Layoffs coming...

[abandonconflict]

Libertarianism would not mean that companies could have private armies and gun down strikers.

Libertarians are not Anarchists.

You really have to explain how you can have Socialism that isn't state enforced

You are correct on all three. I said Voluntaryism and anarchocapitalism not libertarianism, have corporations control private armies.

For the second statement, this is also correct, libertarians, in the current American vernacular are not anarchists, and not even truly antistatist. They advocate for rigid hierarchies (note that you can't have hierarchy with out archy and therefore anarchocapitalism and voluntaryism are not true anarchy).

Apparently this is the sticking point that leaves most people who are completely accustomed to having a master unsure of what to do next. So workers have wrested control of thier lives, destinies or at the very least their work, from corporations and the state. What is next? How do they keep it? How do they get it? What exactly is it? I can explain this in a mildly libertarian socialist sense, for real anarchy, there is required a dissolution of state and a reclamation from hereditary owners of essential resources. This can be violent.

For a model of libertarian socialism completely consistent with the constitution, it, is simply nothing more than compensation proportional to the contributions of workers. It is a fair share of the means of production they operate. It is fiscal transparency of a smaller government.

Dude, that can be accomplished by giving them tradeable stock and better pay and benefits and being more transparent with what tax dollars are being spent on. That can best be accomplished by drastically cutting pentagon spending, and allowing an energy model that doesn't take up 20% to 30% of the average worker's debt to income ratio.

You know, a plan as to how libertarianism will improve everyone's lives instead of the insistence of a cat like Ron Paul that "THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING!"

 

[abandonconflict]

those silly quizzes are neither useful nor accurate. they are designed to elicit the response they think will make dipshits feel better by asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

they ALL artificially conflate religious views, social mores aand opinions on unrelated topics and assign them a value on the "authoritarianism" scale, while never actually divulging what they quanta they use might be.

View attachment 2432183

Join the discussion Kynes, seriously, you have good writing skill, but that doesn't mean you're smarter than the rest of us, you don't have to be a troll.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yet you shilled for Obama, you little bitch.

So the only way I can not be a little bitch is if I hate Obama? Show me one instance where I lied about Obama. If I was only being honest, is that shilling? Want to join the discussion or cheer Kynes on as he just trolls a productive debate?

 

[cannabineer]

I'm "Likes Puppies and Kittens"/"Evil" because I don't like'm raw. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Even the New Deal did not require substantial growth of the state or sweeping new powers for the federal government, as evidenced by the lack of constitutional amendments required to implement it. The growth of the state started way before FDR took office. Although he did continue this growth, the possibility of socioeconomic upward mobility was never greater than under the New Deal.

The state got bigger and fatter under the righties who wanted a big state to infringe on our rights and police us. In the new Deal, the government got bigger to take care of us. Don't confuse the two.

 

[ginwilly]

Whoa there. FDR stacked the SC so constitutional amendments weren't needed. They deemed it legal for the US government to tell a man how much wheat he could grow for his own use on his own land. The left wanted a big state to infringe on our rights and police us too. 3 decades of stagnant growth would argue against your theory of the best time for upward mobility ever. The best time was BEFORE FDR, especially if you owned a still.

 

[ginwilly]

The best thing FDRs legacy brought the US wasn't the new deal, it was Glass-Steagall.

 

[abandonconflict]

Whoa there. FDR stacked the SC so constitutional amendments weren't needed. They deemed it legal for the US government to tell a man how much wheat he could grow for his own use on his own land. The left wanted a big state to infringe on our rights and police us too. 3 decades of stagnant growth would argue against your theory of the best time for upward mobility ever. The best time was BEFORE FDR, especially if you owned a still.

So you're arguing that prohibition created more opportunities than the New Deal? Prohibition ended under FDR, so that argument is just an irrational hatred of the left.

 

[ginwilly]

So you're arguing that prohibition created more opportunities than the New Deal? Prohibition ended under FDR, so that argument is just an irrational hatred of the left.

No, I was just being sarcastic. But the 80-90s beat the crap out of the 30-40s. The 20's were called roaring for a reason, my snarky bootlegging comment aside. The Great Depression was certainly not the best time for upward mobility in this country. Think about it a sec ac.

