyone is going to be happy. What happens if we end up with a State that decides to toss all education spending? It’s very Libertarian to say that people will educate their kids, but in the real world what you’re going to get is a massive group of ignorant people. It’s a small world, and an even smaller country. I care that people across the country aren’t complete morons because it benefits me. I am not self sufficent, and I’m going to make the shocking assumption that neither are you. We depend on other people; we need them to not be ignorant losers.
Of course it would. Because if we seperate everyone into their own homogeneous societies with disdain or disinterest in their neighbors, nothing bad will happen. Nobody has ever seen people divide themselves along societal lines and demonize “the other.” Never. Nobody would take it upon themselves to force those who are different to “go back to their own kind.”
Tolerance and goodwill is what you get when people set aside their differences, not what comes from setting aside other people.
Now, you have made one single point over and over again, and it doesn’t begin to pass my plausibility test. I’ve only taken an introductory economics course, so the objection I present is simple.
You say: inflation hurts the poor and middle class.
But I ask: which group of people is hurt most by mild inflation? The poor have their wealth mostly in their person, e.g. their capability to earn wages. Inflation will tend to increase their wages (by definition), so most of their wealth remains constant. The working and middle classes have most of their wealth in property and person, and some savings. They’re hurt more, but their property and wages tend to be increased by inflation too (again, by definition.) The direct savings are hurt by inflation. The upper class, on the other hand, has a higher proportion of their wealth in savings, and thus should be the ones hurt most by inflation. IOW, inflation hurts you less, the poorer you are.
(In fact, this is a bit of a silly generalization, since inflation is based on a basket of goods, and which part of that basket is increasing in price determines the outcome. But we’re assuming it’s evenly spread, simply because jrodefeld has not specified what type of good the fed is responsible for making more expensive. It certainly wouldn’t be food!)
PS. If and when you finally read this, take note: I gather you’re trying to address each post individually, in order. It’s better to find the main, strongest arguments being made (the ones in big, bolded letters in this thread, for example) and address them. Otherwise, you’re answering objections that have already been strengthened beyond your ability to debate them anyway. Plus, there’s no flow to the thread —you just look like you’re randomly saying whatever comes to mind, without noting the objections, even though that probably isn’t what’s going on.
Let me start by freely admitting I read neither the Three-Part Manifesto of Truth and Freedom, nor the 200+ responses. What I got out of skimming the beginning of the Manifesto is that the right-wing nutcases are sincere.
We know that. That’s the problem.
This is a good summary by John Mace. Nevertheless I will give the OP some of the feedback he claims to want.
One tiny plank in your previous screed was that your children shouldn’t be forced to get vaccination for rubella. I tried to point out that society vaccinates your children in order to protect my children. You never seemed to grasp this simple fact, eventually just saying the vaccination issue was a minor part of your philosophy. I agree it’s a minor issue, but serves as a good example of why the whole Tragedy of the Commons concept refutes the most extreme forms of libertarianism.
Why don’t you start another (brief!) thread and tell us whether you now understand Tragedy of Commons, or whether you still prefer to avoid contrary thinking.
I’ll respond to only one more point:
You claim to know more than a thimbleful of economics and believe Keynesians think deficits don’t matter? 
?? ??
What a joke you’ve turned into. It’s the Keynesians, for heaven’s sake, who were running surpluses in the 1950’s, 60’s and 90’s!! Dick Cheney’s the man you want to target; he famously said “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Get a clue.
sheesh, late to this wing nut party.
marc ‘doctor doom’ faber has been a one trick pony parroting the same domesday scenario for at least 20 years. He was pretty geriatric and tiresome when I knew him in hong kong in the early 1990’s and hasnlt changed any since then. Read his ‘doom, gloom and boom’ newsletter if you want more. cliff notes version - anything that happens I the market is bad or will be bad.
DO NOT post personal observations, particularly negative one, about other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
Is asking about the whereabouts of the integrated Tea Party rally he references repeatedly in this thread off-topic? If you so rule, I’ll drop it.
I have one very important question for jrodefeld - have you read post # 260?
I understand Free Market economics perfectly well thank you, it’s really not that difficult a concept. The problem I have with it is that everyone I’ve seen who espouses it as the solution to the worlds problems seems to go straight from Free Market economics to whatever utopian fantasy they believe without ever considering what would actually happen. There are two key facts here that IMO completely invalidate the concept of Free Market economics without the balancing of strong government:
- When people talk about the ‘invisible hand’ or the ‘self-correcting free market’ there is always an implicit assumption that the correction will be to the benefit of the people. Why? Who says that what is good for business is also best for The People? In fact I would argue that’s what is best for business is a state of near slavery for the working class.
- You acknowledge the irrationaly of actors in the system without seeing that it undermines the very possibility of a Free Market. When consumers can be manipulated by corporations into purchasing things or doing things that are against their own interest (and even in the current system this frequently happens) a free market cannot exist because business will always be able to run roughshod over the general populace.
The whole point of having a democratic governmnent is to give a voice to the people in order to protect them from such abuses. Remove that check and the ordiinary people would pay a heavy, heavy price for the economic freedom of the small percentage at the top.
And you claim to be knowledgable about this subject? Dear lord. You cannot see how a loan can be payed off despite paying interest?
Besides that I would like to point out that your views on banking are IMO directly contradictory to your views on Free Market economics. If you want a flexible market you need modern financial systems (loans, interest, fractional reserves) to provide companies with the liquidity to be able to respond to changes in market conditions. You would take that advantage away from American companies while the rest of the world retains it? Are you mad?
I think I’m done attempting to debate wth you. Your views are standard, US-centric Libertarian loonacy and you don’t even attempt to reconcile them with the way the world actually works. God help the people of the United States if you were ever in charge.
Asking for information or clarification on a point raised is not an insulting attack on a philosophical movement, (as long as it is not framed as an insult 
), so there is no bar against such a question.
[ /Modding ]
What evidence do you have that the US is currently experiencing, or will experience hyperinflation? From what I can see from your arguments, it boils down to “Bad things coming: beware the Weimar Republic!”
When? Why?
Also, have you addressed the posts in #260 yet?
Good questions that have yet to be addressed. I’d also like to know the location and date of that integrated Tea Party rally you attended.
Forgot about that one- add it to the list of reasonable questions to address.
Two of the linked video’s are news conferences and don’t show the makeup of minority citizens at all.
The other two show interviews with a few black members, however, the entire background audience is white.
Just in case you didn’t do the math, 15% is 1 out of every 7 people.