Types of libertarians

Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Chad Sexington said:
I don't know about that, the way I see it is because it has been unobstructed with NAFTA, CAFTA and whatever the free trade agreements with the asian markets are called is what has hurt the American economy the most. I saw this show on how this town in the US that lost it's Maytag plant, because all the jobs went to Mexico, so pretty much the entire town shut down, like a mining town when the mine runs dry. I don't think they -Maytag for example- should have access to the market if they don't create the stuff in the country of that market. I get what you are saying about the small business/entrepreneur, but if no body has the money to spend then those businesses will not last very long, and it just is not worth the risk and start-up costs. But what do I know, I grow animal feed.
Click to expand...
I am referring to oppressive taxes and burdensome regulations. Regulations that federal agencies continue to heap upon the private sector because Congress granted them rulemaking authority.

NAFTA SMAFTA.

Protectionism as you describe would only foment a trade war, or a series of them.

As far as the Maytag factory becoming a maquiladora South of the border, the question we should be asking is why the company made the decision to move in the first place.

And the answer has to do with regulations, taxation, and Unions. All three are the beloved of the Progressives.

It's really very simple; the more capital seized from the private sector and placed under the control of government, the less the private sector has to work with. And the less inclined members of the private sector are to risk what capital they do have.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
But see, there is where your argument starts to break down. We cant get people to agree on growing pot, how are we all going to agree what the common laws are?
Click to expand...
My argument doesn't break down because you are unwilling to even research what common law is. Common law is known to everyone whether they can articulate it or not. Murder, Assault, Fraud,and Theft are universally accepted as wrong by every society in the world, there does not need to be a specific statute telling you that these things are illegal, you just know it to be wrong.

Start here, its a looooong read, but common law is not something that has a succinct written code. The Magna Carta in the 13th century tried to enumerate some of the common laws.

http://section520.org/the common law.pdf
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
It's really very simple; the more capital seized from the private sector and placed under the control of government, the less the private sector has to work with. And the less inclined members of the private sector are to risk what capital they do have.
Click to expand...
And that just leads to a downward spiral of tax revenue under increasing burdens until the government just has to take over the failing businesses to keep them afloat. And marxism is born... Oh wait, they already did that to the banks, the auto companies, the college loan system, the healthcare companies, etc...
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
My argument doesn't break down because you are unwilling to even research what common law is. Common law is known to everyone whether they can articulate it or not. Murder, Assault, Fraud,and Theft are universally accepted as wrong by every society in the world, there does not need to be a specific statute telling you that these things are illegal, you just know it to be wrong.

Start here, its a looooong read, but common law is not something that has a succinct written code. The Magna Carta in the 13th century tried to enumerate some of the common laws.

http://section520.org/the common law.pdf
Click to expand...

Ok but what if a pedophile wants the age of consent to be 8 years old? Is there an agreement on age of consent? This is just one thing that occurs to me immediately.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
I am referring to oppressive taxes and burdensome regulations. Regulations that federal agencies continue to heap upon the private sector because Congress granted them rulemaking authority.

NAFTA SMAFTA.

Protectionism as you describe would only foment a trade war, or a series of them.

As far as the Maytag factory becoming a maquiladora South of the border, the question we should be asking is why the company made the decision to move in the first place.

And the answer has to do with regulations, taxation, and Unions. All three are the beloved of the Progressives.

It's really very simple; the more capital seized from the private sector and placed under the control of government, the less the private sector has to work with. And the less inclined members of the private sector are to risk what capital they do have.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with PROFIT!! If Maytag can make more profit and be less regulated in Mexico, it will move to Mexico, if it would be more profitable to operate from the Moon, you can bet there would be a Maytag factory there. Its not a cut and dried 1 thing, its a combination of crushing forces, the free trade deals were just the straw that broke the camels back and made it legally possible to use cheap labor to make MORE PROFIT!
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
But see, there is where your argument starts to break down. We cant get people to agree on growing pot, how are we all going to agree what the common laws are?
Click to expand...

