Pages:
Author

Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 2. (Read 11738 times)

legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
October 27, 2011, 03:48:35 PM
You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring

Socialist equality is evil because under it one person chooses not to work, the other works hard, and the one who chose not to is compensated by the hard worker. It both deminishes incentive to work and takes hard workers earnings. Children have no choice. Their wealth or place of residence is no fault of their own.


Although this is true enough, it is not the responsibility of the successful to make up for the inequalities of birth, nor the place of government to act as equalizer.  That said, as a modern compromise to the "social responsibility to the least able" versus the anarchistic "blame your parents if your childhood sucks" question; I would not be opposed to the idea that every child (born to provable, net tax paying, citizens) be allocated a 'defined benefit' social net at birth, to be used as necessary until depleted.  For example, the cost of childhood health care could be subsidized in this manner by granting each newborn a (as an example) $15K Health Savings Account when they are issued a social security number.  (It's really difficult to fake out the SSA and get a new SSN)  The SSA would be in charge of tracking the funds, and parents (or adult account holders) couldn't access those funds directly, but only as a tax fileing reimbursement with evidence that 1) the expenses were real 2) for the child in question and 3) the parents really didn't have the resources to pay for it.  Even if the parents are denied recompensation, the fund remains the asset of the child, forever.  

And I can solve the 'Universal health care' debate in two minutes.  A state block-grant fund wherein any procedure or prescription drug that was medically available to the richest American 50 years prior to the current year could be paid for in it's entirety, regardless of who is asking for it.  Excluding prescriptions that are now over the counter.  And the procedure cannot have an updated version, either.  So no heart surgery, no brain surgery, and very little cancer treatments for the destitute (pretty much exactly like it is now by default, with the 'obligation to treat' emergency room laws) but break a bone and you can go to any emergency room or urgent care center and have it set and cast without so much as the question "are you a US citizen".

These are certainly not libertarian viewpoints, but I think that they would be preferable to even the most hardcore libs to what we have now.

An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

I know what is the best education for children.

You don't, and can't.  Evidence enought that the professional education establishments the world around do not, and cannot, know the best kind of education for all children is the fact that such educators are constatnly trying to 'reform' a broken system.  If the professionals cannot agree what the best kind of education is, you as an idividual teacher cannot honestly claim to have a monopoly on such information.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
October 27, 2011, 02:27:11 PM
You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring

Socialist equality is evil because under it one person chooses not to work, the other works hard, and the one who chose not to is compensated by the hard worker. It both deminishes incentive to work and takes hard workers earnings. Children have no choice. Their wealth or place of residence is no fault of their own. In my 11 year school "career" I went to 9 different schools in 4 different countries. The choice of school or location was never mine to make. If schools were expensive and I was not able to go, at least for the first few grades the fault would have been entirely that of my parents.So, public education does not incentivize laziness or entitlement. You still have to work hard for your grades (in other countries, anyway), and it helps build an educated employee pool beneficial to business. Perhaps if there was no such thing as publically funded education, all schools would be funded by local and international business, teaching using well researched and accepted methods, and school attendance would likely still be free and compulsory. But since that is not the case, businesses will just continue to relocate and hire people from countries with best public education.
Public education =/= lack of choice. I had tutors and went to non religious weekend school as my supplemental education, and am all for parents supplementing the basic stuff their kids learn in school.


An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

I know what is the best education for children. Reading, writing, languade skills, basic math, algebra, geography, llitterature, mechanical physics/engineering, basic biology and chemistry, basic computer science, and basic accounting/financial management. All things that make up the building blocks of other fields, expose kids to what is available, is useful in every day life, and most importantly fairly objective. As for pedagogic methods, they are like scientific methods: adjusted to improve, peer reviewed, tested, and applied. Sadly, that method isn't really used in US, which for some reason is also very skeptical of science, and that may be why other first-world countries that do have a few technocrats educating millions of children using pedagogic methods are so far ahead in quality and level of education.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
October 27, 2011, 08:02:20 AM
So then the proper first step in your brand of unregulated capitalism is to confiscate the land and redistribute it to the people? Do I have this right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
October 27, 2011, 04:29:21 AM
An other thing:  if public education aims at providing education to the poor, why on earth is it proposed to everybody???

Does the State assume that every one is a poor thing that must be taken care of?


I should hope it assumes that, rich or poor, kids don't chose what life they were born into, and everyone should be given an equal chance at starting life before they get to a point where they actually can make their own choices, for better or worse.

