John Cleese on Extremism
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
18 comments displayed.
#10 to #9
-
heartlessrobot (09/12/2015) [-] Because a libertarian knows what their political stance is.
#11 to #10
-
stepsword (09/12/2015) [-]
Well I meant that the picture seems to specifically put the libertarian grouped views in an excessively good light, without actually talking about the downsides. I'm not saying other parties don't do this, it's propaganda sure, but it's still propaganda even for libertarianism.
Some examples of stuff that obviously has a downside here which is not mentioned/ignored:
"Giving generously to help those in need" at the cost of people who worked hard for their money
"Ending corporate welfare" at the cost of dying small businesses that could actually use the help
"Non interventionist foreign policy" at the cost of the countries who legitimately need the help
I mean already "giving generously to help those in need" conflicts with at least 3 of the other beliefs there. I'm not a big political person, and I know the argument against interventionism is that we go to war for oil (which we do a lot), but a non-interventionist policy would prevent us from helping countries who actually do need help.
I don't even wholly disagree with libertarianism, but I think it's very important to recognize propaganda when you see it - you can't just say libertarianism takes all the good parts of the left and right and is the godly middle ground because a lot of the time, those good parts of left and right can't exist without their downsides.
Some examples of stuff that obviously has a downside here which is not mentioned/ignored:
"Giving generously to help those in need" at the cost of people who worked hard for their money
"Ending corporate welfare" at the cost of dying small businesses that could actually use the help
"Non interventionist foreign policy" at the cost of the countries who legitimately need the help
I mean already "giving generously to help those in need" conflicts with at least 3 of the other beliefs there. I'm not a big political person, and I know the argument against interventionism is that we go to war for oil (which we do a lot), but a non-interventionist policy would prevent us from helping countries who actually do need help.
I don't even wholly disagree with libertarianism, but I think it's very important to recognize propaganda when you see it - you can't just say libertarianism takes all the good parts of the left and right and is the godly middle ground because a lot of the time, those good parts of left and right can't exist without their downsides.
#12 to #11
-
heartlessrobot (09/12/2015) [-] Giving implies you yourself are giving, not stealing from people that earned it and giving it to those that have not earned it.
#13 to #12
-
stepsword (09/12/2015) [-]
then tell me how that's a political stance? the short answer is it's not
Either A) it's a political stance which implies that the goal of it is to make the country better through regulated "giving"
or B) its propaganda to make libertarians seem like good people because theyre all supposedly generous
Either A) it's a political stance which implies that the goal of it is to make the country better through regulated "giving"
or B) its propaganda to make libertarians seem like good people because theyre all supposedly generous
#14 to #13
-
heartlessrobot (09/12/2015) [-] It's a political stance that would provide tax cuts to those that give, thereby rewarding those that give without ******* over those that can't.
And from what I gather, there's already something like that implemented.
And from what I gather, there's already something like that implemented.
#15 to #14
-
stepsword (09/12/2015) [-]
I'm no economics major, but doesn't rewarding people for donating to charity (for example) cost the government money? And if it costs the government money, don't they have to either make budget cuts or raise taxes to make up for that?
I mean say they reward 50$ for every 400$ donated. Then lets say 50 million people, a sixth of the population manage to make a 400$ donation - that's 250 million dollars out of the government's pocket, and it comes at the expense of something else. I mean obviously these numbers are made up, but even rewarding 12% for every dollar donated can result in a huge expenditure that comes out of SOMEONE's pocket, be it the education system, the science funding, the taxpayers, etc.
I mean say they reward 50$ for every 400$ donated. Then lets say 50 million people, a sixth of the population manage to make a 400$ donation - that's 250 million dollars out of the government's pocket, and it comes at the expense of something else. I mean obviously these numbers are made up, but even rewarding 12% for every dollar donated can result in a huge expenditure that comes out of SOMEONE's pocket, be it the education system, the science funding, the taxpayers, etc.
#16 to #15
-
heartlessrobot (09/12/2015) [-] I'd say there's definitely cuts that need to be made.
Or, better yet, actually ******* EXPAND NATIONAL INCOME.
We've got so many resources we aren't using because those twats don't want us to drill on our own soil. I respect nature, but we have enough that we can afford to go for our own oil. We could make a lot of money selling it.
Also, Nuclear Power would significantly lower how much we spend.
Or, better yet, actually ******* EXPAND NATIONAL INCOME.
We've got so many resources we aren't using because those twats don't want us to drill on our own soil. I respect nature, but we have enough that we can afford to go for our own oil. We could make a lot of money selling it.
Also, Nuclear Power would significantly lower how much we spend.
#17 to #16
-
stepsword (09/12/2015) [-]
I mean sure expanding national income is a good idea, but it's not exactly a political stance - I don't think there's anyone that would try to have a legitimate debate about why having a smaller national income is better.
What is a political stance is how much effort should be put into expanding national income - I'd imagine one party might argue that trying to expand national income is less effective than careful budgeting.
Anyway, expanding national income is not listed in the libertarian views in that image you posted, but "tolerance" and "respect" for others' property rights certainly is; the only place you can expect the government to be able to drill for oil on is places that they own. Places that are privately owned are obviously off limits, going into natural parks to do it would start riots on its own, and they can't exactly do it in the NSA's parking lot. I'm pretty sure they already do it in Alaska. In essence, I think that if it were legitimately feasible to increase the National Income, they're probably already doing what they can in that regard.
Which means it comes down to cutting the budget in places that have already been cut to make room for charity. In other words, we're taking money away from education, health care, research, or something else in order to provide for the needy; it's not wholly a bad thing but it has issues and a down side that is simply ignored in that image.
What is a political stance is how much effort should be put into expanding national income - I'd imagine one party might argue that trying to expand national income is less effective than careful budgeting.
Anyway, expanding national income is not listed in the libertarian views in that image you posted, but "tolerance" and "respect" for others' property rights certainly is; the only place you can expect the government to be able to drill for oil on is places that they own. Places that are privately owned are obviously off limits, going into natural parks to do it would start riots on its own, and they can't exactly do it in the NSA's parking lot. I'm pretty sure they already do it in Alaska. In essence, I think that if it were legitimately feasible to increase the National Income, they're probably already doing what they can in that regard.
Which means it comes down to cutting the budget in places that have already been cut to make room for charity. In other words, we're taking money away from education, health care, research, or something else in order to provide for the needy; it's not wholly a bad thing but it has issues and a down side that is simply ignored in that image.
#18 to #17
-
heartlessrobot (09/12/2015) [-] We've tried budgeting, but it hasn't succeeded in the past.
Trying the same thing over and over isn't going to work if it hasn't worked before.
Expansion should be priority.
Trying the same thing over and over isn't going to work if it hasn't worked before.
Expansion should be priority.
#3
-
lmOldGreg (09/11/2015) [-] John Cleese has echoed a sentiment here that has been washing around in my brain for a while which I couldn't just put into words. Alls I could think of also was those black girls shouting at that black lives matter **** over the white guy.
#5
-
Bloodgartham (09/11/2015) [-]
Has anyone sent this to schnizel & co? I feel they need to see this.
#7 to #6
-
Bloodgartham (09/11/2015) [-]
Aye, says the ones who want war to happen. War is political. I am not saying violance is not natural but war is always political and I fully believe that is changeable. Maybe not now, and most people will complain about idealism but that's just me.
