Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 2. (Read 11648 times)

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.



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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

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.

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.


 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.

That was well stated. You should write more longer well thought out posts like this.

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.

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!"

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

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?

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!"

You can't argue with that logic. I'll say Good Day, Sir.

Please don't send them here! Have you seen Montana? There is no one there. Totally empty. Free land for everyone!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Also:

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/01/steve-jobs-compensation

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%!

Yep, you and the other 1%