FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Robert Reich - 2014 Year in Review

Robert Reich - 2014 Year in Review

(2:41) Movements are gathering force. Political economist Robert Reich runs through the big progressive changes that happened in 2014.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (1022 days ago)

Amen. Thank you Mr. Reich. May the lobotomized masses muster enough mojo to vote themselves out of misery.

ReplyVote up (155)down (156)
Original comment

Amen. Thank you Mr. Reich. May the lobotomized masses muster enough mojo to vote themselves out of misery.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1022 days ago)

For someone that says keep money out of politics, it's funny to see the moveon organization accepting donations. They seem to be part of the problem. Try running your political campaign without money just like you're asking everyone else to do.

ReplyVote up (147)down (154)
Original comment

For someone that says keep money out of politics, it's funny to see the moveon organization accepting donations. They seem to be part of the problem. Try running your political campaign without money just like you're asking everyone else to do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAnneThrope MissAnneThrope (1021 days ago)

He said 'keep *big money* out of politics. I don't suppose many people are stupid enough to believe that political process can be occur without money, simply because pretty much everything from time to ticker-tape costs money. Keeping *big money* out means keeping corporate interest out of the process. I'll not patronise you by explaining why that is important.

ReplyVote up (174)down (164)
Original comment

He said 'keep *big money* out of politics. I don't suppose many people are stupid enough to believe that political process can be occur without money, simply because pretty much everything from time to ticker-tape costs money. Keeping *big money* out means keeping corporate interest out of the process. I'll not patronise you by explaining why that is important.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1021 days ago)

You may be confused about our political system. Corporations are not allowed to donate money to a candidate. There are even limits on how much a citizen can donate so there is no "big money" in politics.

Individual people can give $2,600 to a federal candidate in each primary and general election. They can give $32,400 to a national party committee, $10,000 to a state, district or local party committee, and $5,000 to any other political committee per year.

When you hear about corporations putting money into a campaign, that is their own campaign where they can pay for TV advertisemements or newspaper ads or whatever a company wants to buy. It's called freedom of the press and that right cannot be taken away because it is a constitutional amendment. Corporations are forbidden from giving direct contributions to candidates.

We have corporations paying for views such as Hobby Lobby and their religious views and other companies that are against gays, anti guns, against gay marriage, anti drugs, against abortion, etc. Having a company speak out about what their preferences are is a right that everyone in this country has.

ReplyVote up (143)down (170)
Original comment

You may be confused about our political system. Corporations are not allowed to donate money to a candidate. There are even limits on how much a citizen can donate so there is no "big money" in politics.

Individual people can give $2,600 to a federal candidate in each primary and general election. They can give $32,400 to a national party committee, $10,000 to a state, district or local party committee, and $5,000 to any other political committee per year.

When you hear about corporations putting money into a campaign, that is their own campaign where they can pay for TV advertisemements or newspaper ads or whatever a company wants to buy. It's called freedom of the press and that right cannot be taken away because it is a constitutional amendment. Corporations are forbidden from giving direct contributions to candidates.

We have corporations paying for views such as Hobby Lobby and their religious views and other companies that are against gays, anti guns, against gay marriage, anti drugs, against abortion, etc. Having a company speak out about what their preferences are is a right that everyone in this country has.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAnneThrope MissAnneThrope (1021 days ago)

Your childish naivety is, at least for a moment, rather endearing. Then it just becomes worrying. Our perspectives are just too far apart to have any kind of discussion; you really need to educate yourself some more about the mechanisms of 'upper' politics. I'm sorry to tell you that it's not quite as 'fair-play' as you might believe. Enjoy your studies...

ReplyVote up (171)down (170)
Original comment

Your childish naivety is, at least for a moment, rather endearing. Then it just becomes worrying. Our perspectives are just too far apart to have any kind of discussion; you really need to educate yourself some more about the mechanisms of 'upper' politics. I'm sorry to tell you that it's not quite as 'fair-play' as you might believe. Enjoy your studies...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1021 days ago)

Thank you for your opinion but it did not provide any new information. You couldn't even tell me where I was wrong so my only assumption is that I educated you about the process and you are now satisfied with the way political funding really works.

ReplyVote up (154)down (158)
Original comment

Thank you for your opinion but it did not provide any new information. You couldn't even tell me where I was wrong so my only assumption is that I educated you about the process and you are now satisfied with the way political funding really works.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1021 days ago)

I believe you are honest with your personal information - stuff like your love for ducks, Mrs Cengland0, your life of misery, 3 businesses, etc. But when you move into politics, it get's very weird - or you're just plain lying. You can't seriously believe half the stuff you say. On a previous post you even challenged me to give an example of corporate tax avoidance - as if I was going to find it difficult.

I think you must employ the same methods of self-blinkering that someone believing the Bible word for word does.

I'm curious. What is a typical day for you? Do you work from a plush office in your Florida home, facing a few enormous screens, with BoreMe permanently on one?

ReplyVote up (179)down (145)
Original comment

I believe you are honest with your personal information - stuff like your love for ducks, Mrs Cengland0, your life of misery, 3 businesses, etc. But when you move into politics, it get's very weird - or you're just plain lying. You can't seriously believe half the stuff you say. On a previous post you even challenged me to give an example of corporate tax avoidance - as if I was going to find it difficult.

I think you must employ the same methods of self-blinkering that someone believing the Bible word for word does.

I'm curious. What is a typical day for you? Do you work from a plush office in your Florida home, facing a few enormous screens, with BoreMe permanently on one?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1021 days ago)

“But when you move into politics, it get's very weird - or you're just plain lying. You can't seriously believe half the stuff you say.” I do believe it. It’s why I’m successful in my life because the harder I work, the more I earn. I don’t want the government to tamper with the way I get paid as that would reduce the potential benefits of my hard work ethics.

“On a previous post you even challenged me to give an example of corporate tax avoidance - as if I was going to find it difficult.” If it isn’t difficult, then you wouldn’t have a problem giving me an example. You haven’t so I’m assuming you found it more difficult than you thought. Remember, I need a company in the USA — not a foreign company that the USA doesn’t have control to tax its citizens.

“I think you must employ the same methods of self-blinkering that someone believing the Bible word for word does.” Nope. My thought process is to be skeptical on everything until I can confirm it. I never just go with the flow of what everyone else does. I am the opposite of everyone else in my family so it’s clear that I didn’t just abide by what my parents taught me.

“with BoreMe permanently on one?” No. I have several offices depending on what job I’m doing at the time. The office I spend the most time in has two computers, one is owned by the bank and I only do banking work on it. The other is my personal computer and I only do personal things on it. I get an email when someone responds to one of my comments on Boreme and that prompts me to use my personal computer to review what was said. If it is after my normal working hours for the bank, I review it on a computer, tablet, or smartphone that is not in my office. My second office has a nice 50” TV that I watch while I casually do additional non-banking work.

I am not an hourly employee so I have a lot of flexibility about when and how I get my job done. I am given goals and I do whatever I need to in order to accomplish those goals. I have the ability to miss the goal, meet the goal, or exceed the goal. Depending on how good of a job I do, my performance review is impacted and my salary is adjusted accordingly. As you can imagine through my previous discussions with you, I strive for the highest salary increase possible so that’s why I work so hard. If the government interfered and said I was limited on how much I could earn, there would be no incentive for me to put in as many hours as I do.

The two businesses that I own are completely different. One is a very steady income and I just have to manage the business and it continues to run smoothly year after year. The other depends on companies paying me for my services and the more clients I have, the more income I make. However, the more clients I get, the less personal time I have. I can have as much or as little income as I want because there is a high demand for that service. So I try to get a good balance of money and personal time. I also have to spend time managing investments. It’s not as easy as you think because you can lose money if you don’t pay attention.

ReplyVote up (171)down (153)
Original comment

“But when you move into politics, it get's very weird - or you're just plain lying. You can't seriously believe half the stuff you say.” I do believe it. It’s why I’m successful in my life because the harder I work, the more I earn. I don’t want the government to tamper with the way I get paid as that would reduce the potential benefits of my hard work ethics.

“On a previous post you even challenged me to give an example of corporate tax avoidance - as if I was going to find it difficult.” If it isn’t difficult, then you wouldn’t have a problem giving me an example. You haven’t so I’m assuming you found it more difficult than you thought. Remember, I need a company in the USA — not a foreign company that the USA doesn’t have control to tax its citizens.

“I think you must employ the same methods of self-blinkering that someone believing the Bible word for word does.” Nope. My thought process is to be skeptical on everything until I can confirm it. I never just go with the flow of what everyone else does. I am the opposite of everyone else in my family so it’s clear that I didn’t just abide by what my parents taught me.

“with BoreMe permanently on one?” No. I have several offices depending on what job I’m doing at the time. The office I spend the most time in has two computers, one is owned by the bank and I only do banking work on it. The other is my personal computer and I only do personal things on it. I get an email when someone responds to one of my comments on Boreme and that prompts me to use my personal computer to review what was said. If it is after my normal working hours for the bank, I review it on a computer, tablet, or smartphone that is not in my office. My second office has a nice 50” TV that I watch while I casually do additional non-banking work.

I am not an hourly employee so I have a lot of flexibility about when and how I get my job done. I am given goals and I do whatever I need to in order to accomplish those goals. I have the ability to miss the goal, meet the goal, or exceed the goal. Depending on how good of a job I do, my performance review is impacted and my salary is adjusted accordingly. As you can imagine through my previous discussions with you, I strive for the highest salary increase possible so that’s why I work so hard. If the government interfered and said I was limited on how much I could earn, there would be no incentive for me to put in as many hours as I do.

The two businesses that I own are completely different. One is a very steady income and I just have to manage the business and it continues to run smoothly year after year. The other depends on companies paying me for my services and the more clients I have, the more income I make. However, the more clients I get, the less personal time I have. I can have as much or as little income as I want because there is a high demand for that service. So I try to get a good balance of money and personal time. I also have to spend time managing investments. It’s not as easy as you think because you can lose money if you don’t pay attention.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAnneThrope MissAnneThrope (1021 days ago)

"You couldn't even tell me where I was wrong so my only assumption is that I educated you about the process and you are now satisfied with the way political funding really works."

I said that I didn't see the point in discussing it because our perspectives are too dissimilar. You're choosing to try and learn by arguing with me, and trying to argue by presenting an assumption that you know to be untrue, but that you will believe will provoke the response you would have preferred. To present my contradictions to your statements, it would take me more time than I am prepared to give to you. I've told you that I believe your view to be a result of naivety and ignorance, so it's obviously going to take you a certain type of investigation to get beyond that. You just want to habitually contradict people, which can be a really frustrating scenario for most people, so you're likely to miss out on a wealth of information. You'll remain naive. You'll remain ignorant. Best of luck to you...

ReplyVote up (143)down (147)
Original comment

"You couldn't even tell me where I was wrong so my only assumption is that I educated you about the process and you are now satisfied with the way political funding really works."

I said that I didn't see the point in discussing it because our perspectives are too dissimilar. You're choosing to try and learn by arguing with me, and trying to argue by presenting an assumption that you know to be untrue, but that you will believe will provoke the response you would have preferred. To present my contradictions to your statements, it would take me more time than I am prepared to give to you. I've told you that I believe your view to be a result of naivety and ignorance, so it's obviously going to take you a certain type of investigation to get beyond that. You just want to habitually contradict people, which can be a really frustrating scenario for most people, so you're likely to miss out on a wealth of information. You'll remain naive. You'll remain ignorant. Best of luck to you...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“You just want to habitually contradict people” I will agree to that. As I have always stated, I look at everything with a skeptical mind. I do not trust what people tell me without me doing my own research. Once I find out the truth and people bring up the same information that I have already determined was false, I try to educate them. In your case I can see it is a complete failure to attempt education as you are not receptive to the truth.

I believe you are being drilled with propaganda through these videos and what is shown on TV and have not done your own independent research on the laws that prohibit the behaviors that they are talking about (I have). You also don’t understand the supreme court ruling that “corporations are people” doesn’t really mean “corporations are people” but means that corporations have the same rights as people so the 1st amendment regarding freedom of speech, the establishment of religion, and the right of people to assemble peacefully and to petition the government. Corporations are just using their rights and spending money to make their religious and or political views known.

How would you like the system to work? Companies are not allowed to advertise anything at all or all advertisements must be pre approved by a government agency to make sure they don’t mention anything about religion or politics? Companies cannot be against gay rights, abortion, or gun control in your opinion? They must remain silent about their views and keep them secret?

About the funding for political campaigns, should everyone be an independent so they do not get funding from the democratic or republican committees and must get all funding from the tax dollars? If that’s the way it works, I’d like to run for President and assign my family members to be my campaign managers, secretaries and other staff — all my money is now spent. I will run for office every 4 years. See a problem with that model?

ReplyVote up (156)down (142)
Original comment

“You just want to habitually contradict people” I will agree to that. As I have always stated, I look at everything with a skeptical mind. I do not trust what people tell me without me doing my own research. Once I find out the truth and people bring up the same information that I have already determined was false, I try to educate them. In your case I can see it is a complete failure to attempt education as you are not receptive to the truth.

I believe you are being drilled with propaganda through these videos and what is shown on TV and have not done your own independent research on the laws that prohibit the behaviors that they are talking about (I have). You also don’t understand the supreme court ruling that “corporations are people” doesn’t really mean “corporations are people” but means that corporations have the same rights as people so the 1st amendment regarding freedom of speech, the establishment of religion, and the right of people to assemble peacefully and to petition the government. Corporations are just using their rights and spending money to make their religious and or political views known.

How would you like the system to work? Companies are not allowed to advertise anything at all or all advertisements must be pre approved by a government agency to make sure they don’t mention anything about religion or politics? Companies cannot be against gay rights, abortion, or gun control in your opinion? They must remain silent about their views and keep them secret?

About the funding for political campaigns, should everyone be an independent so they do not get funding from the democratic or republican committees and must get all funding from the tax dollars? If that’s the way it works, I’d like to run for President and assign my family members to be my campaign managers, secretaries and other staff — all my money is now spent. I will run for office every 4 years. See a problem with that model?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1019 days ago)

cold outside, innit? fekin floridian, you would't know shit... stuck in your feking warm and cozy world.

ReplyVote up (133)down (136)
Original comment

cold outside, innit? fekin floridian, you would't know shit... stuck in your feking warm and cozy world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1019 days ago)

It's a little chilly here too. I had to wear a long sleeve shirt today. Thank goodness for global warming or it would be really cold.

In the USA, we get to pick the climate we want to live in. We can live in Minnesota if we like it cold or Florida if we like it hot. Plenty of places in between

ReplyVote up (138)down (144)
Original comment

It's a little chilly here too. I had to wear a long sleeve shirt today. Thank goodness for global warming or it would be really cold.

In the USA, we get to pick the climate we want to live in. We can live in Minnesota if we like it cold or Florida if we like it hot. Plenty of places in between

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

" My thought process is to be skeptical on everything until I can confirm it. "

Wrong. The word "everything" is inaccurate. You are not skeptical on with own default position. You are only skeptical with ideas that contradict yours.

If you really want to be skeptical on EVERYTHING, great, but be prepared for your world to fall apart as you start questioning your default position.

------------

Regarding tax avoidance, you said: "If it isn’t difficult, then you wouldn’t have a problem giving me an example. You haven’t so I’m assuming you found it more difficult than you thought."

Actually, I'm feeling quite confident. If I can find a well documented example of a major American corporation avoiding tax to the tune of billions, would you accept that at least in this case, you were talking out of your arse?

ReplyVote up (151)down (163)
Original comment

" My thought process is to be skeptical on everything until I can confirm it. "

Wrong. The word "everything" is inaccurate. You are not skeptical on with own default position. You are only skeptical with ideas that contradict yours.

If you really want to be skeptical on EVERYTHING, great, but be prepared for your world to fall apart as you start questioning your default position.

------------

Regarding tax avoidance, you said: "If it isn’t difficult, then you wouldn’t have a problem giving me an example. You haven’t so I’m assuming you found it more difficult than you thought."

Actually, I'm feeling quite confident. If I can find a well documented example of a major American corporation avoiding tax to the tune of billions, would you accept that at least in this case, you were talking out of your arse?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

Is that corporation example one that is in the USA or are you talking about one in some other country?

ReplyVote up (156)down (143)
Original comment

Is that corporation example one that is in the USA or are you talking about one in some other country?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

Whichever, the choice is quite big.

But much more important is whether you agree that you are not skeptical with your default position.

ReplyVote up (161)down (181)
Original comment

Whichever, the choice is quite big.

But much more important is whether you agree that you are not skeptical with your default position.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

Skeptical about my default position? That's weird.

Anyway, I asked numerous times about an example and you failed to provide one only stating that it was easy so too bad -- you lose and I win.

I know what you are thinking of as tax avoidance and that is taking business overseas. Well, we cannot force companies outside of our country to pay taxes to our country. Like I said earlier, you wouldn’t want to pay USA income tax for your business would you? I also don’t want to pay UK taxes on the business I have in the USA.

ReplyVote up (154)down (151)
Original comment

Skeptical about my default position? That's weird.

Anyway, I asked numerous times about an example and you failed to provide one only stating that it was easy so too bad -- you lose and I win.

I know what you are thinking of as tax avoidance and that is taking business overseas. Well, we cannot force companies outside of our country to pay taxes to our country. Like I said earlier, you wouldn’t want to pay USA income tax for your business would you? I also don’t want to pay UK taxes on the business I have in the USA.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

Actually I was thinking of more sophisticated tax avoidance. I'll let Forbes explain how Apple does it. LINK

" Skeptical about my default position? That's weird. "

How's that weird? Shouldn't you require the same level of evidence to support your own views, that you require of contradicting views?

ReplyVote up (156)down (163)
Original comment

Actually I was thinking of more sophisticated tax avoidance. I'll let Forbes explain how Apple does it. LINK

" Skeptical about my default position? That's weird. "

How's that weird? Shouldn't you require the same level of evidence to support your own views, that you require of contradicting views?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

You failed to read your own linked document. First, it is the Apple company who I thought paid more USA taxes than any other corporation in the USA. After looking at the latest data, they came in the #3 this year by paying $13.1 billion in taxes which is a hefty sum considering they earned $50.2 billion. That's a 26% tax burden. LINK Remember there is double taxation because the investors that those dividends are going to will be taxed again.

Then it was exactly as I stated and I knew you would find a foreign company and try to blame it on the USA policy. Here's a quote from that article. "Apple set up some Irish subsidiaries a mere four years after it was founded. Foreign sales, which account for 60% of Apple’s profits, are routed through these Irish subsidiaries and taxed nowhere."

Notice that was foreign sales? That money does not enter into the USA and once it does, it would be taxed then. I knew ahead of time you would mention this as the method for tax avoidance when, in fact, it's not. There was no USA profits for the USA government to charge taxes on.

Like I said in my previous comment, do you want to pay USA taxes on your business there in the UK? I'm looking forward to hearing your answer on that one.

ReplyVote up (174)down (153)
Original comment

You failed to read your own linked document. First, it is the Apple company who I thought paid more USA taxes than any other corporation in the USA. After looking at the latest data, they came in the #3 this year by paying $13.1 billion in taxes which is a hefty sum considering they earned $50.2 billion. That's a 26% tax burden. LINK Remember there is double taxation because the investors that those dividends are going to will be taxed again.

Then it was exactly as I stated and I knew you would find a foreign company and try to blame it on the USA policy. Here's a quote from that article. "Apple set up some Irish subsidiaries a mere four years after it was founded. Foreign sales, which account for 60% of Apple’s profits, are routed through these Irish subsidiaries and taxed nowhere."

Notice that was foreign sales? That money does not enter into the USA and once it does, it would be taxed then. I knew ahead of time you would mention this as the method for tax avoidance when, in fact, it's not. There was no USA profits for the USA government to charge taxes on.

Like I said in my previous comment, do you want to pay USA taxes on your business there in the UK? I'm looking forward to hearing your answer on that one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

I'm not interested in this tax avoidance talk. We can have it another day. It's just a distraction from a far deeper question - that is whether you are questioning your default position enough. This is absolutely core to the answers you come up with.

Take your default libertarian position of "fend-for-yourself&q uot;. Have you really questioned your assumptions with the same high standards that you require of socialist ideas like "fend-for-each-other "? Have you compared likely consequences of each approach, the type of society that would result? Which model do you think would handle better looming global problems like climate change and population growth?

And if you think it's "fend-for-yourself&q uot;, could you prove it? Perhaps you could find a football team that performs better because each player is only out for personal glory. Perhaps an army that wins all its battle because its soldiers didn't give a shit about their comrades. Or a company that is so successful because it hires people who only care about their salary. Or maybe a community that's still a community when everyone is busy fending for themselves.

ReplyVote up (152)down (196)
Original comment

I'm not interested in this tax avoidance talk. We can have it another day. It's just a distraction from a far deeper question - that is whether you are questioning your default position enough. This is absolutely core to the answers you come up with.

Take your default libertarian position of "fend-for-yourself&q uot;. Have you really questioned your assumptions with the same high standards that you require of socialist ideas like "fend-for-each-other "? Have you compared likely consequences of each approach, the type of society that would result? Which model do you think would handle better looming global problems like climate change and population growth?

And if you think it's "fend-for-yourself&q uot;, could you prove it? Perhaps you could find a football team that performs better because each player is only out for personal glory. Perhaps an army that wins all its battle because its soldiers didn't give a shit about their comrades. Or a company that is so successful because it hires people who only care about their salary. Or maybe a community that's still a community when everyone is busy fending for themselves.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“I'm not interested in this tax avoidance talk.” Nice convenient way for you to lose without having to admit it. Why don’t you just accept that you were wrong?

“Have you really questioned your assumptions with the same high standards that you require of socialist ideas like ‘fend-for-each-othe r ‘?” Of course. I’m sure most people have a political view that is handed down from their friends or family. My views are different than most people and I’m considered the minority. With that, don’t you think I would have thought long and hard about the way I think society should work?

Imagine you’re a small village with 20 people and it is a long time ago before grocery stores where you had to hunt and gather your food. One person in the group refuses to go out and hunt or gather and does nothing all day but is perfectly healthy. Everyone else in the community participates by fetching firewood, water, food, and building spears. How long should the 19 people continue to feed that person that doesn’t contribute but is able to? There was a term villages used to get rid of those unwanted people. It was called fired. You know of it when a company terminates someone’s employment but it originated when a community burned down your hut and forced you to move away. A company would stop supporting you if you didn’t contribute like the rest of the team so why can’t the community do the same thing?

“Have you compared likely consequences of each approach, the type of society that would result? Which model do you think would handle better looming global problems like climate change and population growth?” Doesn’t seem to matter does it? We do not have a libertarian government and you claim global warming anyway. There is still population growth but that will eventually stabilize to 10 billion. Could that be the cause of the democratic or republican views?

“Or a company that is so successful because it hires people who only care about their salary.” I hate to break the news to you but that’s a major concern of employees. If you take away their salary, I bet they will quit. Of course that’s illegal because it’s below minimum wage but you can see that salary is the most important reason people work. I have a lot of business ventures and I would guarantee you that if my bank stopped paying me, I would care less about the goals of the team and would leave the company.

Take your example of the soldier. How many of them would do that job without the salary? The football team you mentioned, those people get paid. Take away their money and see if they continue to play for the same team for free.

ReplyVote up (190)down (199)
Original comment

“I'm not interested in this tax avoidance talk.” Nice convenient way for you to lose without having to admit it. Why don’t you just accept that you were wrong?

“Have you really questioned your assumptions with the same high standards that you require of socialist ideas like ‘fend-for-each-othe r ‘?” Of course. I’m sure most people have a political view that is handed down from their friends or family. My views are different than most people and I’m considered the minority. With that, don’t you think I would have thought long and hard about the way I think society should work?

Imagine you’re a small village with 20 people and it is a long time ago before grocery stores where you had to hunt and gather your food. One person in the group refuses to go out and hunt or gather and does nothing all day but is perfectly healthy. Everyone else in the community participates by fetching firewood, water, food, and building spears. How long should the 19 people continue to feed that person that doesn’t contribute but is able to? There was a term villages used to get rid of those unwanted people. It was called fired. You know of it when a company terminates someone’s employment but it originated when a community burned down your hut and forced you to move away. A company would stop supporting you if you didn’t contribute like the rest of the team so why can’t the community do the same thing?

“Have you compared likely consequences of each approach, the type of society that would result? Which model do you think would handle better looming global problems like climate change and population growth?” Doesn’t seem to matter does it? We do not have a libertarian government and you claim global warming anyway. There is still population growth but that will eventually stabilize to 10 billion. Could that be the cause of the democratic or republican views?

“Or a company that is so successful because it hires people who only care about their salary.” I hate to break the news to you but that’s a major concern of employees. If you take away their salary, I bet they will quit. Of course that’s illegal because it’s below minimum wage but you can see that salary is the most important reason people work. I have a lot of business ventures and I would guarantee you that if my bank stopped paying me, I would care less about the goals of the team and would leave the company.

Take your example of the soldier. How many of them would do that job without the salary? The football team you mentioned, those people get paid. Take away their money and see if they continue to play for the same team for free.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

OK, let's look at your model for society based on a 20 strong Stone Age village with 1 lazy scrounger.

The villagers may well agree to fire the scrounger, but what they are really doing is socialist "fending for each other". Firing him protects the community. They could easily have agreed to try to integrate the lazy scrounger by encouraging him to take an interest. If they succeed, they all come out stronger - a village with 20 people working together buoyed up by a sense of achievement, rather than 19 who are relieved but have lost a son of a family in the village.

If the villagers were libertarian "fending for themselves", they wouldn't even get it together to fire the scrounger because they would be too busy with their own schemes. Each individual villager would only be concerned if he was directly affected. Otherwise why should he care, it's not his business. So nothing happens until someone with particular personality traits, with his eyes on power, takes things into his own hands, blames the scrounger for every problem, and fires him. Now the village has a power hungry leader. The rest is history.

Transfer your cute little story that didn't even work in Stone Age times, to today - a global village of 7 billion, possibly stabilising around 10 billion by 2050. That's like the US jumping from 300 million to 400 million, while losing swathes of useful land due to increasing droughts, heat waves, arctic winters, floods, corporate exploitation etc.

Your "fend for yourself" approach is looking pathetically weak in both Stone Age and modern times. You haven't found any real world example of a sports team, an army, a company, or a community that performs better when individual members only care about themselves.

Why don't you have another go? Don't forget you have to be as skeptical on your own assumptions as you are with others.

ReplyVote up (238)down (153)
Original comment

OK, let's look at your model for society based on a 20 strong Stone Age village with 1 lazy scrounger.

The villagers may well agree to fire the scrounger, but what they are really doing is socialist "fending for each other". Firing him protects the community. They could easily have agreed to try to integrate the lazy scrounger by encouraging him to take an interest. If they succeed, they all come out stronger - a village with 20 people working together buoyed up by a sense of achievement, rather than 19 who are relieved but have lost a son of a family in the village.

If the villagers were libertarian "fending for themselves", they wouldn't even get it together to fire the scrounger because they would be too busy with their own schemes. Each individual villager would only be concerned if he was directly affected. Otherwise why should he care, it's not his business. So nothing happens until someone with particular personality traits, with his eyes on power, takes things into his own hands, blames the scrounger for every problem, and fires him. Now the village has a power hungry leader. The rest is history.

Transfer your cute little story that didn't even work in Stone Age times, to today - a global village of 7 billion, possibly stabilising around 10 billion by 2050. That's like the US jumping from 300 million to 400 million, while losing swathes of useful land due to increasing droughts, heat waves, arctic winters, floods, corporate exploitation etc.

Your "fend for yourself" approach is looking pathetically weak in both Stone Age and modern times. You haven't found any real world example of a sports team, an army, a company, or a community that performs better when individual members only care about themselves.

Why don't you have another go? Don't forget you have to be as skeptical on your own assumptions as you are with others.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“If the villagers were libertarian ‘fending for themselves’, they wouldn't even get it together to fire the scrounger because they would be too busy with their own schemes.” Yes, that’s right and since everyone is fending for themselves and not supporting the lazy people then eventually that lazy person will have to do something to survive or die.

“You haven't so far found any real world example of a sports team, an army, a company, a community, that performs better when they only care about themselves.” Like I said before, they all are doing it for their own selfish reasons. Those soldiers are doing it to keep their family safe and to provide money to their family. The sports team is doing it for money too. It is a business and I will guarantee you that if one of the players starts underperforming, the manager will trade that player or get another player to replace him.

You seem to think a football team works like the economy that you want. That being the case then your concept should be to pool all the salaries of the entire team including the owner and manager and divide the money equally. They are all working for a common goal so why not all get paid the same, right? So the backup players will get paid exactly the same as the primary ones. They get paid regardless if they win or lose. The owner shouldn't get paid anything extra because it's really the team that is doing all the work. That’s the type of society you want right? If so, try to imagine the problems that will happen when you do that. I’m sure you can think outside your box and see the issue coming up.

ReplyVote up (215)down (170)
Original comment

“If the villagers were libertarian ‘fending for themselves’, they wouldn't even get it together to fire the scrounger because they would be too busy with their own schemes.” Yes, that’s right and since everyone is fending for themselves and not supporting the lazy people then eventually that lazy person will have to do something to survive or die.

“You haven't so far found any real world example of a sports team, an army, a company, a community, that performs better when they only care about themselves.” Like I said before, they all are doing it for their own selfish reasons. Those soldiers are doing it to keep their family safe and to provide money to their family. The sports team is doing it for money too. It is a business and I will guarantee you that if one of the players starts underperforming, the manager will trade that player or get another player to replace him.

You seem to think a football team works like the economy that you want. That being the case then your concept should be to pool all the salaries of the entire team including the owner and manager and divide the money equally. They are all working for a common goal so why not all get paid the same, right? So the backup players will get paid exactly the same as the primary ones. They get paid regardless if they win or lose. The owner shouldn't get paid anything extra because it's really the team that is doing all the work. That’s the type of society you want right? If so, try to imagine the problems that will happen when you do that. I’m sure you can think outside your box and see the issue coming up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

OK, let's test one of your assumptions. " Like I said before, they all are doing it for their own selfish reasons. Those soldiers are doing it to keep their family safe and to provide money to their family. "

First, your thinking is not clear. We are talking about an army's performance in the field, and whether soldiers who only fend for themselves, are a more effective fighting force than soldiers who fend for each other, following rules and regulations as provided by their training. A real world comparison might be a professional army vs a conscript army. All things being equal, I'd put my money on the professional army, wouldn't you?

The point about the football team is similar. The clue is in the word "team". I'm sure some sports people have dollars as their ultimate goal, probably not many - but performance on the field is what we're talking about. Sports performers know that it's playing as a team that will give them the best chance to fulfil their ultimate goal. And that means following the rules and regulations as provided by their training.

Maybe you found some killer evidence that will make every football coach fear for their jobs, as super-talented players do WTF they like on the pitch, free to flout the rules and regulations as provided by their training. I look forward to it.

"Fend for yourself" as a general policy is looking very weak when compared to "fend for each other". Isn't it time you ditched it?

ReplyVote up (222)down (142)
Original comment

OK, let's test one of your assumptions. " Like I said before, they all are doing it for their own selfish reasons. Those soldiers are doing it to keep their family safe and to provide money to their family. "

First, your thinking is not clear. We are talking about an army's performance in the field, and whether soldiers who only fend for themselves, are a more effective fighting force than soldiers who fend for each other, following rules and regulations as provided by their training. A real world comparison might be a professional army vs a conscript army. All things being equal, I'd put my money on the professional army, wouldn't you?

The point about the football team is similar. The clue is in the word "team". I'm sure some sports people have dollars as their ultimate goal, probably not many - but performance on the field is what we're talking about. Sports performers know that it's playing as a team that will give them the best chance to fulfil their ultimate goal. And that means following the rules and regulations as provided by their training.

Maybe you found some killer evidence that will make every football coach fear for their jobs, as super-talented players do WTF they like on the pitch, free to flout the rules and regulations as provided by their training. I look forward to it.

"Fend for yourself" as a general policy is looking very weak when compared to "fend for each other". Isn't it time you ditched it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“I'm sure some sports people have dollars as their ultimate goal, probably not many.” Are you kidding me? It is the dream of all the college players to make it to the professional teams. You cannot get paid while playing in college and they want to go professional for the money. Out of 400,000 NCAA players to pick from, only a few make it every year. What happens to the players that didn’t make it to the professional teams?

The answer is that those players no longer have an athletic career after graduation. Why don’t they continue playing for free if they do it for the enjoyment? Because they need the money to support themselves so they struggle trying to find a job like everyone else. When the athlete is not drafted, they do have a diploma in medieval literature which is virtually useless and they cannot find a job using the degree they “earned.”

ReplyVote up (211)down (130)
Original comment

“I'm sure some sports people have dollars as their ultimate goal, probably not many.” Are you kidding me? It is the dream of all the college players to make it to the professional teams. You cannot get paid while playing in college and they want to go professional for the money. Out of 400,000 NCAA players to pick from, only a few make it every year. What happens to the players that didn’t make it to the professional teams?

The answer is that those players no longer have an athletic career after graduation. Why don’t they continue playing for free if they do it for the enjoyment? Because they need the money to support themselves so they struggle trying to find a job like everyone else. When the athlete is not drafted, they do have a diploma in medieval literature which is virtually useless and they cannot find a job using the degree they “earned.”

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

It's actually irrelevant for what we are talking about, whether a sports person is doing it for the money, the sense achievement, the sense of purpose, the challenge, the lifestyle, ego, fame, or just to impress the dog.

A team, like a society, is made up of individuals interacting together. Give me evidence of a team with individuals working individually, being more effective than a team with individuals working together.

How about yourself? Would you lay bricks all day if you were paid higher than whatever you get now? Doesn't job satisfaction, flexibility, work environment, etc. also matter?

Research funded by the Fed, carried out by economists from MIT, University of Chicago, and Carnegie Mellon, repeated over and over again by psychologists and sociologists around the world, shows that up to a point money motivates quite effectively. But once money is not a "security" issue anymore, because the pay is reasonable, other factors like job satisfaction, creativity, flexibility, lifestyle etc. become much more important. It's all in Dan Pink's video you dismissed as "some random YouTube video".

So now that you have ZERO evidence to support your case that "fend for yourself" is better than "fend for each other", are you going to ditch it?

ReplyVote up (222)down (140)
Original comment

It's actually irrelevant for what we are talking about, whether a sports person is doing it for the money, the sense achievement, the sense of purpose, the challenge, the lifestyle, ego, fame, or just to impress the dog.

A team, like a society, is made up of individuals interacting together. Give me evidence of a team with individuals working individually, being more effective than a team with individuals working together.

How about yourself? Would you lay bricks all day if you were paid higher than whatever you get now? Doesn't job satisfaction, flexibility, work environment, etc. also matter?

Research funded by the Fed, carried out by economists from MIT, University of Chicago, and Carnegie Mellon, repeated over and over again by psychologists and sociologists around the world, shows that up to a point money motivates quite effectively. But once money is not a "security" issue anymore, because the pay is reasonable, other factors like job satisfaction, creativity, flexibility, lifestyle etc. become much more important. It's all in Dan Pink's video you dismissed as "some random YouTube video".

So now that you have ZERO evidence to support your case that "fend for yourself" is better than "fend for each other", are you going to ditch it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1020 days ago)

This classic essay may help you understand Walter LINK Several themes at work here, free men work principally for themselves and in doing so benefit society at large AND they do so with out any need of centralised command And they do it better and cheaper because of it. Another good example IMO would be the human genome project but as he says there are literally millions of examples when you look at it in this way.

ReplyVote up (220)down (120)
Original comment

This classic essay may help you understand Walter LINK Several themes at work here, free men work principally for themselves and in doing so benefit society at large AND they do so with out any need of centralised command And they do it better and cheaper because of it. Another good example IMO would be the human genome project but as he says there are literally millions of examples when you look at it in this way.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

Nice story, shame about the conclusion. For the benefit of other readers, "I, Pencil" is a story published in 1958 by Leonard Read, an important figure in libertarianism. LINK LINK

The story is written from the point of view of a pencil, and details the complex process required to create that pencil - concluding it's so complex it must have been God!

This is the pencil talking: "Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree."

From that Read concludes that since God created a pencil, then humans should be able to do WTF they like, get their creative juices flowing, and God will make sure nothing goes wrong.

"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed."

I think cengland0 might have a problem with this, considering he's a committed atheist.

ReplyVote up (232)down (142)
Original comment

Nice story, shame about the conclusion. For the benefit of other readers, "I, Pencil" is a story published in 1958 by Leonard Read, an important figure in libertarianism. LINK LINK

The story is written from the point of view of a pencil, and details the complex process required to create that pencil - concluding it's so complex it must have been God!

This is the pencil talking: "Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree."

From that Read concludes that since God created a pencil, then humans should be able to do WTF they like, get their creative juices flowing, and God will make sure nothing goes wrong.

"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed."

I think cengland0 might have a problem with this, considering he's a committed atheist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

Yes, I am an atheist and proud of it. I was born into a Christian fundamentalist religion and I am the only person in my extended family (parents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, great nephews, cousins, 2nd cousins, and 3rd cousins are all religious. That also includes Mrs. cengland0 and her entire family. That should prove to you that I am skeptical by nature and do not follow tradition or just believe whatever I am told without doing some independent research on my own.

I may sort of trust someone if they told me inconsequential information such as they have a headache. I have no reason to disbelieve them and would give the benefit of the doubt. If I suspect there is a possibility of it not being true, then I become skeptical again.

Hope this helps explain my thought process.

ReplyVote up (204)down (128)
Original comment

Yes, I am an atheist and proud of it. I was born into a Christian fundamentalist religion and I am the only person in my extended family (parents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, great nephews, cousins, 2nd cousins, and 3rd cousins are all religious. That also includes Mrs. cengland0 and her entire family. That should prove to you that I am skeptical by nature and do not follow tradition or just believe whatever I am told without doing some independent research on my own.

I may sort of trust someone if they told me inconsequential information such as they have a headache. I have no reason to disbelieve them and would give the benefit of the doubt. If I suspect there is a possibility of it not being true, then I become skeptical again.

Hope this helps explain my thought process.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

What did you think of Leonard Read's essay 'I, Pencil'?

He's saying: Take away rules and regulations and trust God to make sure everything runs smoothly.

You want the same, but without God's help. Are you crazy!?

ReplyVote up (148)down (147)
Original comment

What did you think of Leonard Read's essay 'I, Pencil'?

He's saying: Take away rules and regulations and trust God to make sure everything runs smoothly.

You want the same, but without God's help. Are you crazy!?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1019 days ago)

I did not read the entire "I, Pencil" essay. I began reading it and quickly discovered it was out of scope so I stopped reading.

ReplyVote up (151)down (137)
Original comment

I did not read the entire "I, Pencil" essay. I began reading it and quickly discovered it was out of scope so I stopped reading.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1019 days ago)

"From that Read concludes that since God created a pencil, then humans should be able to do WTF they like, get their creative juices flowing, and God will make sure nothing goes wrong" He never intimated anything like that Walter! Where did you get THAT from? You completely made that up and AGAIN purposely left out of your quote this "Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can." He, and libertarians, NEVER say people can do WTF they like , you know that but continually pretend that part, following the rule of law, doesn't exist in libertarian philosophy, I suspect because then you'd have problems arguing against it because then you could only be arguing against people being free to their full ability which means inherently respecting the rights of others to be free which means you can't do WTF you want! There is nothing in that essay about I pencil that is remotely dependant on religion or God or that would contradict Cenglands beliefs, or lack there of.