You already know all the common laws, everyone does even if they were never taught it. They are laws common to every man, creed and nation. Murder, Assault, Theft, Rape, fraud are universally accepted as wrong and immoral and i will bet that you knew that.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
It has everything to do with PROFIT!! If Maytag can make more profit and be less regulated in Mexico, it will move to Mexico, if it would be more profitable to operate from the Moon, you can bet there would be a Maytag factory there. Its not a cut and dried 1 thing, its a combination of crushing forces, the free trade deals were just the straw that broke the camels back and made it legally possible to use cheap labor to make MORE PROFIT!
Click to expand...
Of course it has to with profit. The "P" word is anathema to Proggies, don't you know.

I suppose my answer was more specific, but it all comes back to profit. It's all about the bottom line of the Income Statement: Net Income.

A business has one goal: to make money. This adds value to the company, thus benefiting the owners, or stockholders.

Jobs belong to the business, not the employees.
 
C

Chad Sexington

Active Member
I think is has everything to do with competitive prices on the consumer end. Not unions, and regulations, maytag for example was manufactured in the states for how many decades? They simply cannot compete with the goods coming from foreign nations, due to the fact that they are paying pennies on the dollar for wages. It is all about markup, if they can make 200% markup on the product they will. Since the goods coming in from other nations cost less to manufacture (labour wise) you can make the same markup on the product selling it for less, and who doesn't love paying less money. The only downfall to this is that it out competes the american made goods. So in order to stay competitive from a business standpoint, you are almost forced to move your manufacturing to foreign soils (unless you don't want to make money, because lets face it those who only buy american are few and far between). That is just the way I see it and as such, I don't think it has anything to do with the government seizing capitals from the private sector. Just more to do with staying competitive in a changing world.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Manufacturing is drawn to emerging economies because labor is cheap and regulations are reasonable.

Example. The Tata Nano. An automobile manufactured in India that sells for approximately $2,500. Would an automobile selling for that price have a market in the U.S.?

You bet your ass it would.

But it could never be manufactured in the U.S. for that price because of the UAW. And it could never be sold in the U.S. until the company jumped through all the regulatory hoops. The Nano does not have airbags.

Even if a company were to manufacture a Volkswagen Beetle (circa 1967), it could not be made or sold at a reasonable price in the U.S. for exactly the same reasons.

I wonder if Michael Dell would be able to start his company in his dorm room at the University of Texas in today's regulatory climate as he did in 1983? Do you know what Michael Dell did for his employees without union pressure? He made them rich. There is a term in Austin for longtime Dell employees: Dellionaires.

We should be encouraging a market climate designed to engage all the Michael Dells out there.

Our economy is moving away from manufacturing rapidly. A radical transformation is underway. An information economy requires educated people. The public schools are failing us in this regard. Is it funding? No, public education is well funded. Why then? Teachers Unions; and government agencies that see public education as social work rather than as a means to prepare students to make a living.

I suppose there is always the service sector of the economy for the victims of public education.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Manufacturing is drawn to emerging economies because labor is cheap and regulations are reasonable.

Example. The Tata Nano. An automobile manufactured in India that sells for approximately $2,500. Would an automobile selling for that price have a market in the U.S.?

You bet your ass it would.

But it could never be manufactured in the U.S. for that price because of the UAW. And it could never be sold in the U.S. until the company jumped through all the regulatory hoops. The Nano does not have airbags.

Even if a company were to manufacture a Volkswagen Beetle (circa 1967), it could not be made or sold at a reasonable price in the U.S. for exactly the same reasons.

I wonder if Michael Dell would be able to start his company in his dorm room at the University of Texas in today's regulatory climate as he did in 1983? Do you know what Michael Dell did for his employees without union pressure? He made them rich. There is a term is Austin for longtime Dell employees: Dellionaires.

We should be encouraging a market climate designed to engage all the Michael Dells out there.

Our economy is moving away from manufacturing rapidly. A radical transformation is underway. An information economy requires educated people. The public schools are failing us in this regard. Is it funding? No, public education is well funded. Why then? Teachers Unions; and government agencies that see public education as social work rather than as a means to prepare students to make a living.