 

[abandonconflict]

No, I was just being sarcastic. But the 80-90s beat the crap out of the 30-40s. The 20's were called roaring for a reason, my snarky bootlegging comment aside. The Great Depression was certainly not the best time for upward mobility in this country. Think about it a sec ac.

The New Deal ended the Great Depression. The 80's and 90's saw the availability of capital for the masses through credit which created an artificial boom and wasteful demand.

 

[UncleBuck]

latest jobs report just came out, we added about 120k jobs.

what about those layoffs again?

 

[Carthoris]

Should've voted for GJ then.

And if you did, respect.

That is who I voted for. The Objectivist party was also interesting.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The New Deal ended the Great Depression. The 80's and 90's saw the availability of capital for the masses through credit which created an artificial boom and wasteful demand.

the great depression was ended by a MASSIVE mobilization of industry for a war of survival against fascism, followed by a neverending revolving credit scheme to wage the cold war against fascism-light in marxist socialism.

50 years of debt creating an artificial boom has finally run out of steam, and it's long past time to pay the bill.

one could make the case that this bill should have hit the table squarely in front of Bush 1, since at that point the marxist empires collapsing like a turd igloo in a hailstorm. sadly Bush1 did not have the prunes to stand up to the big spenders in congress. on this score i expect no argument, since it is apparent to all that with the failure of the soviet union, and the instability in china, marxism was a toothless dog coughing up a hairball under the porch.

and then along came clinton.
he ran as a reformer, and didnt do shit except continue the debt cycles without interruption. his "surplus" (regardless of what you may BELIEVE) was merely an accounting trick, projecting a surplus down the road if the Pets.com trend continues (it didnt). despite the on book surpluses, the national debt continued it's meteoric rise, without even a bobble in the upward trend, since for every dollar of "surplus" clinton signed in $2 of new spending based on the projections. the "surplus" was gone before it even began to materialize.

and thus we come to Bush2.
he sold himself as a fiscal conservative, and instead he made it rain for all the strippers working the poles on K street, even before you get to his dubious war spending.

obama also sold himself on reducing the debt and the deficits, and immediately began spending in what appears to be a race to the bankruptcy court with the bush2 gentleman's club throwdowns looking like a baptist league picnic.

we do NOT need another new deal, the new deal was a mad overreach of federal power which merely attempted to stave off the inevitable collapse of the economy, before WW2 opened up the international banker's credit ledgers. wars are always a sure bet, and the international bankers turned a fat profit on that one, and the next 60 years of revolving debt stupidity.

what we need is Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal, and a fumigation for washington dc. as long as the lobbyists on K street continue to make policy, our policies will continue to be dictated by assholes with a vested interest, and fiduciary responsibility to ensure short term profits over long term stability, and democrats, republicans, independants, libertarians, socialists and even Green Party assholes all dance to the same tune when they get to city hall, the state house or congress. political survival in government is dependent on the good will of the people who make modern campaigns possible, and thats the same moneyed interests who have been fucking us since 1913, until you kill the termites, your house will always be ready to fall down, no matter how many carpenters you have on retainer.

Just as an aside, after 3 days of reading everything on the interwebs about "Libertarian Socialism" i can say 2 things for certain:

every "Libertarian Socialist" agrees, "It's NOT an oxymoron!"
and "In Europe these words mean something else..."

but here in America, it IS an oxymoron, or the words that should be used are "Utopian Communist", no matter how unfashionable those words may be.

 

[Carthoris]

You are correct on all three. I said Voluntaryism and anarchocapitalism not libertarianism, have corporations control private armies.

For the second statement, this is also correct, libertarians, in the current American vernacular are not anarchists, and not even truly antistatist. They advocate for rigid hierarchies (note that you can't have hierarchy with out archy and therefore anarchocapitalism and voluntaryism are not true anarchy).

Apparently this is the sticking point that leaves most people who are completely accustomed to having a master unsure of what to do next. So workers have wrested control of thier lives, destinies or at the very least their work, from corporations and the state. What is next? How do they keep it? How do they get it? What exactly is it? I can explain this in a mildly libertarian socialist sense, for real anarchy, there is required a dissolution of state and a reclamation from hereditary owners of essential resources. This can be violent.

For a model of libertarian socialism completely consistent with the constitution, it, is simply nothing more than compensation proportional to the contributions of workers. It is a fair share of the means of production they operate. It is fiscal transparency of a smaller government.