This is a terrible assertion.  You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring, otherwise some children might be disavantaged in the future.  You might as well assume that parenthood should be outlawed and that children should be raised like orphans, in public institutions, by State employed surrogate mothers.

An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

It is crazy to advocate for the same education to hundreds of millions of children, just in order to prevent a small percentage of them from not having some.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
October 27, 2011, 12:17:08 AM
Quote from: Rassah
The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.

Only a part of human nature. Not everyone is like that. My family grew up under communism. I did for a part of my childhood as well. I am actually VERY liberal, and was kinda shocked when someone pointed out the communists=conservatives thing to me, too, but it made a lot of sense. They are just as antigay, antisemitic, and racist as the conservatives I've seen here.
What saddens me is that a lot of the ex-soviet immigrants who came here to escape communism have become conservative republicans. They hate and fear socialism, and thus democrats, so much that they don't even recognize the real monster they escaped from, conservatism, and got pulled into the same extremist paranoia and desire for government control of morality and patriotism that communists subjugated people with there. In a great irony, they have swung so far to the right that they ended up coming right back around to the same place.
I also believe far-right fascism and far-left communism are two sides of the same coin. One is corporate control of government to the point where they are one entity, and the other is government control of corporations to the point where they are also one entity. In the end, there's no difference. It's why extreme left and extreme right scare me equally.

What you're talking about is known as right-wing authoritarianism.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Despite the name, it's definitely not limited to the right-wing, as the psychologist who proposed this theory back in the '80s points out in his book, The Authoritarians.

Quote
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said.

 Interesting read if you get a chance. He put the whole thing online:  http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter1.pdf

And of course, it should be noted that not every person on the far-right or the far-left shares this personality trait, but the author makes a compelling argument that the rather large percentage of people who do are directly or indirectly responsible for quite a few social ills.
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 11:55:36 PM
That was well stated. You should write more longer well thought out posts like this.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
October 26, 2011, 11:36:36 PM
Quote from: Rassah
The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.

Only a part of human nature. Not everyone is like that. My family grew up under communism. I did for a part of my childhood as well. I am actually VERY liberal, and was kinda shocked when someone pointed out the communists=conservatives thing to me, too, but it made a lot of sense. They are just as antigay, antisemitic, and racist as the conservatives I've seen here.
What saddens me is that a lot of the ex-soviet immigrants who came here to escape communism have become conservative republicans. They hate and fear socialism, and thus democrats, so much that they don't even recognize the real monster they escaped from, conservatism, and got pulled into the same extremist paranoia and desire for government control of morality and patriotism that communists subjugated people with there. In a great irony, they have swung so far to the right that they ended up coming right back around to the same place.
I also believe far-right fascism and far-left communism are two sides of the same coin. One is corporate control of government to the point where they are one entity, and the other is government control of corporations to the point where they are also one entity. In the end, there's no difference. It's why extreme left and extreme right scare me equally.
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 10:53:10 PM
Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/15forage.html?_r=1

This one was interesting. But really I'm not attempting to make a particular political statement other than, "go clever people!"
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
October 26, 2011, 10:48:10 PM
Quote from: Rassah
The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
October 26, 2011, 10:45:33 PM
Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

Nobody said anything about being a hunter-gather but you. Divide the area of arable land by the number of people on the Earth and the average 3 person family could have 15 acres of farmland. That's assuming that everyone would be a farmer, which is idiotic. There are other ways to make a living without working at McDonald's or being a farmer. If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.

So then the proper first step in your brand of unregulated capitalism is to confiscate the land and redistribute it to the people? Do I have this right?
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 07:37:35 PM
You can't argue with that logic. I'll say Good Day, Sir.

Oh, come on! How can you fail to grasp the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is all alike," argument?

It goes back to Sun Tsu. "The enemy of my enemies, is me!"
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
October 26, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
Quote
Communists were conservatives
Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

You can't argue with that logic. I'll say Good Day, Sir.
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 07:23:55 PM
If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.

