Antibiotics show free market failure

[Seth]

You can't have millions of people living in cities with electricity and the primary producers working their land with horses and arranging commerce via telegram. It simply couldn't work.

Indeed. And therein lies the beauty of the free markets. Because it couldn't work, the demand would produce supply.

If power companies charged the rural sector for it's electrical infrastructure, then the farmers would have to pass that cost onto the consumers in the city.

And that's a bad thing because?

How are they going to pay for it?

The same way they pay for everything else.

Of course the top end of town could probably afford it, but how will everyone else??

I suspect they might get together and fund a rural cooperative electrical company that would extend electrical service to their agricultural producers in order to lower the costs of produce.

I know you don't actually care about those less fortunate than yourself, so I suppose it is meaningless asking you this question.

Go fuck yourself rEv, then stick your head back in the oven.

Organising a stable and viable food supply is obviously (along with clean water) the most important thing a government has to do for it's people.

Why does the government have to do this? The government did nothing of the sort for the first 150 years of this nation's existence. "The government" has proven to be particularly inept and unable to centrally plan agriculture, as the Soviet Union and Venezuela (not to mention Cuba) prove.

Free markets are much better, more efficient and less costly, not to mention billions of times more accurate at predicting what consumers want to buy than government can ever be.

It's more important than health and education. I.e. it is the absolute basics of survival. Without a stable and affordable food supply, there really isn't much use in electing a government. Everything else is secondary to those basic needs.

And why is it that you think that only government can take charge of this important aspect of civilization, particularly in the face of the millennia of failure after failure of governments of every sort and style to actually manage to do so in any long-term sense.

The best manager of agriculture is the free market.

I can show you places in Colorado where the power companies were obliged to build, at NO COST to the landowner, transmission lines as much as 20 miles long through rugged mountains and forest just to supply a few cabins and a commercial hunting lodge in the middle of the Grand Mesa. Over a million dollars was spent and paid by the ratepayers to put in that service, and more to maintain it for the last 80 years, when the owners could much more cheaply have installed their own generators and fuel supplies at their own cost.

If they couldn't afford their own power source, then they could have done without or simply not built in the middle of the forest and expected others to pay for their power.

There's obviously going to be specific anecdotes where the cost probably wasn't worth the return. But as an overall principle, a nation needs a food supply. A food supply for a booming nation needs electricity.

If that's what it needs, that's what it will get, without any government intervention whatsoever. Government came along after the fact when it came to electricity and meddled where it wasn't needed and drove costs up for everyone for very little by way of return on investment. Free markets are far better at determining which farms need power and which don't than government is.

If the economics didn't work out, no farmingstarvation. That's how it's supposed to work in a free market.

Wrong. Starvation creates demand. Demand creates supply. Absent some circumstance that prevents the growing of crops the market will always supply sufficient food to meet the demand. Government is not capable of manufacturing food in an agricultural crisis situation. At best it can stockpile iron rations to deal with localized famine or lack of productive capacity, which is what it should be doing.

The last time government meddled in the agricultural markets and PRODUCED hunger and starvation was FDR's meddling during the Great Depression, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which didn't produce more food, it LIMITED food production by law in order to prop up profits, which resulted in real hunger and starvation when farmers were FORBIDDEN by law to grow as much food as they were capable of growing. The most disgusting example of this is the seminal case of Wickard v. Filburn which solidified the Progressive central planning cancer that is rapidly destroying this nation today.

If you need food, you either grow it or pay someone else to grow it for you. Your demand for food creates a market for a farmer to grow something to meet that demand...if you are willing to pay him to do so. If not, then you starve, and should, because to force him to labor on your behalf against his will and without compensation is called "slavery", which is far, far worse than you starving to death.

[Seth]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

[pErvinalia]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

but they are not that way by choice. There simply aren't jobs for these people. And even amongst that percentage, there would be rotation of workers in and out.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

You either believe in the free market or you don't. In your case, like most conservatives, your ridiculous morals get in the way of a pure ideological belief. It's why we see conservatives constantly railing against the poor and disable and disadvantaged, and saying almost fuck all about the MASSIVE sums of money that are being siphoned off by the rich. Do you really fucking think that the rich would choose not to take a still gigantic profit if they couldn't get away with avoiding tax, or if they couldn't get a giant government hand out? In the latter case, they will just move to a more profitable investment. Remember, the rich aren't investing anything tangible. It's just money. Money can be moved and reposition with far more ease than real people can pick up their lives and move or retrain or travel for large hours of the day.

Oh, and:

[rainbow]

Just because you think some public project is a good idea doesn't mean you're right or that everyone (or anyone) else should be obliged to pay for it.

...so if your neighbour were to just leave their trash in front of their house, and poo in their back garden, they shouldn't be coerced into paying for it to be removed?

I'm not so sure about this Libertarian ideal of yours.

Unless the trash and poo are exporting actual harm such as vermin or disease or odors from his property, which constitutes an initiation of force, what he does on his property is none of your business. If you don't like his lifestyle, persuade him to change it, help him change it or pay him to change it, or put up with it because his right to live as he pleases without initiating force or fraud against you is equal to yours.

When you begin authorizing the government to regulate aesthetics rather than regulating only force or fraud you open the door to all manner of government mischief and interference with individual rights under the guise of collective decision making until you have places in the US where the local government tells you where your house can be built on your property, what color it has to be, how many windows you can have and in which walls, what landscaping you must install and maintain in perpetuity, etc., all because they think that their collective aesthetic judgment is superior to yours and your neighbors don't want to have to look at something they find aesthetically unpleasing.

If I want to erect a silo on my ranch and artistically transform it into a giant pink phallus with the worlds "Fuck the County Commissars" on it, it's my First Amendment right to do so, even if you don't want to look at it.

Who gets to define "an initiation of force"?

Is there a Libertarianist handbook that defines these things?

[pErvinalia]

Libertarians get to define "initiation of force". If it annoys them, it is initiation of force.

[Warren Dew]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

I just have to disagree in the case of things like the GM bailout and the Solyndra subsidy. Those were just giveaways. If GM hadn't been bailed out, it would have gone through bankruptcy - which happened anyway - but the wealth would still have been produced, either by whatever parts of GM that came through bankruptcy or by competitors who took up the slack. Solyndra never produced any actual wealth at all.

If any corporate welfare is actually necessary, it should be handled like personal welfare is handled - through voluntary contributions by people giving up their own money.

[MrJonno]

Libertarians get to define "initiation of force". If it annoys them, it is initiation of force.

I get to define it as well,

The first initiation of force that someone makes is being born with their atoms taking up space that no gave them permission to do. They then proceed to breathe taking in other people oxygen and even worse they breath out bacteria and viruses and effectively make an biological assault on the rest of humanity.

Basically any persons existence is an initiation of force, I think on the whole society should accept this initiation of force as while breathing is definitely a physical and biological assault its pretty useful and we all tend to do it.

[piscator]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

Union workers at GM, or the ones at USSteel, PPG Industries, Delco, Bosch, Allison, Burlington, Sherwin Williams Paints, JBHunt trucking, IBM and EDS, Autolite, Prestone, Quaker State, Doorman Gaskets, etc? Because, for every UAW GM employee who gets an expensive insurance package as a result of despicable Marxist collective bargaining instead of his own personal dynamic entrepreneurial initiative and just plain working harder than millions of his coworkers, there are legions of union and nonunion workers supplying him.
The auto industry goes about as deep into America's industrial base as anything. So when you relent to GM's demands so they don't move entirely to China, you're also propping up American manufacturing as a whole, so they don't move entirely to China.

[Seth]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

but they are not that way by choice.

Some of them are. Others of them are being economically bound to dependence in an evil plot to control their votes.

There simply aren't jobs for these people.

There are jobs that they don't want to do available for them. Why is it that Mexicans and other South Americans are flooding over the border right now if there are no jobs available for them? There are. But they are jobs that many in the dependent class refuse to do, and they are facilitated in that arrogance and pride by a system that pays them to be that way.

And even amongst that percentage, there would be rotation of workers in and out.

There is.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

You either believe in the free market or you don't.

I do.

In your case, like most conservatives, your ridiculous morals get in the way of a pure ideological belief.

You mistake my statement of fact for an expression of my ideological preferences.

It's why we see conservatives constantly railing against the poor and disable and disadvantaged,

Show me. I don't see conservatives "constantly railing against the poor and disabled and disadvantaged," I see them railing against feel-good, do-nothing Progressive Marxist programs that don't help people out of perennial dependence but rather bind them to it perpetually and generationally.

Conservatives are not "against" the poor, they are just against the evil and manifestly political plans of the left to bind poor people to the left politically because the left has made them dependent on government largess for their very existence. Liberal programs are cynical and evil plots to garner votes of poor people by threatening to cut off their government checks if they don't vote for liberals.

Conservatives want to bring people OUT of poverty for their betterment and the betterment of society. Unfortunately it's much easier to convince poor people to vote for you by promising them more government largess and less work than it is to convince them if they work hard and the economy prospers they too will prosper.

Conservatives want to eliminate poverty. Liberals want to bind people to poverty in order to secure their votes.

and saying almost fuck all about the MASSIVE sums of money that are being siphoned off by the rich.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that rich people stuff their mattresses with cash. Sorry, but that's a zero-sum fallacy you've got going there.

Do you really fucking think that the rich would choose not to take a still gigantic profit if they couldn't get away with avoiding tax, or if they couldn't get a giant government hand out? In the latter case, they will just move to a more profitable investment. Remember, the rich aren't investing anything tangible. It's just money. Money can be moved and reposition with far more ease than real people can pick up their lives and move or retrain or travel for large hours of the day.

[/quote]

No, it's not money, it's capital. When one day you come to understand the difference between money and capital, you will perhaps understand why your arguments are based in utter ignorance and mindless bigotry.

[Seth]

Who gets to define "an initiation of force"?

Is there a Libertarianist handbook that defines these things?

There are principles upon which decisions are made.

Pose an example and I'll analyze it with you.

[pErvinalia]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

but they are not that way by choice.

Some of them are. Others of them are being economically bound to dependence in an evil plot to control their votes.

Ok, Glen Beck.

There simply aren't jobs for these people.

There are jobs that they don't want to do available for them. Why is it that Mexicans and other South Americans are flooding over the border right now if there are no jobs available for them? There are. But they are jobs that many in the dependent class refuse to do, and they are facilitated in that arrogance and pride by a system that pays them to be that way.

Rubbish. The reason the illegals get the jobs is that they are massively underpaid. The only way American unemployed could get those jobs would be to work illegally.

And even amongst that percentage, there would be rotation of workers in and out.

There is.

So those aren't part of the mythical "dependent class" you dolt!

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

You either believe in the free market or you don't.

I do.

In your case, like most conservatives, your ridiculous morals get in the way of a pure ideological belief.

You mistake my statement of fact for an expression of my ideological preferences.

No, it's simple, Seth. You support welfare for the rich and not the poor. That's an ideological failure.

It's why we see conservatives constantly railing against the poor and disable and disadvantaged,

Show me. I don't see conservatives "constantly railing against the poor and disabled and disadvantaged," I see them railing against feel-good, do-nothing Progressive Marxist programs that don't help people out of perennial dependence but rather bind them to it perpetually and generationally.

You have got to fucking kidding me??! Get back under your rock, you fucking troll.

Conservatives are not "against" the poor, they are just against the evil and manifestly political plans of the left to bind poor people to the left politically because the left has made them dependent on government largess for their very existence. Liberal programs are cynical and evil plots to garner votes of poor people by threatening to cut off their government checks if they don't vote for liberals.

You can't seriously believe this shit, can you?? Do you wear a tinfoil hat too???

Conservatives want to bring people OUT of poverty for their betterment and the betterment of society. Unfortunately it's much easier to convince poor people to vote for you by promising them more government largess and less work than it is to convince them if they work hard and the economy prospers they too will prosper.

Conservatives want to eliminate poverty.

What an absolute load of unmitigated shit! Capitalism REQUIRES an exploited underclass. Without it the motivation to slave away at shit jobs, and being treated like shit, evaporates. It's well known that conservatives suffer under the fervent belief of "moral hazard". These morals are based on regressive religious thinking and not on modern psychological evidence of how humans act. Conservatives don't give a shit about someone in poverty. All they can see is a moral hazard which emanates from the ancient reptile part of their simple brains. Moral hazard, must destroy! Hulk smash!

and saying almost fuck all about the MASSIVE sums of money that are being siphoned off by the rich.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that rich people stuff their mattresses with cash. Sorry, but that's a zero-sum fallacy you've got going there.

You really are fucking clueless. The amount of money stuffed in tax-free havens across the world rivals the size of the American economy. That is, many trillions of dollars removed from the tax system. And even from the taxed money, large amounts of it leaves offshore to the third world. And before you bleat on about free trade, the majority of that money winds up in the hands of the nouveau rich in those countries and lining the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians in those countries.

Do you really fucking think that the rich would choose not to take a still gigantic profit if they couldn't get away with avoiding tax, or if they couldn't get a giant government hand out? In the latter case, they will just move to a more profitable investment. Remember, the rich aren't investing anything tangible. It's just money. Money can be moved and reposition with far more ease than real people can pick up their lives and move or retrain or travel for large hours of the day.

No, it's not money, it's capital. When one day you come to understand the difference between money and capital, you will perhaps understand why your arguments are based in utter ignorance and mindless bigotry.

It's the same thing, in my example. Capital can move much more easily than real flesh and bones can. Stop avoiding the point, troll.

[Seth]

So you envisage a huge class of people who are dependent, but not workers?? Lol. The number of people who aren't workers outside of the old and the young and the permanently injured/disabled is usually only about 10% or so. And that's a rotating number. That is, it's not the same ten percent over time. It's usually only a very small percent that are permanently unemployable. THEY aren't the problem. The problem is the top end of town that siphons huge profits offshore to tax havens, and employ tactics only available to the rich to avoid paying much tax at all. They are also the recipients of VAST sums of corporate welfare that DWARFS the welfare of that small percentage at the other end of the welfare spectrum.

The number of unemployed (black) youth under age 25 or so in the major inner cites hovers around 45 percent or more.

That's a dependent class.

but they are not that way by choice.

Some of them are. Others of them are being economically bound to dependence in an evil plot to control their votes.

Ok, Glen Beck.

I note, as usual, that when you cannot formulate a reasoned answer in rebuttal you have resorted to personal invective. You're as predictable as the sunrise.

There simply aren't jobs for these people.

There are jobs that they don't want to do available for them. Why is it that Mexicans and other South Americans are flooding over the border right now if there are no jobs available for them? There are. But they are jobs that many in the dependent class refuse to do, and they are facilitated in that arrogance and pride by a system that pays them to be that way.

Rubbish. The reason the illegals get the jobs is that they are massively underpaid.

No, they get the same wage anyone doing that job gets, that's the law.

The only way American unemployed could get those jobs would be to work illegally.

Er, no, they could get off their asses, quit taking money from the government and move to where the work is. But it's easier to take the government dole, so they do.

And even amongst that percentage, there would be rotation of workers in and out.

There is.

So those aren't part of the mythical "dependent class" you dolt!

They are when they are depending on government largess to make ends meet, fuckwit.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

You either believe in the free market or you don't.

I do.

In your case, like most conservatives, your ridiculous morals get in the way of a pure ideological belief.

You mistake my statement of fact for an expression of my ideological preferences.

No, it's simple, Seth. You support welfare for the rich and not the poor. That's an ideological failure.

I don't support welfare for anyone. I support things like government-sponsored industrial and vocational training courses for the unemployed that they are required to attend if they expect to get a check. I support bus tickets for the unemployed at government expense to ship them to places where labor is needed...as opposed to spending millions shipping illegal alien children to Arizona to overwhelm the social services system in a Cloward and Piven attack on the government. I support assistance for those who are physically incapable of working and hunger for those who are physically capable of working.

It's why we see conservatives constantly railing against the poor and disable and disadvantaged,

Show me. I don't see conservatives "constantly railing against the poor and disabled and disadvantaged," I see them railing against feel-good, do-nothing Progressive Marxist programs that don't help people out of perennial dependence but rather bind them to it perpetually and generationally.

You have got to fucking kidding me??! Get back under your rock, you fucking troll.

I knew you had nothing in your quiver, so your insults are highly predictable and indicative of your lack of mental acumen and intelligence.

Conservatives are not "against" the poor, they are just against the evil and manifestly political plans of the left to bind poor people to the left politically because the left has made them dependent on government largess for their very existence. Liberal programs are cynical and evil plots to garner votes of poor people by threatening to cut off their government checks if they don't vote for liberals.

You can't seriously believe this shit, can you?? Do you wear a tinfoil hat too???

I believe the self-evident and obvious truths of the liberal dependence agenda that I see in action every day and more and more so with each passing hour.

Conservatives want to bring people OUT of poverty for their betterment and the betterment of society. Unfortunately it's much easier to convince poor people to vote for you by promising them more government largess and less work than it is to convince them if they work hard and the economy prospers they too will prosper.

Conservatives want to eliminate poverty.

What an absolute load of unmitigated shit!

You certainly are.

Capitalism REQUIRES an exploited underclass.