I suppose there is always the service sector of the economy for the victims of public education.
Click to expand...
Gosh Johnny, we agree on so much. I would also like to point out that even a college education is not necessarily a great thing for someone. Most tuition is paid by taking on debt in the form of student loans and the quality of instruction is severely lacking in many subjects, so much so that they are turning out idiots with degrees and Summa Cum Laude honors.

This is what we get for our American Education system:

[video=youtube;lj3iNxZ8Dww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww[/video]
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Gosh Johnny, we agree on so much. I would also like to point out that even a college education is not necessarily a great thing for someone. Most tuition is paid by taking on debt in the form of student loans and the quality of instruction is severely lacking in many subjects, so much so that they are turning out idiots with degrees and Summa Cum Laude honors.

This is what we get for our American Education system:

[video=youtube;lj3iNxZ8Dww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww[/video]
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, that was some of the funniest shit I've seen in a long time!!!! Thank you for the laugh!:mrgreen:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Gosh Johnny, we agree on so much. I would also like to point out that even a college education is not necessarily a great thing for someone. Most tuition is paid by taking on debt in the form of student loans and the quality of instruction is severely lacking in many subjects, so much so that they are turning out idiots with degrees and Summa Cum Laude honors.

This is what we get for our American Education system:
Click to expand...
When it comes to higher education, essentially you get out of it what you put into it.

When Thomas Jefferson first envisioned the University of Virgina, he conceived a place where a citizen could just show up, learn as much as they wanted, and then leave when they thought they were ready.

He was talked out of it and the University of Virginia became a traditional university.

But Jefferson's legacy lives on in the Community College system, which basically follows the original Jeffersonian model.

Retraining is easy. All one has to do is want to do it.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Ok but what if a pedophile wants the age of consent to be 8 years old? Is there an agreement on age of consent? This is just one thing that occurs to me immediately.
Click to expand...
Well even to this day their are cultures that practice such things, its not openly practiced but even in places like Mexico the age of consent is culturally 13 or so and they are pretty open about that. So while you and I would vomit at the thought of molesting someone that young, you can't deny that there are sickos in this world. This might make you a bit sick, but here it is, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/ watch the video, bring a barf bag.


Sorry for the off topic post, hehe I get carried away sometimes.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I am not even going to click the link. My point is that some people would say the age of consent should be 18 while there are some sicko's that say 8. Now most say something in between but there is no common law covering this facet of life.

How does everyone manage to agree?

The founding fathers tried anarchy and it simply didnt work... They had to nudge it over into a very limited government which we certainly do not have today... If we could have a proper interpretation of the commerce clause with the context that the constitution is a document to LIMIT government then the federal government would lose a massive amount of power. That power would naturally as stated in the constitution pass down to the states.

If we had a weak federal government and strong state governments we could choose with our feet and move to states that had more favorable laws depending on our preferences.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I am not even going to click the link. My point is that some people would say the age of consent should be 18 while there are some sicko's that say 8. Now most say something in between but there is no common law covering this facet of life.

How does everyone manage to agree?

The founding fathers tried anarchy and it simply didnt work... They had to nudge it over into a very limited government which we certainly do not have today... If we could have a proper interpretation of the commerce clause with the context that the constitution is a document to LIMIT government then the federal government would lose a massive amount of power. That power would naturally as stated in the constitution pass down to the states.

If we had a weak federal government and strong state governments we could choose with our feet and move to states that had more favorable laws depending on our preferences.
Click to expand...
Fuckin A dude, 100% agreement from me. [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Progressives put in place obstacles to business which disproportionally affect the small businessman/entrepreneur. Obstacles which reduce the reward for taking risks. Add to that a great deal of uncertainty as to just how high those obstacles will rise.
Click to expand...
well exxxcccccuuuuuuuuuuse me for not wanting lead in my paint and minimum crash safety standards for my automobile. how foolish it is to burden these poor businesses by asking they produce products that will not harm or kill us. boo fucking hoo.

really, you will have to excuse me for not wanting cadmium in my child's shrek cup, which is what happens when you let business monitor themselves, as the cpsc did.

does that mean i hate business? the affluent? success? only in your warped worldview, johnny. i just want business to act in the interests of the consumers from which they derive their wealth. i want affluence and success to be earned in an honest manner that does not put others at peril.

this should not be hard to understand.

Johnnyorganic said:
Allow the market to function unobstructed and the economy will right itself.
Click to expand...
yes, johnny. just keep believing the free market fairy will come and make everything alright.

if you wish really hard, the free market fairy will poop entrepreneurship under your pillow!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Of course it has to with profit. The "P" word is anathema to Proggies, don't you know.
Click to expand...
so far you have made the argument that since i am progressive, i hate success, affluence, wealth, and now profit.

please reconcile that with my drive as a progressive to make profits from successful entrepreneurial activity to gain sufficient wealth to get by.

Johnnyorganic said:
A business has one goal: to make money.
Click to expand...
yep, which explains why they pay overseas laborers pennies per hour in dangerous working conditions. is that what you want? for americans to work in hazardous conditions at wages that are not livable? is that what you advocate?

i used to work at a company that supplied cheap chinese products to u.s. vendors. one summer, we were unable to get products from one of the companies because there was a heat wave and workers were literally keeling over dead due to their working conditions.

it is not that i am against a business making money, i just believe they should treat their employees and customers as people, not commodities.

a novel concept, i know.

according to you, the workers and the customers are a lesser consideration than some dead men on green paper.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Manufacturing is drawn to emerging economies because labor is cheap and regulations are reasonable.
Click to expand...
as you saw in my last reply, these emerging economies having workers dying on the line during heat waves.

i would call the complete lack of regulations very unreasonable.

Johnnyorganic said:
Example. The Tata Nano. An automobile manufactured in India that sells for approximately $2,500. Would an automobile selling for that price have a market in the U.S.?

You bet your ass it would.

But it could never be manufactured in the U.S. for that price because of the UAW. And it could never be sold in the U.S. until the company jumped through all the regulatory hoops. The Nano does not have airbags.
Click to expand...
but i bet the life of you and your loved ones is worth at least the cost of an airbag.

and i bet the life of your friend or family member working at that factory is worth the cost of ensuring reasonable, non lethal working conditions.

but i am not sure. you and i seem to have a different value system. you seem to place a premium on the ability of a corporation to make record profits, all safety and regulations be damned. i place a premium on safety of products and working conditions.

you can still make money AND provide safe products and working conditions. these two things are NOT mutually exclusive, you know.

Johnnyorganic said:
An information economy requires educated people. The public schools are failing us in this regard. Is it funding? No, public education is well funded. Why then? Teachers Unions; and government agencies that see public education as social work rather than as a means to prepare students to make a living.
Click to expand...
my answer for why schools seem to be failing would include reference to your regressive, back assward state and its recent rewriting of what history our children will be taught. i wish texas never joined the union, and i say that sincerely. no offense, my texan friend. you and a few other texans i know get a pass....somewhat.

as far as preparing the students to make a living, they do the two most important jobs without ever opening a book: socialization and conformity.

obama is doing far better than previous administrations in encouraging americans to seek higher education, subsidizing their efforts to do so under the american opportunity tax credit. we never seem to hear a peep about that now though, do we?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
so i guess my main question to libertarians would be:

what is life worth to you?

when you shun livable wages, safe working conditions, safe products....people die.

that could mean your mother, your father, your wife, your children, your friend, your loved ones, or even YOU.

so what is the price of your life? your child's life? your mother's life?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so i guess my main question to libertarians would be:

what is life worth to you?

when you shun livable wages, safe working conditions, safe products....people die.

that could mean your mother, your father, your wife, your children, your friend, your loved ones, or even YOU.

so what is the price of your life? your child's life? your mother's life?
Click to expand...
The saying is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

The price of my life is not my liberty and that is what the govenment is trying to take away.

The government forcing you to buy a product whether you need it or not, the government making legal things illegal like a 2 gallon flush toilet and the incandescent light bulb. The government forcing you to pay them money for your retirement (money they use for other things).

The government is interferring with my pursuit of happiness with crushing taxes and regulations and that is not acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top