ReplyVote up (147)down (146)
Original comment

"From that Read concludes that since God created a pencil, then humans should be able to do WTF they like, get their creative juices flowing, and God will make sure nothing goes wrong" He never intimated anything like that Walter! Where did you get THAT from? You completely made that up and AGAIN purposely left out of your quote this "Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can." He, and libertarians, NEVER say people can do WTF they like , you know that but continually pretend that part, following the rule of law, doesn't exist in libertarian philosophy, I suspect because then you'd have problems arguing against it because then you could only be arguing against people being free to their full ability which means inherently respecting the rights of others to be free which means you can't do WTF you want! There is nothing in that essay about I pencil that is remotely dependant on religion or God or that would contradict Cenglands beliefs, or lack there of.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1018 days ago)

OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit with "people can do WTF they like", but that is the gist of libertarianism.

About God, I think you should read 'I, Pencil' again. This is the last section with references to God highlighted:

"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand . This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith , as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth."

Read the last sentence carefully: "I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth."

ReplyVote up (145)down (164)
Original comment

OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit with "people can do WTF they like", but that is the gist of libertarianism.

About God, I think you should read 'I, Pencil' again. This is the last section with references to God highlighted:

"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand . This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith , as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth."

Read the last sentence carefully: "I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1016 days ago)

The gist of libertarianism IS that they CAN do what ever they want but with very strict caveats, as long as it's within the rule of law AND it encroaches on no one elses rights OR the commons. That pretty much covers everything and does not mean you can do whatever you like. Those principles, along with non violence and property rights are the basis of the philosophy. I wonder why people would object to other people being free....? And why they attack libertarianism on grounds they KNOW are not true? Especially some one like you Walter, who portends to be a seeker of truth and honesty in debate....as for the religious references, you are really stretching it, he is talking about faith in free men, and states as much, the "invisible hand" you know full well is Adam Smiths description of how free markets work and the words creation and miracle also describe same, perhaps words often used in religion but clearly not so here, more nature than anything else. So again you try so hard to paint libertarianism as " just do WTF you want with no rules or laws" knowing full well that isn't the case, or, in this case "leaving it up to God" which was never intimated at all...and I wonder why, what are you afraid of...? The fact that men can work together without central control and are better off for it? I think your analogy sometime ago of the govt. being a father showed more about the way you think than you probably realised, or are even aware of yourself....Freudian slip perhaps?

ReplyVote up (142)down (138)
Original comment

The gist of libertarianism IS that they CAN do what ever they want but with very strict caveats, as long as it's within the rule of law AND it encroaches on no one elses rights OR the commons. That pretty much covers everything and does not mean you can do whatever you like. Those principles, along with non violence and property rights are the basis of the philosophy. I wonder why people would object to other people being free....? And why they attack libertarianism on grounds they KNOW are not true? Especially some one like you Walter, who portends to be a seeker of truth and honesty in debate....as for the religious references, you are really stretching it, he is talking about faith in free men, and states as much, the "invisible hand" you know full well is Adam Smiths description of how free markets work and the words creation and miracle also describe same, perhaps words often used in religion but clearly not so here, more nature than anything else. So again you try so hard to paint libertarianism as " just do WTF you want with no rules or laws" knowing full well that isn't the case, or, in this case "leaving it up to God" which was never intimated at all...and I wonder why, what are you afraid of...? The fact that men can work together without central control and are better off for it? I think your analogy sometime ago of the govt. being a father showed more about the way you think than you probably realised, or are even aware of yourself....Freudian slip perhaps?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1015 days ago)

"People can do whatever they like as long as they don't break the law" is pretty much in all ideologies. Libertarianism is about removing as many laws as possible, and letting human nature loose. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's take a real world example, Smithfield Foods pig farms LINK

As a libertarian, would you want government to introduce laws to prevent the abuse of pigs, open cesspits, and spraying your neighbours with pig shit?

Or should everyone just be left to fend for themselves?

-----

The difference between Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and Leonard Read's, is that Read's is capitalised: "Invisible Hand". According to Read, God made the pencil, the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth - ie. pretty much everything.

So what do you think he meant by: "Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand" ?

That free men and women will respond to some natural process that God has no control over?

------

Was my father analogy a Freudian sliip? No. To me, father is someone who supports his children. To you, father is a controlling figure. When tax payers pay for infrastructure, they are not controlling business, they are supporting business. That's why businesses should pay their fair share in taxes, not avoid them.

ReplyVote up (153)down (133)
Original comment

"People can do whatever they like as long as they don't break the law" is pretty much in all ideologies. Libertarianism is about removing as many laws as possible, and letting human nature loose. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's take a real world example, Smithfield Foods pig farms LINK

As a libertarian, would you want government to introduce laws to prevent the abuse of pigs, open cesspits, and spraying your neighbours with pig shit?

Or should everyone just be left to fend for themselves?

-----

The difference between Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and Leonard Read's, is that Read's is capitalised: "Invisible Hand". According to Read, God made the pencil, the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth - ie. pretty much everything.

So what do you think he meant by: "Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand" ?

That free men and women will respond to some natural process that God has no control over?

------

Was my father analogy a Freudian sliip? No. To me, father is someone who supports his children. To you, father is a controlling figure. When tax payers pay for infrastructure, they are not controlling business, they are supporting business. That's why businesses should pay their fair share in taxes, not avoid them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1015 days ago)
Latest comment:

Sorry, forgot the link to Smithfield's pig farming video: LINK

ReplyVote up (147)down (155)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Sorry, forgot the link to Smithfield's pig farming video: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1016 days ago)

casey, stupid people such as yourself, should fu*k off and go live in somalia

ReplyVote up (157)down (141)
Original comment

casey, stupid people such as yourself, should fu*k off and go live in somalia

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1016 days ago)

Why on earth would I want to live with some one like you, you pig ignorant moron! I much prefer a place where men are free and civil, where the rule of law is upheld and non violence is a preferred course of action.....completely different to Somalia you stupid imbecile!

ReplyVote up (172)down (155)
Original comment

Why on earth would I want to live with some one like you, you pig ignorant moron! I much prefer a place where men are free and civil, where the rule of law is upheld and non violence is a preferred course of action.....completely different to Somalia you stupid imbecile!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1016 days ago)

you must be stupid AND on drugs, cause somalia is all you get if you're a REAL libertarian, you limp dicked knob!

ReplyVote up (151)down (120)
Original comment

you must be stupid AND on drugs, cause somalia is all you get if you're a REAL libertarian, you limp dicked knob!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1015 days ago)

hey casey, you stupid pathetic fu*k! look at what i found on the libertarian way of doing business... you fu*king moron! LINK

ReplyVote up (139)down (140)
Original comment

hey casey, you stupid pathetic fu*k! look at what i found on the libertarian way of doing business... you fu*king moron! LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1015 days ago)

You f'n moron! All you can do is bring up some liberal claptrap about the Koch brothers , big deal! And who labeled them Libertarian you loser? ! Jesus, if you had half a brain you'd be twice as smart as you are now you inbred mongrel piece of Shiite!

ReplyVote up (150)down (146)
Original comment

You f'n moron! All you can do is bring up some liberal claptrap about the Koch brothers , big deal! And who labeled them Libertarian you loser? ! Jesus, if you had half a brain you'd be twice as smart as you are now you inbred mongrel piece of Shiite!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1015 days ago)

ha ha ha casey.

i feel like i'm being insulted by a little girl who just finished reading the horoscope.

i take comfort in knowing that everyone on planet earth that doesn't have mental problems already knows that libertarianism is a cult for idiots.

ReplyVote up (128)down (148)
Original comment

ha ha ha casey.

i feel like i'm being insulted by a little girl who just finished reading the horoscope.

i take comfort in knowing that everyone on planet earth that doesn't have mental problems already knows that libertarianism is a cult for idiots.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“Give me evidence of a team with individuals working individually, being more effective than a team with individuals working together.” The cashiers at Walmart work independently. It would be pretty awkward to have them all help one customer simultaneously and then help the next customer all at once. Same thing with a bank teller or customer service service representative over the phone. There are many examples but none of that matters because the majority of people working do it for the money and not because they enjoy it and the kindness of their own heart. Would you continue doing your job if we took the money away? Doubtful but you might continue doing the job if they make some other change such as your office location, travel requirements, the shift, etc.

“How about yourself? Would you lay bricks all day if you were paid higher than whatever you get now? Doesn't job satisfaction, flexibility, work environment, etc. also matter?” I get paid well so I doubt that would ever happen but let’s say some company was crazy enough to pay my current salary for that job. It depends on how much more money it is. Just a dollar a year extra wouldn’t get me out of the office to do manual labor. 100 times my salary, absolutely would quit my job and start laying bricks. So there’s a point where the money would be the motivating factor.

“But once money is not a ‘security’ issue anymore, because the pay is reasonable, other factors like job satisfaction, creativity, flexibility, lifestyle etc. become much more important. “ Ah, but you are putting extra conditions on it such as when money is not an issue anymore. Well, that’s the crux of the issue because like I stated money is the primary reason but once money is no longer the primary reason then other factors come into play.

ReplyVote up (152)down (151)
Original comment

“Give me evidence of a team with individuals working individually, being more effective than a team with individuals working together.” The cashiers at Walmart work independently. It would be pretty awkward to have them all help one customer simultaneously and then help the next customer all at once. Same thing with a bank teller or customer service service representative over the phone. There are many examples but none of that matters because the majority of people working do it for the money and not because they enjoy it and the kindness of their own heart. Would you continue doing your job if we took the money away? Doubtful but you might continue doing the job if they make some other change such as your office location, travel requirements, the shift, etc.

“How about yourself? Would you lay bricks all day if you were paid higher than whatever you get now? Doesn't job satisfaction, flexibility, work environment, etc. also matter?” I get paid well so I doubt that would ever happen but let’s say some company was crazy enough to pay my current salary for that job. It depends on how much more money it is. Just a dollar a year extra wouldn’t get me out of the office to do manual labor. 100 times my salary, absolutely would quit my job and start laying bricks. So there’s a point where the money would be the motivating factor.

“But once money is not a ‘security’ issue anymore, because the pay is reasonable, other factors like job satisfaction, creativity, flexibility, lifestyle etc. become much more important. “ Ah, but you are putting extra conditions on it such as when money is not an issue anymore. Well, that’s the crux of the issue because like I stated money is the primary reason but once money is no longer the primary reason then other factors come into play.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

Cashiers at Walmart all jumping up in unison to help a customer? C'mon, I thought we were having a serious conversation. And you keep pointing out that people won't work for no money. Yet you want to abolish the minimum wage.

Research shows that money motivates people more at the low wage end, than at the top where it actually produces worse results. So doesn't that suggest your default position is the wrong way round?

I found it interesting that you chose 100x your salary to work as a bricklayer, suggesting that you don't value your salary anywhere near as highly as other factors. And that's probably because you've got plenty. Even you fit the research.

"Ah, but you are putting extra conditions on..." Of course. Are you surprised that 'how well money works as a motivator' changes once people feel they have enough?

So again, no evidence to support "fend for yourself" over "fend for each other". If you really are skeptical about EVERYTHING, surely there must be doubt lingering in your mind by now?

ReplyVote up (130)down (125)
Original comment

Cashiers at Walmart all jumping up in unison to help a customer? C'mon, I thought we were having a serious conversation. And you keep pointing out that people won't work for no money. Yet you want to abolish the minimum wage.

Research shows that money motivates people more at the low wage end, than at the top where it actually produces worse results. So doesn't that suggest your default position is the wrong way round?

I found it interesting that you chose 100x your salary to work as a bricklayer, suggesting that you don't value your salary anywhere near as highly as other factors. And that's probably because you've got plenty. Even you fit the research.

"Ah, but you are putting extra conditions on..." Of course. Are you surprised that 'how well money works as a motivator' changes once people feel they have enough?

So again, no evidence to support "fend for yourself" over "fend for each other". If you really are skeptical about EVERYTHING, surely there must be doubt lingering in your mind by now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“people won't work for no money. Yet you want to abolish the minimum wage.” You still don’t get it do you? If people will not work for no money or little money, then there is no need for the government to set a minimum wage. People will not work for those low wages anyway. However, if there is someone foolish enough or desperate enough, why not let them?

“Research shows that money motivates people more at the low wage end, than at the top where it actually produces worse results.” I disagree that money produces worse results in rich people. Look at some of those top people. Bill Gates created a successful empire because of his greed.

“I found it interesting that you chose 100x your salary to work as a bricklayer, suggesting that you don't value your salary anywhere near as highly as other factors.” You easily misunderstand basic concepts. I sometimes wonder if there is something wrong with you or if you’re doing it on purpose. Anyway, I said I wouldn’t do it for a dollar a year extra but I would do it for 100X my salary so there is a point where the money is a motivating factor. Perhaps I would do it for 10X my salary too. I just didn’t want to analyze it too hard to figure out exactly what the dollar amount would have to be for me to change jobs. Do they offer health benefits? If not, then the salary would need to be higher so I could buy my own health insurance. Right now I get a discounted rate from my current employer so I have to factor in the additional expenses I would incur. How much traveling to different locations is going to be required? I have to factor in wear and tear on my vehicle and gas costs. You see, the exact number over my current salary is hard to determine but I assure you there is a number that would make me quit. That is if I maintain the same job security too.

“So again, no evidence to support ‘fend for yourself’ over ‘fend for each other’.” WTF Walter? Haven’t you been paying attention? That’s what this whole discussion is about. You have just been ignoring the evidence.

ReplyVote up (161)down (143)
Original comment

“people won't work for no money. Yet you want to abolish the minimum wage.” You still don’t get it do you? If people will not work for no money or little money, then there is no need for the government to set a minimum wage. People will not work for those low wages anyway. However, if there is someone foolish enough or desperate enough, why not let them?

“Research shows that money motivates people more at the low wage end, than at the top where it actually produces worse results.” I disagree that money produces worse results in rich people. Look at some of those top people. Bill Gates created a successful empire because of his greed.

“I found it interesting that you chose 100x your salary to work as a bricklayer, suggesting that you don't value your salary anywhere near as highly as other factors.” You easily misunderstand basic concepts. I sometimes wonder if there is something wrong with you or if you’re doing it on purpose. Anyway, I said I wouldn’t do it for a dollar a year extra but I would do it for 100X my salary so there is a point where the money is a motivating factor. Perhaps I would do it for 10X my salary too. I just didn’t want to analyze it too hard to figure out exactly what the dollar amount would have to be for me to change jobs. Do they offer health benefits? If not, then the salary would need to be higher so I could buy my own health insurance. Right now I get a discounted rate from my current employer so I have to factor in the additional expenses I would incur. How much traveling to different locations is going to be required? I have to factor in wear and tear on my vehicle and gas costs. You see, the exact number over my current salary is hard to determine but I assure you there is a number that would make me quit. That is if I maintain the same job security too.

“So again, no evidence to support ‘fend for yourself’ over ‘fend for each other’.” WTF Walter? Haven’t you been paying attention? That’s what this whole discussion is about. You have just been ignoring the evidence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

OK, let's sum up where we've got to in our skeptical analysis of the virtues of "fend for yourself" when applied to a society.

You think "fending for each other" means copying what your neighbour is doing, which as evidence you cited cashiers at Walmart all leaving their tills to help a single customer. I think you're flucking nuts.

You think "fending for each other" means paying people to do nothing. It's not, welfare is insurance. As is the military which sucks up over half of US taxes and protects rich corporations with poor lives. The welfare that is abused by scroungers is tiny - in the UK it's perhaps 1% of the total welfare bill, 82% of which goes to working families because minimum wage is too low.

You choose to base your entire political philosophy on this tiny problem of lazy scroungers on welfare. Considering the huge looming problems civilisation is facing - climate change, corporate exploitation, terrorism, population growth, etc. I think you're flipping insane.

