libertarian religion of self = millionaire lady collecting food stamps

1. 69

   bgamallposted 12 years ago

   There is no difference between the millionaire lady who collected food stamps and the libertarian religion of self and selfishness. Only the libertarian religion is codified and is a philosophy that puts self first.
   
   Mankind has moments of good behavior, but mankind is not good, which makes libertarians dangerous, as they believe self interest will make everything good in society. This is a naive utopianism:
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/food-stamp-millio … 00238.html

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      if you're going to call libertarianism a religion, then so will be liberalism and conservatism.
      
      You seem to not understand how "saying things now will bite you in the bum later", as is evidenced in your comments about Ron Paul, despite not understanding his philosophies, and further evidenced by your posts about the definition of the word "middle".
      
      All this aside, your post is clearly a troll post designed to garner a response from me.
      
      I understand that it is difficult for a liberal to understand, but receiving welfare is theft, and earning money on your own is called "earning money".
      
      Oh well, I tried.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I wanted to point out that the REAL debate on this forum is about the issues I talked about in the post here. No one has bothered to counter any of my points.
         
         That's how I know it was a troll post.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What post where? BTW, I think that the exaltation of self is psychopathic, and libertarianism has a high percentage of psychopaths among it's members.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No one has addressed the core of my arguments still?
               
               ... glad I wasted my time.
               
               Keep trollin' trollin' trollin'.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I can never understand the core of your arguments in three words or less. That is your problem Evan.

                  replyreport
   2. 72

      The Frog Princeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah well, I caught this young lady's act.  She feels that she is still "entitled" to collect $200 a monthly in food assistance despite hitting the lottery for a million. The problem lies in the fact that for decades now our society has bred that entitlement attitude into youth.  They feel that it is selfish of those who foot the bill to deny them their "rights."  Rubbish.
      
      The Frog

      replyreport
      1. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Your problem is that you can't seem to distinguish between necessary entitlement and unnecessary entitlement.
         
         Unnecessary entitlement is based upon the libertarian philosophy of greed and self interest first. The way it plays out with libertarians is that they view taxes as stealing and they don't give government its legitimate place. But it is the same sort of selfishness. Selfishness is selfishness.
         
         The libertarians are subversive, sort of like the communists but different.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Social Darwinism is another term for it. Or Rand's objectivism.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Survival of the fittest, is it!

               replyreport
            2. 62

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If you want to call "freedom" "social darwinism", then it is only fair to call "our current government" "addictive poison".
               
               People become addicted to the welfare state and can't leave the system. The government claims to be able to fix poverty, and has utterly failed in its 60 year+ journey.
               
               Companies become addicted to federal funding, and now we have endless wars continued by spineless, war-mongering politicians. Now countless resources are funneled into pointless wars. It's gotten to the point where even the anti-war party is pro-war.
               
               Our educators are addicted to the state. People are ACTUALLY taught that "spending massively on killing people" is GOOD for the economy!
               
               I'll take "survival of the fittest" over "forced poison" any day.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I knew you would.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You'll take the poison?
                     
                     Oh wait, you don't have a choice.
                     
                     *gulp*, see ya!

                     replyreport
2. 69

   bgamallposted 12 years ago

   Come on Evan, give it your best shot! Any other resident libertarians in the house who would like to pick a fight with me??

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're picking a fight, not me.
      
      Your God King, Obama awaits your kiss upon his ring.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Obama is the lesser of two evils. I never said I was a fan. I just know what I know when it comes to the libertarian excuse for big business to screw the rest of us.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Last time I checked, "the lesser of two evils" has had us over a barrel for the past 3 years.
            
            Lord knows I never signed the bailouts into law.
            
            That's a wrap.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I am for the winding down of the TBTF banks one at a time. Neither party seems to have the guts to do that. However, both parties bailed out the banks, and if we had not stopped the money market run from our money markets, our financial system would have even had a greater collapse.
               
               I was not against bailouts, but we should have got the bonuses back and a piece of the companies bailed out, including JPM and GS.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm still waiting for my free car from GM too.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Don't hold your breath.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        HA HA HA!
                        
                        Being robbed is funny!

                        replyreport
               2. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "Neither party has the guts to do that"
                  
                  YEAH! THAT'S THE POINT.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     And since Ron Paul believes in the invisible hand of self interest his pseudo phony religious beliefs won't let him cross the banks and stop speculation.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Good job countering my arguments.
                        
                        I'm done. See ya.

                        replyreport
         2. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS A MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS.

            replyreport
   2. 59

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not necessarily libertarian (or any religion) but I do believe man is good and has moments of badder days. Maybe that's the difference, seeing the glass half full kind of thing, taking responsibility for oneself, or self-nterest.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, man is not basically good. If that were the case, the scamming bankers would not have unleashed the housing bubble that stole trillions of dollars of wealth from main street and transferred it into the coffers of the 1 percent.
         
         If man was basically good there would not need to be police or referees at basketball games.

         replyreport
3. 68

   Charles Jamesposted 12 years ago

   Good for you Evan, spotting someone trying to tease you. "Troll" is a bit strong.
   
   If your position on food stamps is that they are wrong in principle that is sufficient.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, trolls are trolls.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I wasn't trolling you Evan, just trying to see if you were around.

         replyreport
4. 60

   TLMinutposted 12 years ago

   My dad once heard a girl (a relative) complaining about a problem with "her" food stamps, angry that they'd messed something up one month and said, "They OWE me this much!"
   My dad's angry comment was, "They? Who is 'they'? You mean me, who's paying taxes that are used to feed you when I was never even asked? Why have I never heard 'Thank you'?"
   
   It was great, I really don't think she understood - she's American and 'the government', a disembodied entity of boundless supply was supposed to take care of her. She had questions then and has a different attitude now. And a job.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "she's American and 'the government', a disembodied entity of boundless supply was supposed to take care of he"
      
      I've been there. Ron Paul and the Mises Institute saved me from blunt ignorance.
      
      Now I fight day in and day out on these forums to wake people up.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And the failure of libertarianism continues daily as the 1 percent extracts a speculative price you pay for gasoline, food and every commodity you buy.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You have yet to illustrate a single failure of libertarianism.
            
            Jeff Berndt did a pretty good job and actually made me think. But I turned it all back around on him.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The UK big bang, Thatcherism, is a massive failure of libertarianism. That sowed the seeds of our housing bubble because, guess what, Evan, there was no Glass-Steagall in the Square Mile.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  A government bank is a failure of libertarianism?
                  
                  Are you even thinking before you write?

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No, the private bankers broke down the barriers between the insurance, banking and investment banking sectors, causing bogus derivatives products to be offered. Under Glass-Steagall these weapons of financial mass destruction could not have been offered. The origination of these financial derivatives was the Square Mile.
                     
                     MF Global and Madoff failed while engaged in business in the Square Mile. Wall Street is restrained a little bit. The Square Mile has no restraint because it answers to no one, not even Parliament.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Man, you really like to be confused.
                        
                        Your first post said "The UK big bank", and then now you're calling it a private bank.
                        
                        Central banks are government created monopolies; they are government extensions that wouldn't exist in a free-market.
                        
                        It isn't libertarianism, and this BLATANT and INTENTIONAL failure to recognize this is the reason why I criticized your book.
                        
                        You're criticizing things without even an understanding of what they are.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry, if you knew a thimblefull of history you would have overcome my grammatical error and understood I was talking about the UK BIG BANG. As in BANG.

                           replyreport
5. 65

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   This example hardly proves anything, and in turn is hardly enough to get annoyed about. Liberals are going to have to do better than that.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's funny how the Republicans are always telling me greed is good and people should act out of self interest and then when someone commits a shocking act of greed and self interest they are all up in arms about it

      replyreport
      1. 59

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         IMO, there's a huge difference between greed and self-interest. Greed can hurt others and may only hurt oneself or hurt no one. Self-interest is healthy and shows a responsibility toward assuming control of one's life. IMO

         replyreport
         1. 69

            bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            In economics there is absolutely no difference. Welcome to the real world.

            replyreport
      2. 69

         bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It is called hypocrisy Josak.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, it's ignorance on the behalf of the liberal.
            
            When people get bailed out with taxpayer money, it's theft and wrong.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The car companies prove that some bailouts are good unless you wanted just Japanese auto makers with no American choices.
               
               And, on top of that, without some bailouts the financial system and all insurance could have crumbled. I suggest the US could have gotten a piece of GS and JPM, and the bailouts were handled wrongly for taxpayers. But the bailouts may have been absolutely necessary.
               
               The libertarian way is to just plunge the world into a Great Depression and see what happens. The fallacy of Mises is that he thought loan demand would bounce back after credit crises. Apparently that is not true.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh man, I would have had to choose between 4 or more AWESOME Japanese car companies OR some 10 different European Car companies?!?!
                  
                  NOoooooooooooooooooooo!!!
                  
                  STEAL MY MONEY TO SAVE ME FROM SUCH OBVIOUS MONOPOLIES!!!
                  
                  Dude, seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't think US car companies are monopolies. In fact, I think they keep the Japanese from becoming a monopoly.

                     replyreport
6. 61

   Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago

   I see little difference between greed and entitlement as far as selfishness goes. And if people were basically good they wouldn't need a monetary incentive to contribute their fair share to society.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is exactly why the rich refuse to pay more in taxes even though they have benefited the most from all economic growth. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

      replyreport
7. 61

   Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago

   I wonder if the Japanese complain on their forums that all of their automotive manufacturing jobs are being outsourced to the United States.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! I love Japanese cars. I have no beef with the Japanese. But if we have auto makers who can be successful, and they preserve jobs, what is the problem helping them? Evan does not bother to tell you that the car companies have paid or nearly paid back the government in full.
      
      Evan won't tell you much. That is the way of the libertarian. If you find out the dark side of libertarians you will shun them and it hurts their feelings since most of them think the world evolves around them. After all, self is all there is, the god of the libertarians.

      replyreport