Dude, that can be accomplished by giving them tradeable stock and better pay and benefits and being more transparent with what tax dollars are being spent on. That can best be accomplished by drastically cutting pentagon spending, and allowing an energy model that doesn't take up 20% to 30% of the average worker's debt to income ratio.

You know, a plan as to how libertarianism will improve everyone's lives instead of the insistence of a cat like Ron Paul that "THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING!"

You described Libertarian Socialism the same way one would describe Statist Socialism. Wresting control denotes using force. Once a majority of the people use force to take something from the few, they have established a majority government and are using the power of the state to confiscate private property and make it public. You would end up with another Stalin in this ideology.

 

[Carthoris]

Even the New Deal did not require substantial growth of the state or sweeping new powers for the federal government, as evidenced by the lack of constitutional amendments required to implement it. The growth of the state started way before FDR took office. Although he did continue this growth, the possibility of socioeconomic upward mobility was never greater than under the New Deal.

The state got bigger and fatter under the righties who wanted a big state to infringe on our rights and police us. In the new Deal, the government got bigger to take care of us. Don't confuse the two.

Do you really believe this? Statists are Statists. The President is now allowed to unilaterally order the execution of any person on the planet if he likes. For all intents and purposes, the power is now solidly consolidated at the top of the government and we are only waiting to elect a Hitler or Stalin personality that isn't afraid to go apeshit while using it. Hell, the OWS protestors are all but actively promoting that they want a communist dictator to come in and kill all the rich people. With no actual definition of terrorist or terrorist threat, they could decide that all people wearing blue shirts are terrorists and have them executed. This is a culmination of the Left and the Right working together to accomplish the only thing they every did: Giving more power to the government.

[video=youtube;1jTmMU6sMgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jTmMU6sMgM&feature=player_detailpage#t=4408s[/video]

 

[Carthoris]

The New Deal ended the Great Depression. The 80's and 90's saw the availability of capital for the masses through credit which created an artificial boom and wasteful demand.

The Great Depression was caused by the creation of the Federal Reserve by democrats/progressives. They destroyed the then current system of checks and balances and replaced them with inadequate government control which destroyed our economy. You can't destroy the future economy, congratulate yourselves, and then 10 or 20 years later do something else that destroys the future economy, congratulate yourselves, and then 10 or 20 years later... oh wait... maybe that is working out alright for them.

 

[Carthoris]

latest jobs report just came out, we added about 120k jobs.

what about those layoffs again?

Doesn't the population of workers grow by 125k-130k per month?

 

[abandonconflict]

Do you really believe this? Statists are Statists. The President is now allowed to unilaterally order the execution of any person on the planet if he likes. For all intents and purposes, the power is now solidly consolidated at the top of the government and we are only waiting to elect a Hitler or Stalin personality that isn't afraid to go apeshit while using it. Hell, the OWS protestors are all but actively promoting that they want a communist dictator to come in and kill all the rich people. With no actual definition of terrorist or terrorist threat, they could decide that all people wearing blue shirts are terrorists and have them executed. This is a culmination of the Left and the Right working together to accomplish the only thing they every did: Giving more power to the government.

[video=youtube;1jTmMU6sMgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jTmMU6sMgM&feature=player_detailpage#t=4408s[/video]

I could go out to dinner tomorrow night.

 

[Carthoris]

It really makes me scratch my head when people say the New Deal ended the depression or caused the good times in the USA. WW2 started, we were the only industrialized country who was not completely assraped in a few years on either side. WW2 ended, we were the only country who was not assraped. We were almost totally untouched aside from the loss of human life. We had more factories and manufacturing than we had before the war, we had less people so unemployment wasn't a problem, our farms weren't destroyed/pillaged. We essentially had the entire world by the balls. We controlled the world after WW2 as the only country in the world who came through whole. The honest truth is the bad times of others is what put us on top, not any imaginary benefits from moving towards socialism.

 

[abandonconflict]

You described Libertarian Socialism the same way one would describe Statist Socialism. Wresting control denotes using force. Once a majority of the people use force to take something from the few, they have established a majority government and are using the power of the state to confiscate private property and make it public. You would end up with another Stalin in this ideology.

the first and second statements are false and the third and fourth statements rely on the first and second statements.