Nah. It requires people who don't want to take the risks associated with capital risk who prefer a steady paycheck instead.

Without it the motivation to slave away at shit jobs, and being treated like shit, evaporates.

Hunger is a great motivator. What makes you think you have a right to a non-shit job? You don't. You earn a non-shit job by being productive and generating wealth. When you sit on your ass and do nothing but carp about how shitty your job is, you get what you deserve: a shittier job or no job at all.

It's well known that conservatives suffer under the fervent belief of "moral hazard". These morals are based on regressive religious thinking and not on modern psychological evidence of how humans act. Conservatives don't give a shit about someone in poverty. All they can see is a moral hazard which emanates from the ancient reptile part of their simple brains. Moral hazard, must destroy! Hulk smash!

Well, it seems they are right about the "moral hazard" of allowing a liberal government that panders to the dependent class rather than a government that expects individual responsibility and hard work. Alexander Tytler got it right more than 200 years ago, and we are living that truth right now.

and saying almost fuck all about the MASSIVE sums of money that are being siphoned off by the rich.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that rich people stuff their mattresses with cash. Sorry, but that's a zero-sum fallacy you've got going there.

You really are fucking clueless.

So you'd like to think...if you were actually capable of thinking rather than the knee-jerk liberal twaddle you spout at the slightest provocation.

The amount of money stuffed in tax-free havens across the world rivals the size of the American economy.

And you think that money just sits there doing nothing? You need some remedial education in the banking system. Just because it's tax free in the US doesn't mean it's not hard at work generating wealth.

That is, many trillions of dollars removed from the tax system.

Good. The more wealth we can shelter from cupidinous politicians the better off we are as a species.

And even from the taxed money, large amounts of it leaves offshore to the third world.

And you think the third world doesn't need that capital? What kind of elitist selfish swine are you? Those people are far more poor than anyone in the US or the UK.

And before you bleat on about free trade, the majority of that money winds up in the hands of the nouveau rich in those countries and lining the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians in those countries.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Money, you see, like rust, never sleeps and doesn't line anyone's pockets for very long before it's spent on something, something that required labor to create, which requires capital investment and workers, which employs people and generates wealth. It's an endless cycle.

Do you really fucking think that the rich would choose not to take a still gigantic profit if they couldn't get away with avoiding tax, or if they couldn't get a giant government hand out? In the latter case, they will just move to a more profitable investment. Remember, the rich aren't investing anything tangible. It's just money. Money can be moved and reposition with far more ease than real people can pick up their lives and move or retrain or travel for large hours of the day.

No, it's not money, it's capital. When one day you come to understand the difference between money and capital, you will perhaps understand why your arguments are based in utter ignorance and mindless bigotry.

It's the same thing, in my example.

No it's not, and therein lies the fundamental problem with your idiotic rebuttal.

Capital can move much more easily than real flesh and bones can. Stop avoiding the point, troll.

Of course it can. That's what it's supposed to do. Capital is like water poured out on a hill. Call the hill taxes and the water capital. Capital flows away from taxation as inevitably as water flows downhill. It's supposed to do that. Taxation is like evaporation, which steals from the supply available to no useful purpose whatsoever.

Anything done by coercive taxation that really needs to be done will be done through voluntary contributions. That's what capitalism and free markets prove. Build a better mousetrap and capital will follow you around begging to be invested.

Sit on your ass with your hand out and capital will ignore you, as it should.

[pErvinalia]

Some of them are. Others of them are being economically bound to dependence in an evil plot to control their votes.

Ok, Glen Beck.

I note, as usual, that when you cannot formulate a reasoned answer in rebuttal you have resorted to personal invective. You're as predictable as the sunrise.

What do you fucking expect?!? You peddle idiotic conspiracy theories, and you think you deserve respect? Fucking LOL. Start showing an ability to critically think and then you will get taken seriously.

There simply aren't jobs for these people.

There are jobs that they don't want to do available for them. Why is it that Mexicans and other South Americans are flooding over the border right now if there are no jobs available for them? There are. But they are jobs that many in the dependent class refuse to do, and they are facilitated in that arrogance and pride by a system that pays them to be that way.

Rubbish. The reason the illegals get the jobs is that they are massively underpaid.

No, they get the same wage anyone doing that job gets, that's the law.

WTF?!? Of course they don't. They are off the books. THey don't get the same industrial protections that legal workers get. Show me this law and the statistics that say that illegals are working legally (if they are working legally, then how the fuck are they illegal?? Shouldn't they be kicked out of the country??).

The only way American unemployed could get those jobs would be to work illegally.

Er, no, they could get off their asses, quit taking money from the government and move to where the work is. But it's easier to take the government dole, so they do.

Conservative moral hazard. Absolutely nothing to back up your hate other than idiotic conservative morals. Where's your evidence that these people lazy?

And even amongst that percentage, there would be rotation of workers in and out.

There is.

So those aren't part of the mythical "dependent class" you dolt!

They are when they are depending on government largess to make ends meet, fuckwit.

WTF?!? You claimed earlier that the 10% unemployed at any given moment in an economy WEREN'T the "dependent class". Stop back flipping. It only shows how terrible you are at constructing an argument.

"Corporate welfare" exists because what corporations get from the government is dwarfed by the wealth that they produce in return. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but it's not just a giveaway, it's a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people. You are aware that Obama nationalized GM in order to keep union workers employed, right? Talk about your corporate welfare....

You either believe in the free market or you don't.

I do.

In your case, like most conservatives, your ridiculous morals get in the way of a pure ideological belief.

You mistake my statement of fact for an expression of my ideological preferences.

No, it's simple, Seth. You support welfare for the rich and not the poor. That's an ideological failure.

I don't support welfare for anyone.

"...it's [corporate welfare] a way of supporting the economic success of vital industries that generate wealth and employ people." Yes, you really hate it, don't you. Quite simply, you are happy to accept a certain amount of corporate welfare and rail like a rabid squirrel about welfare at the bottom end of society. You are just like all conservatives. Suffering from irrational moral dictates.

I support things like government-sponsored industrial and vocational training courses for the unemployed that they are required to attend if they expect to get a check. I support bus tickets for the unemployed at government expense to ship them to places where labor is needed...as opposed to spending millions shipping illegal alien children to Arizona to overwhelm the social services system in a Cloward and Piven attack on the government. I support assistance for those who are physically incapable of working and hunger for those who are physically capable of working.

As usual, with libertarians, the psychological aspect is absent. It's so damn tiring discussing this shit with people who refuse to learn about human psychology.

It's why we see conservatives constantly railing against the poor and disable and disadvantaged,

Show me. I don't see conservatives "constantly railing against the poor and disabled and disadvantaged," I see them railing against feel-good, do-nothing Progressive Marxist programs that don't help people out of perennial dependence but rather bind them to it perpetually and generationally.

You have got to fucking kidding me??! Get back under your rock, you fucking troll.

I knew you had nothing in your quiver, so your insults are highly predictable and indicative of your lack of mental acumen and intelligence.

You are simply trolling. There is no way in this universe that you are serious. YOU FUCKING RAILED AGAINST POOR AND DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE IN THIS FUCKING THREAD, NEY IN THIS FUCKING POST. Goddamn, I don't know why I continue to even give you even the most minor respect by replying to your idiotic arguments.

Conservatives are not "against" the poor, they are just against the evil and manifestly political plans of the left to bind poor people to the left politically because the left has made them dependent on government largess for their very existence. Liberal programs are cynical and evil plots to garner votes of poor people by threatening to cut off their government checks if they don't vote for liberals.

You can't seriously believe this shit, can you?? Do you wear a tinfoil hat too???

I believe the self-evident and obvious truths of the liberal dependence agenda that I see in action every day and more and more so with each passing hour.

Yeah, and I believe there is an illumanti of rich conservatives micromanaging the world. See how your idiotic conspiracy is the same as the opposite idiotic conspiracy?

Conservatives want to bring people OUT of poverty for their betterment and the betterment of society. Unfortunately it's much easier to convince poor people to vote for you by promising them more government largess and less work than it is to convince them if they work hard and the economy prospers they too will prosper.

Conservatives want to eliminate poverty.

What an absolute load of unmitigated shit!

You certainly are.

Why are you chopping my posts into little pieces. Are you trolling?

Capitalism REQUIRES an exploited underclass.

Nah. It requires people who don't want to take the risks associated with capital risk who prefer a steady paycheck instead.

Absolute bullshit, as YOUR OWN REPLY below shows.

Without it the motivation to slave away at shit jobs, and being treated like shit, evaporates.

Hunger is a great motivator.

As i said, 'exploited underclass'.

What makes you think you have a right to a non-shit job? You don't.

As i said, 'exploited underclass'.

It's well known that conservatives suffer under the fervent belief of "moral hazard". These morals are based on regressive religious thinking and not on modern psychological evidence of how humans act. Conservatives don't give a shit about someone in poverty. All they can see is a moral hazard which emanates from the ancient reptile part of their simple brains. Moral hazard, must destroy! Hulk smash!

Well, it seems they are right about the "moral hazard" of allowing a liberal government that panders to the dependent class rather than a government that expects individual responsibility and hard work.

But it's not based in an understanding of human psychology. It hinges on the false belief that we are independent free willed agents who can at any moment choose to ignore everything that has gone on up till that point. It also fails to take account of institutional disadvantage, and bigotry the likes displayed by you and Dave Dodo and Coito and other conservatives.

and saying almost fuck all about the MASSIVE sums of money that are being siphoned off by the rich.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that rich people stuff their mattresses with cash. Sorry, but that's a zero-sum fallacy you've got going there.

You really are fucking clueless.

So you'd like to think...if you were actually capable of thinking rather than the knee-jerk liberal twaddle you spout at the slightest provocation.

That money is removed from your national economy. It's got nothing to do with liberal conspiracies. It's simple economics. The rich are syphoning off huge amounts of money from our national economies, and then we get them and puppets like you complain that we can't afford to provide a welfare safety net for the most disadvantaged in our societies.

The amount of money stuffed in tax-free havens across the world rivals the size of the American economy.

And you think that money just sits there doing nothing? You need some remedial education in the banking system. Just because it's tax free in the US doesn't mean it's not hard at work generating wealth.

Um, not in the US it isn't. You can do better than this, Seth.

That is, many trillions of dollars removed from the tax system.

Good. The more wealth we can shelter from cupidinous politicians the better off we are as a species.

And there it is! Relief for the rich (aka rich welfare). Why do you even pretend you think otherwise. Why do we constantly have to do through these debates with you erecting a false façade to pretend that you are driven by a libertarian ideology? You are driven by seflish and hateful conservative morals. The rich are good because they are rich, and the poor are bad because they are poor.

And even from the taxed money, large amounts of it leaves offshore to the third world.

And you think the third world doesn't need that capital? What kind of elitist selfish swine are you? Those people are far more poor than anyone in the US or the UK.

Trolling again. I answer this in the following sentence. Stop trolling.

And before you bleat on about free trade, the majority of that money winds up in the hands of the nouveau rich in those countries and lining the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians in those countries.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Money, you see, like rust, never sleeps and doesn't line anyone's pockets for very long before it's spent on something, something that required labor to create, which requires capital investment and workers, which employs people and generates wealth. It's an endless cycle.

Yes, we know how trickle down works. That's why we've seen massive increases in inequality since neoliberalism and trickle down nonsense took hold in the 80's. Conservative to the core, Seth.

Do you really fucking think that the rich would choose not to take a still gigantic profit if they couldn't get away with avoiding tax, or if they couldn't get a giant government hand out? In the latter case, they will just move to a more profitable investment. Remember, the rich aren't investing anything tangible. It's just money. Money can be moved and reposition with far more ease than real people can pick up their lives and move or retrain or travel for large hours of the day.

No, it's not money, it's capital. When one day you come to understand the difference between money and capital, you will perhaps understand why your arguments are based in utter ignorance and mindless bigotry.

It's the same thing, in my example.

No it's not, and therein lies the fundamental problem with your idiotic rebuttal.

It is, as I explain in the next sentence. Stop trolling. It isn't a substitute for an argument.

Capital can move much more easily than real flesh and bones can. Stop avoiding the point, troll.

Of course it can.

So why are you arguing the point then?? Is it because you are a troll?

[Hermit]

Wow! Just wow, rEvolutionist. Are you somehow confident that you will live forever? I have all the time in the world, and yet not enough to give Seth's execrable effluent more than a cursory glance, let alone reply to it point by point. The most I do is to skim his crap or read some bits of what others quote of him, and take the occasional potshot at his lolbertardianism for my own amusement.

My scroll wheel almost overheated through the above four posts, by the way.

[pErvinalia]

Haha... yeah, usually I just skim read his crap and only reply to small sections. But when he starts doing the chop suey thing, sometimes I can't help myself. I'm also in a strangely motivated mood in the last week or two to debate politics and conservatives. It's pretty close to wearing off. Soon I'll be back to ignoring his idiotic conspiracy theories and religious worship of the free market.