Please don't send them here! Have you seen Montana? There is no one there. Totally empty. Free land for everyone!
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
October 26, 2011, 06:50:08 PM
Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

Nobody said anything about being a hunter-gather but you. Divide the area of arable land by the number of people on the Earth and the average 3 person family could have 15 acres of farmland. That's assuming that everyone would be a farmer, which is idiotic. There are other ways to make a living without working at McDonald's or being a farmer. If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
October 26, 2011, 06:47:12 PM
Quote
Communists were conservatives
Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
In other words, Apple gave Mr. Jobs $74.75 million worth of stock and a $90 million airplane, plus at least $41.8 million in "tax assistance" to Mr. Jobs for the airplane. And the Wall Street Journal headline and news article tell readers about the fact that he's taken $1 a year in salary since 1997. The Journal story acknowledges that Mr. Jobs "owns about 5.5 million shares of the company," but doesn't say anything about how he received them.
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/01/steve-jobs-compensation
[/quote]

Yes they gave him an Airplane to make it possible for him to become iCEO. That is well known. He was already the CEO of another company so his daily commute was pretty phenomenal.

His 5.5 million shares were the result of an option grant of 10 million shares. You are required to exercise options or they evaporate. In order to exercise the options, you have to go out of pocket for the original value of the stock. Normally people do this by selling the stock and pocketing the difference. In his case, he returned almost half the options to the company in exchange for stock. That showed his commitment to the company and avoided needlessly roiling the market. This is why there was a "tax" charge. He never took any cash, so the company paid his taxes.

So when did he convert all that stock into cash and start blowing it on cocaine and hookers? Oh yeah, he died never having taken his profits.

Yes, obviously he was out to screw everyone.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
October 26, 2011, 12:43:44 PM
Yep, you and the other 1%

Me and the other 1%? Exactly what are you smoking?

If you mean geocentrically? Sure, guilty as charged. Where do you fit on that scale, 2%?

I am the 53%!


You think you are in the 53%? Tomorrow it will be the 54% and it won't be long before you are the 99% as well.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
October 26, 2011, 12:21:33 PM
And exactly how many millions of dollars in stock options does the average Chinese laborer get?

Curiously, you know how many stock options Steve Jobs died with?  ALL OF THEM!


Jobs had 5.4 million shares:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/21/steve-jobs-is-282-million-richer/

Also:

Quote
If you actually take a look at the 2011 Apple proxy statement, though, you'll see that, "In 2001, the Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with Mr. Jobs for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs in the operation of his private plane when used for the Company's business. The Company recognized a total of approximately $248,000, $4,000 and $871,000 in expenses pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively."

And the 2008 proxy statement makes clear that what the 2011 proxy statement refers to as "his private plane" was actually bought by the company and given to Mr. Jobs
Quote
    When he was elected to the Board in 1997, Mr. Jobs received the standard director's stock option grant for 30,000 shares. Because Mr. Jobs became employed later that year as the Company's interim CEO, he was no longer eligible for such director grants. When the 1997 director grant (which increased to 120,000 shares after two stock splits) was due to expire in August 2007, Mr. Jobs exercised the option and he currently holds these 120,000 shares.

In the 2004 proxy statement, Apple disclosed a restricted stock award to Mr. Jobs that it valued at $74,750,000. It also explained:

    In December 1999, Mr. Jobs was given a special executive bonus for past services as the Company's interim Chief Executive Officer, in the form of an aircraft with a total cost to the Company of approximately $90,000,000. Because the aircraft was transferred to Mr. Jobs in 2001, the amount of approximately $43.5 million paid by the Company during fiscal year 2001 towards the purchase of the plane and the related tax assistance of approximately $40.5 million was reported as income to Mr. Jobs. In fiscal 2002, approximately $2.27 million paid by the Company towards the purchase of the plane and approximately $1.3 million in related tax assistance was reported as income to Mr. Jobs.

In other words, Apple gave Mr. Jobs $74.75 million worth of stock and a $90 million airplane, plus at least $41.8 million in "tax assistance" to Mr. Jobs for the airplane. And the Wall Street Journal headline and news article tell readers about the fact that he's taken $1 a year in salary since 1997. The Journal story acknowledges that Mr. Jobs "owns about 5.5 million shares of the company," but doesn't say anything about how he received them.
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/01/steve-jobs-compensation
Red
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 115
October 26, 2011, 12:15:37 PM
Yep, you and the other 1%

Me and the other 1%? Exactly what are you smoking?

If you mean geocentrically? Sure, guilty as charged. Where do you fit on that scale, 2%?

I am the 53%!
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
October 26, 2011, 12:09:44 PM


Yeah, I'm sure you think he was a insignificant greedy bastard leaching off the work products of others. I just happen to think you are wrong.


Yep, you and the other 1%
Pages:
Jump to: