Jump to content

angelofdeath

Member
  • Posts

    3,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by angelofdeath

  1. once again... extreme bullshit. just means i disagree with both joe biden and mitch mcconnell. off with these extremists heads! ah yes, assumptions. i've only been 10 miles from my house my entire life. your only problem is that you are just so brainwashed by this statist rhetoric that you cannot think of any other way to solve any problem in life without looking to uncle sam for help. thank goodness im an independent person.
  2. why is it that your type assumes you know everything, have seen every situation and assume everyone else DOESNT/HASNT? its hilarious. your head is so buried in the sand, you couldnt even figure out how to get out. believe it or not, there are other ways to get things done than the liberal agenda. no matter what level of empirical, first hand experience, or theory one puts forth, your main reply is....'you need to get out of your box, the world works like this, blah blah blah, you havent seen anything.'
  3. by extension you must also think that if someone 'helps' someone, no matter the situation surrounding it, and someone takes it away, they are against 'helping the poor.' i'd imagine if you went and stole your neighbors car and gave it to some one who didnt have a car you 'helped' the poor. but what about the act of theft? and you'd call me a hypocrite and not in favor of helping the poor because i denounce this action?
  4. i mean, this is just hilarious. you tried to say this before AFTER i stated how much i help people. are you even reading what i said? how i gave someone a MONTHS worth of food at the drop of hat? how i donate food routinely to churches? how i tend to fix neighbors cars for free? you see only one view of the world. the urban view, you obviously dont know whats its like to be any else, especially the country. where neighbors help neighbors. what do i get out of doing this? i do it out of my own self interest, just like everything else. why? it makes me feel good. that is my self interest in this. and it also means, if i need to have my truck pulled out of a ditch one day or help welding my bush hog, someone owes me a favor, although im not one to ask. it is the height of liberal smugness to say that i am against 'helping the poor' when in fact i actually practice what YOU preach. that is, i help those in need. i dont need someone to throw me in jail if i dont help someone, i dont need a bunch of big government to tell me how to help people and i surely dont need people like you telling me my business. it seems funny though, during katrina it was walmart sending in the tractor trailer loads of stuff and the government turning them back. americans give billions to charity every year, they are most generous on earth. enough demand exists for companies to arise to provide for the TRULY destitute. the market might not support escalade owners with charity, but they will support those actually in need. but all this is moot because until the moral hazard, incentives and steering of the welfare state is curtailed, you cant even get an accurate picture of what the actual problem actually is.
  5. you must take into account that if some sort of solid strict standards were enacted, transitioned into place and allowed people the time to react to the incentives put forth, they would do so. look at how people act with the welfare state. the incentive is to not get married/live together, have a bunch of kids, stay glued to the government for everything, then raise the next generation to do the same because they never had a bread winning father nor do they know anything else but receiving a check. imagine that we stopped rewarding this behavior with a hand out. suppose that there was no moral hazard in the situation. lets imagine that in order to have a child, you had to pay for it 100% yourself, with no implicit net to fall back on provided by the government. would you still have a bunch of kids with different fathers and not get married? or would you try to settle down and raise a family and make a living for yourself? its all about incentives. until you remove the incentives to be poor, you will always have a certain number of poor that will continually grow. how many times have you heard that people need to work under the table in order to keep collecting benefits. how many times have you heard people cant get a job because they'll lose their check? its all the time. you must realize how people act with these incentives. unemployment insurance is the perfect example. you get laid off. it sure feels good to have somethign to fall back on. but lets imagine that you dont have the incentive in your head that if you lose your job you can lay around for 2 years and not work and receive a check. would you act the same way? would you not care as much if you lost your job? the stats and real world examples are pretty clear on this. no matter how long one draws unemployment insurance, they tend to always get a jump literally right before the checks stop coming. doesnt matter if its 6 months or 2 years. right or wrong (i obviously think the system is wrong) but you cannot deny the incentives are in place to steer you to do certain things. the reasons why jobs are scarce is a subject entirely to its self.
  6. its obvious you cannot eliminate handouts over night. why? because the government has literally created generations of people tied to the govt tit. they are dependent. it would have to be done over time with stricter standards, closing of loopholes and a re-writing of the entire welfare state. but this will never happen. politicians dont mind the waste, because throwing away money is what gets them re-elected. its quite obvious to anyone paying attention there is more waste than not in these systems. when an average guy like myself who frequents rural areas, suburban areas and urban areas only finds people who are in essence 'abusing' the welfare system...i'd be willing to bet the actual number of 'poor' on the welfare system is 50% of what it currently is, at minimum. there is something seriously wrong when you have people on food stamps, not married, and wont get married (one of the keys to financial success for lower income people) in order to stay on food stamps. when you have the incentive to father as many kids as you can with as many different woman as you can in order to get more assistance, we have a problem. what the welfare state champions dont realize is that nearly any criteria they put forth for aid creates unintended consequences and incentives which in turn breed greater poverty and more dependence. which keeps the system going on and on and makes people stay poor. if people knew that they only had themselves to rely on, or their own families, they act completely different. they make different decisions. do i have the perfect system? do i have the perfect transition? no, im not a policy maker and my business is not providing charity, it is in other fields. but i do know the market that is dynamic enough to satisfy every consumer demand it dynamic enough to funnel aid to those that truly need it. through various private institutions, charities, etc all funded by voluntarism. do you think that if you were not taxed to support the welfare state, that you would voluntarily give your $ to an organization that makes it a habit to give assistance to people talking on iphones, driving escalades and wearing a different pair of 100$ shoes a day? or would you rather contribute to an organization that provides aid to poor rural or urban families who are incapable of working for instance? if given the choice, im sure the market would put the people giving aid to escalade drivers out of business, funneling more resources to the real providers of services consumers demand. but the glaringly obvious thing everyone misses is that all the people who squawk about 'helping the poor'... that this very conversation and view point exists among so many...is indicative of an insane amount of demand for a service to help these people. whats wrong, do you feel that the proponents of the welfare state such as yourself and the millions of other who believe in helping the less fortunate who actually need help...would NOT be able or willing to handle this?
  7. i'd argue only people with an ideological axe to grind would ever attempt to try to brand mises as a fascist. it is nothing but an attempt to slur someone based on an out of context quotation and in fact not even listening to what he is actually saying. there are a few other people (in this case a free market anarchist) who have famously said that a monarchy is slightly less tyrannical than democracy. does this mean he is a monarchist, when in fact he favors no government? other libertarians have argued that the founding generation was silly to break away from the british empire because they were living as the freest people on earth at that time and they created the system that created the biggest government on earth. does that mean they favor monarchy? and are you really citing james delong? is this the same guy who helped give us NAFTA and was part of the clinton treasury? a uber liberal ala the rachel maddown/paul krugman variety? and you think he is saying this about mises without an ideological partisan ax to grind?
  8. the one part you wont recognize is that if some how, we eliminated all the waste, and people who are capable of providing for themselves/family but simply wont, the actual number of the 'poor' would PLUMMET. your theory is based on the govts current numbers. and we all know the majority of people on assistance are capable of providing for themselves and i think we'd both agree that people do not need assistance who drive escalades or are lottery winning millionaires. once you eliminate all this then you'll get an accurate picture of what the situation really is and we can have a rational conversation from there. right now, you are just including every single person that is on the rolls, whether they need it or not, including the millionaire lottery winner and the people driving escalades who dump out 2 gallons of milk a week in order to keep getting wic. but with a government system, it is impossible to accurately allocate these resources because they are made on a bureaucratic level and not by the combined wisdom of millions of market actors. if you some how disagree with this post, you are in effect supporting not simply helping the 'poor' or 'needy' but giving handouts to people who are quite capable of providing for themselves funded by stealing property from the productive members of society by force, without their consent.