You might disagree with the research that shows money motivates people more at the low end than the high, but just saying "Bill Gates created a successful empire because of his greed" is rather weak, wouldn't you say? I expected more from you. How about some research that shows if only bankers had even bigger bonuses, we'd all be better off and living happily ever after.

So how are you feeling about "fend for yourself" now? Is doubt starting to creep in yet?

ReplyVote up (143)down (148)
Original comment

OK, let's sum up where we've got to in our skeptical analysis of the virtues of "fend for yourself" when applied to a society.

You think "fending for each other" means copying what your neighbour is doing, which as evidence you cited cashiers at Walmart all leaving their tills to help a single customer. I think you're flucking nuts.

You think "fending for each other" means paying people to do nothing. It's not, welfare is insurance. As is the military which sucks up over half of US taxes and protects rich corporations with poor lives. The welfare that is abused by scroungers is tiny - in the UK it's perhaps 1% of the total welfare bill, 82% of which goes to working families because minimum wage is too low.

You choose to base your entire political philosophy on this tiny problem of lazy scroungers on welfare. Considering the huge looming problems civilisation is facing - climate change, corporate exploitation, terrorism, population growth, etc. I think you're flipping insane.

You might disagree with the research that shows money motivates people more at the low end than the high, but just saying "Bill Gates created a successful empire because of his greed" is rather weak, wouldn't you say? I expected more from you. How about some research that shows if only bankers had even bigger bonuses, we'd all be better off and living happily ever after.

So how are you feeling about "fend for yourself" now? Is doubt starting to creep in yet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1020 days ago)

“It's not, welfare is insurance. As is the military which sucks up over half of US taxes and protects rich business with poor lives. The welfare that is abused by scroungers is tiny - in the UK it's perhaps 1% of the total welfare bill, 82% of which goes to working families because minimum wage is too low.”

Welfare is just a single social program and there are many others that people abuse. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security, disability, earned income tax credit, refundable child credit, TANF, Adoption Assistance, emergency cash, school lunch program, TEFAP, Section 8 housing, low income housing tax credits, HUD, low income home energy assistance, and low income phone service. The costs each year is in the trillions which makes it interesting since you say only 1% use it.

You say it is an insurance but, generally speaking, people need to pay into an insurance policy before receiving benefits and can be dropped from their insurance policy if they abuse the benefits. An example is your car insurance company. You must make payments to a car insurance company before they will pay for any damage you caused in an accident (most people getting social benefits do not have have not paid into the system). Then, if you have too many accidents, they will terminate your policy. The social programs we have are not comparable with insurance policies except maybe SSI but not always because I know several people that get SSI checks because they claim learning disabilities but never paid a penny toward that “insurance.”

“How about some research that shows if only bankers had even bigger bonuses, we'd all be living happily ever after.” Some of us would be better off. You keep mentioning bankers and bonuses like that’s a bad thing. Radio Shack managers get bonuses — so what? Many businesses that want to maintain a certain level of performance from their employees are better by offering bonuses.

Here’s a good example. Let’s say you own a car lot and sell cars for a living. You have 10 employees as salesmen that work for you. Do you pay them a flat salary, do you pay them hourly, or do you pay them a commission (a.k.a., bonus)? Most would pay the commission with a draw. The reason is clear. If you paid them the same regardless how many cars they sold, they wouldn’t work that hard to sell the cars and you, as the owner, would make less money. You might actually be paying a salesman just to sit around the lot doing nothing. Don’t you believe in your heart that offering extra incentives for good work really does improve performance? I’m shocked that you still think people work out of the kindness of their heart and not for the money. Absolutely incredible.

ReplyVote up (154)down (134)
Original comment

“It's not, welfare is insurance. As is the military which sucks up over half of US taxes and protects rich business with poor lives. The welfare that is abused by scroungers is tiny - in the UK it's perhaps 1% of the total welfare bill, 82% of which goes to working families because minimum wage is too low.”

Welfare is just a single social program and there are many others that people abuse. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security, disability, earned income tax credit, refundable child credit, TANF, Adoption Assistance, emergency cash, school lunch program, TEFAP, Section 8 housing, low income housing tax credits, HUD, low income home energy assistance, and low income phone service. The costs each year is in the trillions which makes it interesting since you say only 1% use it.

You say it is an insurance but, generally speaking, people need to pay into an insurance policy before receiving benefits and can be dropped from their insurance policy if they abuse the benefits. An example is your car insurance company. You must make payments to a car insurance company before they will pay for any damage you caused in an accident (most people getting social benefits do not have have not paid into the system). Then, if you have too many accidents, they will terminate your policy. The social programs we have are not comparable with insurance policies except maybe SSI but not always because I know several people that get SSI checks because they claim learning disabilities but never paid a penny toward that “insurance.”

“How about some research that shows if only bankers had even bigger bonuses, we'd all be living happily ever after.” Some of us would be better off. You keep mentioning bankers and bonuses like that’s a bad thing. Radio Shack managers get bonuses — so what? Many businesses that want to maintain a certain level of performance from their employees are better by offering bonuses.

Here’s a good example. Let’s say you own a car lot and sell cars for a living. You have 10 employees as salesmen that work for you. Do you pay them a flat salary, do you pay them hourly, or do you pay them a commission (a.k.a., bonus)? Most would pay the commission with a draw. The reason is clear. If you paid them the same regardless how many cars they sold, they wouldn’t work that hard to sell the cars and you, as the owner, would make less money. You might actually be paying a salesman just to sit around the lot doing nothing. Don’t you believe in your heart that offering extra incentives for good work really does improve performance? I’m shocked that you still think people work out of the kindness of their heart and not for the money. Absolutely incredible.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

Regarding welfare, I'm talking about UK welfare which is basically the money paid to people unemployed or on a low income. I was using this Guardian article as my basis. "… There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" - values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations …" LINK

Data shows it's under 1% of people on welfare who are the "lazy scroungers". The other interesting stat is that 82% are actually working! Don't think about that too hard, your brain might explode.

Everything you've written is just more waffle, so nothing to comment on.

In the continuing absence of any positive evidence, how are you getting on with the libertarian ideal of "fend for yourself and fleck everyone else"? Have you even considered the possibility that it's actually a pretty rubbish philosophy? It doesn't produce a healthy society, it's rooted in the Stone Age, it doesn't work economically, and it's just plain nasty.

ReplyVote up (135)down (124)
Original comment

Regarding welfare, I'm talking about UK welfare which is basically the money paid to people unemployed or on a low income. I was using this Guardian article as my basis. "… There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" - values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations …" LINK

Data shows it's under 1% of people on welfare who are the "lazy scroungers". The other interesting stat is that 82% are actually working! Don't think about that too hard, your brain might explode.

Everything you've written is just more waffle, so nothing to comment on.

In the continuing absence of any positive evidence, how are you getting on with the libertarian ideal of "fend for yourself and fleck everyone else"? Have you even considered the possibility that it's actually a pretty rubbish philosophy? It doesn't produce a healthy society, it's rooted in the Stone Age, it doesn't work economically, and it's just plain nasty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1020 days ago)

Hang in there, Walter. You're doing a great job.

Cary, here's a question: how long would you be happy laying bricks for 100x your salary? How quickly would you get to the stage when you thought, "I've got a huge pile of dollars. I think I'd rather feed the ducks today than lay bricks?"

Or are you going to try and keep earning as much as you can right up to the day you die?

ReplyVote up (146)down (129)
Original comment

Hang in there, Walter. You're doing a great job.

Cary, here's a question: how long would you be happy laying bricks for 100x your salary? How quickly would you get to the stage when you thought, "I've got a huge pile of dollars. I think I'd rather feed the ducks today than lay bricks?"

Or are you going to try and keep earning as much as you can right up to the day you die?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1021 days ago)

we've been having this conversation for years now and your as dumb as ever.

codger twat

ReplyVote up (157)down (143)
Original comment

we've been having this conversation for years now and your as dumb as ever.

codger twat

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Mark Blyth - Who invented key technologies in the iPhone?
Mark Blyth - Who invented key technologies in the iPhone?
Richard Wolff - Monsanto strikes again
Richard Wolff - Monsanto strikes again
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - What is money?
Richard Wolff - What is money?
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism