Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (2): akkere, lulzformalaysiaair, anonymous(10).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3782 - JHoYouKnow (07/10/2012) [-]
After looking through this board I can honestly say:
Holy shit you guys are crazy!

I like to debate politics, so I understand, I just hadn't met anybody ever with some of the fervor that this page has. It's just funny. Yes, crazy probably wasn't the right word, but it's just what was going through my mind nearly a 1/3 of what I read. Especially when I got three pages in and started reading the fascist dude's huge thread.

Anyway, I guess I should throw this out there: extreme liberal (yes, I'm voting for Obama) for what we have, but I strongly support anarchism as a means of self governing, eventually. If you want you can ask me shit... I'll try and answer.
User avatar #3810 to #3782 - scooterpony (07/11/2012) [-]
People are too stupid to govern themselves. The truth is, most people need help not hurting themselves and those around them. The average man needs someone to lead him around by the hand.
User avatar #3846 to #3810 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]
That's a common belief, and yes, anarchism is kind of an ideal in the sense that it's meant to be everyone having the identical idea of "we need to work together, no one needs to lead, everyone helps everyone." But, every government has been built on ideals (do you really think the founding fathers planned for our nations government to be the way it is currently?). As for the fact that you don't believe it can work, there have been instances where anarchism has thrived: there was a city in China where the police refused to go, and it created a system of apartments as well as running water and a serious community. It sounds far scarier than it is in practice.
User avatar #3828 to #3810 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
I completely disagree with you to the most extent possible. Why is it then that the government is so INCREDIBLY inefficient compared to the free market of self-interested "stupid" people? A study done by the Reason Foundation over many different areas where the government intervenes found that the government is 40% - 60% LESS efficient than the people you call "stupid".

You are an elitist for thinking that any man, or group of men, knows what is better for a someone they do not personally know. Please explain your reasoning.
User avatar #3803 to #3782 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
The Fascist guy is an idiot and everything he says is contradicting. Personally I am libertarian. I used to be extremely liberal myself until taking economics classes/ reading books on economics.
User avatar #3844 to #3803 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]
The main reason I'm not libertarian is because I feel like it's an unsustainable system. The way I understand libertarian is from most people identifying themselves and "Socially liberal and economically conservative." This is the equivalent, to me, of saying "I want no taxes, but support welfare programs and the like." Yes, that would be an ideal, but it is literally impossible.
User avatar #3845 to #3844 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
That's not quite correct, libertarians do not support welfare programs generally. The idea is for a laissez-faire style economy. If you look at the statistics, a free market economy is MUCH more efficient than one with a large government.

If you think about it, libertarianism is simply about freedom. Freedom economically and freedom socially.
User avatar #3847 to #3845 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]
That is an idea I can kind of support (kind of like a governed anarchism), but for some reason a lot of what I hear from libertarian leaders and civilians tends to be hard for me to agree with. Some of the main points is that I do support certain laws restricting business (child labor, minimum wage, etc.), and I heartily oppose the idea of eliminating something like the FDA, simply because I fear a system where any drug can exist (not current illicit drugs, but fake cancer treatments and the like) and there is no security or scrutiny over the food sold in a super market (I know they only do so much currently, but at the very least I'm left with a false sense of security).
User avatar #3852 to #3847 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
Okay... That wasn't really "quick".
User avatar #3851 to #3847 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
sorry sir, but your comment has VERY BAD economics. My head was spinning from it, let me point out a few things quickly- tell me if you want a more in-depth explanation.

1) Minimum Wage. Minimum wage helps the people who KEEP their jobs, because their wage goes up. However, how do employers deal with being legally required to pay people more? They hire less people. That means more people are unemployed, and I don't know about you, but having a job with a low wage is better than no job (believe me, this has an immense amount of research backing it, look it up). In addition, since employers hire less people, this allows them more of an opportunity to discriminate people when hiring employees. See a book by the economist Walter E. Williams (he is black) about this topic.

2) What makes you think if the FDA was eliminated that companies would just start doing whatever they like with foods and drugs? They wouldn't and I'll tell you why: because a private company could take the FDA's job and would do a MUCH more efficient job. There are very few things that the government does which a private institution could not.

3) Child labor... This is iffy. A child should be able to work if the child WANTS to I think, but obviously that is hard to determine. So I don't necessarily have a grievance with this what you wrote.

Keep this in mind: anything the government does is 40-60% less efficient as the free market. That includes if the FDA were replaced. The same thing happened with the United States Postal Service, which tried to hold an artificial monopoly on the market since it was government run. However, the service was so inefficient and had so much corruption that private companies soon took over the job much more efficiently.
User avatar #3854 to #3851 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]
With minimum wage I understand your point. My old gov teacher (libertarian) used to say he opposed unemployment benefits as well as minimum wage, and that really confused me. How could I possibly support myself when I'm unemployed if someone can pay me as little as they want? Laissez-faire economics is what started this country and people (the working class) where living in the worst conditions, while the rich got richer. Another thing that springs to mind when I think about a lack of minimum wage is something that occurred in the past: a company would pay their employees in self printed money (something I want to mention in a second), that led to a system where the people where forced into the company's city to use the otherwise useless money they were payed.


Honestly, I'd never really thought about the fact that the FDA would be replaced with a private company. However, my immediate reaction was that a private company (especially with an uninvolved government) is much easier to pay off than a government funded corporation (please, try not to get to into the conspiracy theories, I believe/hope the government isn't actually paid off by certain companies).

Child labor could be a good thing, but it's bad mostly because it leads to forced child labor (usually by the parents).

I don't necessarily believe that the postal service failed because of private sector competition (Fed Ex has existed for quite awhile), but instead believe it's because of a booming internet and it's usage. The postal service was far and above the best when letters were still useful, they only have started to fall since the intervention of email, and can't compete for payments in respect to packages.

Much like most government's beginnings, a lot of your stuff is based in idealism. I base all these things on the two liberterians I've learned the most from, Ron Paul and my gov teacher the above are from my teacher. And I've heard a lot of weird things from Ron Paul...
User avatar #3857 to #3854 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
Okay I had never heard the "company's money" thing before, but let me try to address every point. For starters, I still think it is more important to have more people employed as opposed to less. What do you tell the person who loses their job because a minimum wage law is put in place? You basically create a surplus of people willing to give their labor, and if they can not find a job at all they will result to other means of making money. They are also not able to climb the corporate ladder if they are unemployed.

Employers offering "company money"? I'm not quite sure why you made this point... If someone agrees to work for "company money" then they are obviously consenting to it. No one has to accept a job.

Private companies are NOT easier to pay off. Want to know why? Competition, there would be multiple companies that would all set their own individual standards for food, if one company screws up then another company would catch it very quick because of competition. This kind of thing happens with accounting firms that audit companies all the time. Know who DOESN'T have competition? The U.S. Government (or any other government for that matter). And yes, the FDA is much more likely to be bought off by lobbyists, I saw an entire 60 minutes episode about it on Sunday (I can look for it if you want?).

I was talking about the USPS in the early 1900's. It used to have a monopoly on the postal service but was corrupt and inefficient so companies similar to UPS and FedEx started privately doing this, and they did a much better job. I'm not talking about the current times at all, I know this because I wrote a paper about monopolies last year.

(continued...)
User avatar #3859 to #3857 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
A few things:

I believe liberalism is much more idealistic.

(1) Liberal economics is under the assumption that the reason there are problems with the economy is not because of problems with humans, but because the social institutions are flawed. The belief is that government can fix this. But the libertarian belief, shared by fiscal conservatives is that there are problems with the economy because humans are flawed (we are). That is why there are wealth differences, humans are not equal. The only problems with capitalism are the problems that exist in humans in the first place.

(2) Just because it is believed that government spending will help something, doesn't mean it is true. I view liberal economics as elitist because it is believed that government officials know how to allocate money better than the millions of citizens who are economically attached to these decisions. It has been proven throughout history that free market bear prosperity.
User avatar #3860 to #3859 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
This is also a very bad statement:

"How could I possibly support myself when I'm unemployed if someone can pay me as little as they want?"

They can't. They can only pay you what you are willing to accept. They either pay you more or find someone else willing to work for that amount. If there is someone willing to work for 1 dollar, they are consenting to it, then why is that wrong?
User avatar #3867 to #3860 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]
This is probably the nicest discussion I've had with an intelligent person opposed to me politically as well as any person on the internet. The problem is that neither of us are going to change (at least due to this conversation). Either way...

I'm going to try to sum up our differences...
You believe in the corporation and distrust the population, I believe in the people and distrust the corporation.
You look at a free market as the chance for open competition, which makes sense; but I feel as though the corporation has more power, without restrictions, than the people. When there are 300+ million people in America and what really ends up being <100 major companies (the number of which would shrink as one grows to the point of owning everything [probably Apple, unfortunately]) it is much easier for the small group of companies to band to together and create an artificial minimum wage, at something like $1/hour.

You've also stated multiple times that history has shown that the free market is the best. Starting with current world economics, the fastest growing economy at this moment is China; a country which, while having rudimentary free markets, is still a more Communist nation. If we instead choose to look at American history it is seen consistently that the time the country had the biggest gap between rich and poor was in early history, until somewhere around the start of the 20th century , when the focus was on keeping the government out of economics. It lead to the worst conditions for the working class, the most unsafe of any working conditions in history, the biggest monopolies putting a stranglehold on the consumer and the worker. It was only after WWII, when the government really stepped in to interfere with poor business practices that the economy had a strong upturn and the gap started closing.

(Continued)
User avatar #3868 to #3867 - JHoYouKnow (07/11/2012) [-]

Finally, the last problem I want to elaborate on that I have with Libertarians (wow that was worded badly), is Ron Paul. IDK if you like or dislike him (let me know), but from what I've seen and heard from both him and his (crazier) supporters is fucking ludicrous. He's racist, anti-Semitic, and plain out crazy in some of his beliefs... Then I see his fans (usually I try not to hate someone for their fans, but this goes beyond normal) writing all these crazy conspiracy theories about how he secretly won all the primaries and the media is afraid to admit it.

I'll give you a link to someone describing his crazier points. I don't blame you for not clicking it, I usually don't when I see one:
www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/
User avatar #3898 to #3868 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
I've actually had very good conversations on here, the best of which was with a Marxist too! I still have not given up hope that you change your mind on minimum wage law. Along with rent control laws and price ceilings for gas prices, they are terrible. Even if I still had liberal economic views, I would still strongly oppose these things- they make life much harder for the people they are trying to help.

I don't believe "in the corporation", I believe in the people as well. That's why I think that the people should have economic freedom. Let me point out some reasons that corporations become more monopolistic in the current economy rather than a free market one:
- Government lobbying creates benefits for big companies that put them above others (see link at the end of this paragraph). THis is one of the single worst problems with the government in America.
- Government bailouts (like for banks) are only given to very large corporations. This means those banks or companies can do whatever they like and still get bailed out, this happened to Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman brothers (except the Fed erroneously let Lehman Brothers fall, causing the market to be even more unstable). Another consequence is that companies start merging because they want to be bigger so they are guaranteed to be bailed out.
- GSE's or "Government Sponsored Enterprises" are companies, similar to the USPS that are run largely by the government. A good example of GSE's ruining the economy are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the mortgage giants. The two companies consistently loose money every year (2 of the few countries in the fortune 500 that have a negative profit). Regardless of how badly they're run, they will always be bailed out by the government. Not only that, but they were also two of the biggest causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Here is a link to the 60 minutes episode I was talking about:

www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
User avatar #3901 to #3898 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
As for libertarians, you don't know any really good ones to base an opinion. I like Ron Paul a lot, but mostly because he is not a typical politician- he stands up for what he believes in, even if I don't always agree. Also, he does have many many books, and they're actually completely history-based and I think you would find much more merit in those arguments. I read the bullet points of the article.. some of it is bull shit and some of it is true. Obviously the abortion on is true and I do not agree with him on it, along with some of the others. But let me present you this link to a Ron Paul video to discount the thought of him being "racist". Maybe he is deep down, but just because he opposes affirmative action doesn't mean he is:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Take it or leave it, the video just almost brings tears to my eyes. If you want to real libertarian economics see F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand.
User avatar #3902 to #3901 - airguitar (07/11/2012) [-]
Also, I'm voting for Gary Johnson, not Paul.
#3789 to #3782 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz2NYs3XzLqZMzhmMkdMb2dRZkU/edit?pli=1
The government is Freemasons and dildos everywhere
The votes already decided, the builderberg club decided on it weeks ago
0
#3788 to #3782 - ariachnotred has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3784 to #3782 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
ignore the fascist dude. both of his accounts have been banned...
User avatar #3790 to #3784 - JHoYouKnow (07/10/2012) [-]
Yeah, I saw your arguments with him. Made me respect YOU more...
User avatar #3791 to #3790 - szymonf (07/10/2012) [-]
really? thanks
 Friends (0)