  9. word. but for the record, isolationist is a bad word to apply to the non interventionist view point. the last thing i support is isolationism. i support trade and commerce with all nations, i just dont support doing it at the barrel of a gun. imagine if we started calling everyone in the private economy 'isolationists' because they were against just letting people handle their own affairs. its some sort of faulty logic or orwellian type propaganda. its a word that is used to try to shut down conversation, sort of like calling someone a nazi or a racist. only a liar, a deceiver or the intellectually dishonest would try to label the free trade position as being 'isolationist.' to me its not about left vs right, its about intervention vs non intervention. well put my friend. as someone is fond of saying...'there are they who want to be left alone and then there are they, them, those, who wont leave them alone.' when in the US, look me up. i'll show you an american good time. ar15's, open carrying, and all.
  10. once again, let the record show, all this means is i disagree with both hillary and mitt. this is absolutely false. i have happily formed alliances with the kucinich crowd over the years on various issues, even though they want national healthcare and to take away my firearms. i've formed alliances with tea party types even though they want to crush civil liberties and they praise bush. if you are trying to refer to yourself on this, its not because we dont agree on everything that i think you represent things that i hate. its because you actually have yet to say one thing i've agreed with. so because we agree on NOTHING, its safe to assume you represent everything im against. i dont know where you are getting this from. tyranny and oppression has never come from limited government it has come from total or the near total state. all dictators support some form of fascism or socialism, the anti thesis of a free market. hitler and stalin were not 'isolationalists' but internationalists. its the height of silliness to equate my views, the very same views that founded this country as the same views which are going to 'tear the country apart.' it is the policies that you and your ilk support that have torn the country apart to the point of no return. the more you boss people around, the more angry they get. the more resentful they get. there will be a time when the current government goes the way of the british government in the 1770's and 80's. the declaration of independence beautifully laid out the rights and duties of a free people, and living under tyranny isnt part of the equation.
  11. why should i thank you for freedom that i have as a birth right? ah yes, figures. a nationalist liberal type. gotta love it. usually someone can be stomached if they are from one group or the other..
  12. only thing i've had to do to cover the 'damages' aspect was give them a 200$ refundable deposit on one occasion. just because its not common to pay cash for these things, doesnt mean its not possible.
  13. not necessarily so. austrian economics for example is a normative science. to elaborate further... austrian economics says central banks are responsible for the business cycle. it doesnt say that a government should do this or that, or people should support a government doing this or that. the ideology of liberty would say, if you dont want the business cycle, you get rid of the central bank. while you could be an austrian economics quoting libertarian, you could also be an austrian economics quoting fascist, socialist or what have you
  14. thats odd, because i havent used a credit card to pay for a hotel room nor put one down in 5 years
  15. how does one 'believe an idiotic theory to people like you?' what does that even mean? makes absolutely no sense.
  16. my favored policy as few entangling alliances as possible and friendship and commerce with all nations. the nation should run forpol exactly how most people live their lives. do no harm to others, but if someone harms you or threatens, you retaliate. its very basic golden rule type stuff. whenever you say 'extreme' it simply means is just something that both hillary clinton and mitt romney disagree on. thats it. it just means im not within that small ideological spectrum and therefore, i need to shut up because i am out of the realm of polite thought in the world of cilone. its not an extreme example, but in essence that is exactly what government is. if you refuse to participate, you go to jail and/or ultimately are killed if you resist sufficiently enough.
  17. true, which is why i said pay cash unless you need to do things like this. although, if you dont need to reserve a hotel room, you can easily pay cash in person. true dat. for conversation purposes, i consider 'paying cash' equivalent to paying off a credit card bill each month
  18. while i dont think it should be 'illegal' i think the mere competition of real food with factory food would completely undermine the factory food and make it insignificant. if people then still wanted the bad stuff, they are free to buy it, and if they want real stuff, they are also free to buy it. however, sadly the biggest promoters of 'food freedom' are largely to blame for being the biggest supporters of the nanny state in general. the only way to get good food, cheap, is to deregulate and allow competitors to actually compete with cargill, tyson, etc. if we had a real market for food, stopped subsidizing it, pastured chicken wouldnt be THAT much more expensive factory chicken. if we repealed raw milk laws, i'd be able to buy raw milk for dirt cheap from my neighbor right across the road. USDA says you cant sell an egg that hasnt been chlorine washed, yet i eat fresh non washed eggs everyday. we must remember that it is because this good stuff is illegal is why we have the food situation in america today.
  19. good answer, but you are not adding in a few things. namely, it didnt matter if anyone lost money, because the company would be bailed out at tax payer expense. this is called moral hazard. this is why the bail outs were bad. it creates the incentive to engage in otherwise risky behavior because you will be insulated from full liability. but you realize that they left because of your policy in the first place, no? but your policy sent them away in the first place? lets change the example around a tad. lets say you are buying shoes. you can buy them in your neighborhood for 100$. you can buy them in another neighborhood for 100$ but you have to pay a 100$ tax on every thing you buy. are you more likely to purchase goods in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood with the high taxes? its the same in the US. if people want gun freedom, they move to gun friendly states. if they want to be taxed less, they move to states with lower taxes. etc ad infinitum. it is the height of silliness to enact a policy that drives business away, and then tax it another round. that is all the more reason for business to stay permanently AWAY.
  20. thankfully capitalism has been good enough to you so you can go enjoy leisure time and goof off. you should thank freedom of exchange for this.
  21. i do not support government taking care of people. i support voluntary private institutions taking care of others ranging from person to person care taking to larger private institutions such as churches, private charities, etc. this sentence is incoherent. what would you think if someone in full combat load out came to your door, put an AR15 to your nose, and demanded 50% of your income in order for you to not be 'selfish' what would you think?
  22. hahaha. so let me get this right, you think im some college student or something?
  23. i guess, i'd be some sort of radical extremist to point out that the US regulatory agencies are largely responsible for urging farmers to use said products in order to keep food 'safe.' it has been the USDA who has been courting cattle farmers for years on the new 'scientific' methods of feeding cows....... dun dun dun... dead cows. and then you'll blame mad cow on 'capitalism.' government policy has incentivized and collectivized farms into creating monocultures. monocultures do not occur in nature, yet because of these policies, we have this situation which causes adverse side effects for all involved. the only way to address these problems and solve them is NOT from the top down, it is from the bottom up. just like people like salatin are doing. what needs to be done is we need to free entrepreneurs up to solve these issues and undermine govt connected companies who are causing these problems. yet, sadly, your ideology forbids them from doing so. agribusiness is nothing but an arm of the state. monsanto's power is derived from government and its enforcement of 'patents' that are not legitimate property, its nothing but a monopoly privilege granted by government. various companies who pollute or act 'irresponsibly' are acting that way because their liability is either limited by the government, with things such as the price anderson act, or the court system has made it largely impossible to sue polluters for damages. if you consider the US as having 'minimal' regulation, tell me what the proper level of regulation is. your type NEVER answers this question, so for the sake of conversation, i must assume you want total government control. that is the only logical conclusion, because no matter what regulations are passed, you will always need more. so your response is the same ol same ol. problems created by government, and you blame it on capitalism. thankfully, i believe in freedom enough to help my own neighbors, prepare myself for any emergencies and to rely on myself, and yeah, even consume unregulated illegal raw milk and meat from grass finished cows. unlike your self and your nanny state supporting, leaching off of others and using force to impose your will on others, beliefs. whatever. it matters not. you come to the same conclusions.
  24. i'd urge you to read all of the page before you make some silly idiotic conclusion from what the guy is saying here. need i remind you, mises was jewish and fled the nazi's after they ransacked his belongings for being a dissident. so, yeah. definitely the biggest clown i have encountered in recent memory
  25. the only reason derivatives existed was because of governments moral hazard. ie. the promise of a bail out if they lost money. how would you act if you had the opportunity to make a tremendous amount of money, at virtually no risk? would you take it? outsourcing of jobs can be placed at the foot of the US government and their state government subsidiaries. when you enact excessive taxation and regulation, you get flight. when governments over tax, money leaves the country. imagine if you were given the choice between paying 100$ for a pair of shoes at one store, yet in another town, you could get the same pair of shoes for 25$. which would you choose? this is another example of blaming something brought about by government on laissez faire. the unintended consequence of excessive taxation and regulation is flight. now you need to pass 5 more laws to deal with this situation, which is why a regulated economy always seeks total totalitarian control.
×
×
  • Create New...