Being Poor is NOT a virtue!

Oh, I see. What mutually consenting individuals choose to do free of coercion and the threat of violence isn't "better" than the arbitrary and inconsistent standards imposed on them by a mob or a corrupt politician...

If you're talking about fraud, that would be unlawful in a libertarian market society.

 

Deceit =/= "fraud", necessarily.

In any case, ultimately how well a society does doesn't depend exactly on the "system" at hand. It depends on how people are behaving within it. If people in a "libertarian" society were all letting themselves get taken advantage by cheap trick artist salesmen and big time business owners, and spending their money/wealth frivolously, that society would do poorly. That's right, you'd have a society doing poorly despite being a "libertarian" system.

If they on the other hand stood up to these people and spent their money/wealth wisely, it would have a much better chance of succeeding.

It's not the system. It's the people.

 

Yes, it is. Agreements predicated upon deceit are the very definition of fraud.

Of course it's the people. And what makes you think the same people you have no faith in to run their own lives can run others lives? What makes you think that empowering people in government will create better outcomes than empowering people in a free society?

 

You're assuming that society could succumb to a prevailing trend of folly. Your hypothetical, like your other one, is unrealistic. There will always fools destined to be parted from their money, but society will not do poorly because of them, especially since others will be prudent with their money. Human nature abhors extremes which is why, even if a few will jump off a cliff, most won't. Some people are born suckers while others are perfectly wise with both penny and pound and then there's the rest of us somewhere in between.

 

There's also using psychological tricks to subconsciously fool people, even without actually lying about anything. Cutco (look up the company) trained ME PERSONALLY to do EXACTLY that last summer. So I know what I'm talking about. That's partly why I quit.

This is a strawman; my ideology, as I've said, is largely based on "both the common man and the Big Man are important, but weighted, the common man is more important". Which means that either the Big Man (be he in the form of Big Government or Big Private Business alike) must not creep into large proportions, or else, as a last resort, he must be forcefully kept down.

One or the other. No in between or outside options.

 

Oh? Does your assumption explain how most people were deceived by Hitler in the mid century? How were they?

 

Anyone who is fooled by marketing gimmicks deserves to be parted with their money. Some people are just plain stupid and no amount of government meddling is going to change that. And how would you stop this kind of practice from occurring anyway? What objective criteria could you use to ascertain when someone was simply using some advertising "magic" as opposed to these "psychological tricks" that "subconsciously fool people"? It seems like you allow your personal experiences and emotions to dictate your political philosophy when you should be using objective and consistent standards ascertained using dispassionate and rational analysis.

As long as they aren't initiating violence against peaceful people, what difference does it make? Shouldn't that be the sole standard?

 

They weren't deceived by Hitler. He told them exactly what he was going to do and they supported him. His rhetoric and ideology was painfully explicit.

 

In some situations yes, but not necessarily IMHO

Personal experiences and emotions? Well...

Wouldn't it be your personal experiences that make you believe everything that you do concerning human nature, for instance?

(Let's modify this to personal subjective standards, since that's what's dictating my ideologies, not "emotions" exactly) Wouldn't it be your personal subjective standards that are dictating your ideologies?

It's obviously subjective.

For the most part yes, but as a geoist, I also think that taking publicly owned resources against others' will is, in some situations, violence. For example.

The thing is, different people define "liberty" differently.

 

They weren't deceived by Hitler? I'm no history buff, but based on what I've read, didn't most German citizens agree with his stances, largely due to his psychological gimmicks in his speeches?

Hitler as an individual never forced anyone to do anything.

 

Whatever! Bad things are going to happen no matter what you do. You cannot base your opposition to free market principles because a few dumb people might get swindled. It's regrettable, but there isn't a political or economic system you can think of which would eliminate it.

Your grandma got screwed by her new employer, so now it seems like you're always wary of businesses and big businesses specifically.

You work for a company that uses marketing gimmicks (who doesn't?) and so you think they have to be stopped from doing it.

Of course not. Observations of history are not based upon personal experience.

I start with subjective value judgments (peace is good, prosperity is good, liberty is good) and use observations of history and contemporary society to demonstrate that my subjective value judgements are best achieved through free market capitalism and Constitutional Federalism.

I've already told you that I am an advocate of taxing the private exploitation of natural resources like land and oil and water as a means of recouping the human residuum's lost property. I am not an anarchist. I do, however, believe that in order for maximum social happiness and prosperity to be realized, we must adhere to a free market system of economics and a Constitutional system of government.

 

No. They agreed with him because the German people were supportive of the Nazi party's political platform and rhetoric. They simply failed to recognize its immorality.

 

That's really barely any part of it.

That's part of it.

I look at the robber baron days of the 1800's.

The bottom line is that to me, it would be a last resort, I repeat a last resort, to have any kind of forceful stopping of cancerous Big Men (be they government or private businesses/mafias/other entities) from taking over/advantage. Not an immediate line of action.

 

Then why bother mentioning it!?

You're allowing your emotions to dictate your political philosophy. You would do well to rely on dispassionate intellectual analysis, which I know you are capable of.

Which has what to do with free market capitalism and Constitutional Federalism? Have you ever bothered to REALLY study that time period, or did you just swallow the TV dinner history you were fed in college?

I don't disagree.

 

I sometimes get onto tangents..

You brought up a good point previously which is that the initial assumptions of one's ideology is subjective preferences, and being consistent with them is objective.

Same here; part of the reason why I have these initial assumptions of my ideology (that the common man > the Big Man etc.) is because of personal experience. Not all of the reason.

I have no option other than to admit ignorance of the details of most of history. But ultimately I do know that it was caused by unregulated greed.

"Greed is good. Unregulated greed is bad".

Most people other than tyrants would agree I'm sure

 

Being poor isn't a virtue, yes.

Being overly simplistic in your analysis of other people's hardships isn't either.

 

Some of you in this thread may be surprised who the millionaires are in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

Some take-aways:


81% are self-made and did not come from rich/wealthy familes. More than half never got more than $1 in inheritance
Most are married, 57 years old, with 3+ children
Most run small businesses of some sort (very high variety)
Household annual pre-tax income is only $131,000
Most believe that "Charity begins at home"
Most have emergency funds
66%+ work 45-50 hour work weeks
Most invest their own money
Most save 20%+ of their paychecks
Average home value of $320,000
Very few make more than $500,000 (Less than 5%)

What's the biggest cause? They save more than they spend. Creating wealth is easy - keeping it, that's hard! (my words)

----------------

You know, poor people are victims....they are victims of the Federal Reserve who inflates their meager savings away. Through inflation the Federal Reserve transfers wealth from the savers and deposits it in the accounts of large corporations (BoA, JPMorgan Chase, GE, GM, etc) by creating money out of thin air and loaning it to these organizations at 0% interest.

The spending sprees then conducted by said organizations increases the prices of goods for the rest of us - thus exaggerating the natural wealth distribution between marginal producers of wealth. Those who touch inflated dollars first benefit the most - and those who touch it last (laborers) are hurt the worst. There's a famous saying - if you want to find the root of a problem, FOLLOW THE MONEY! Well you can follow the money all the way to its origination - the Federal Reserve.

Before I stop - a couple of points on Free Markets. If you advocate freer markets - do not fall in to the statist trap of defending Corporations. Corporations are government created entities that have special privileges that individuals do not - specifically that of limited liability paid for by a legalized bribe (license). Corporations are 100% created by government - they are NOT a product of free markets nor would they exist as they do today without the coercive hand of government. DO NOT CONCEDE THIS POINT.

Thank you for reading.

 

Most of where right wing viewpoints are wrong are because they try to apply overly simplistic solutions to complex problems.

The analysis on almost every issue is like the following
Problem: People driving off a bridge and dying
RW solution: Tear down the bridge
LW solution: Put barriers up so people won't fall off the bridge.

 

Ever hear of moonlighting? Geesh, you people are so quick to find fault and make excuses for your miserable lot in life. Cry me a river why doncha. Get a life!

 

Over demand and they are better quality education.

 

You're watching too much Star Trek.

 

Millionaire is your grand parents (possibly even your great grandparents) term. Having a million dollars in assets in today’s terms is like having 100,000 30 years ago, and 10,00040-50 years ago. These people usually couldn't sell everything they own and come up with a million in cash. Just like most of the statistics that have been choked into submission, this one is just as intellectually dishonest and meant to misdirect folks away from the upper elite, the "uber" rich, who never worked a day in their life to obtain the riches they enjoy. Look at the top ten richest. Out of the 10 only 1 comes from a working class family. Two are from upper middle income families (in the top 10%, and the rest were born into wealth. Some of their parents were not the richest of the rich growing up but they were definitely from families that represented the top 5% when it comes to wealth, connections, or influence.
　
　
Being rich isn't necessarily a bad thing it simply isn't as "simple", or guaranteed (as in work hard and you will become rich) as some would present bogus statistics to convince you it is.
　
　
Remember of the so-called "new" millionaires in 2000-2010 is the Hilton sisters. They made their first million before they actually got their split of the family fortune in a trust fund. They were getting literally thousands of dollars a week as an "allowance, and using their trust fund for collateral, to start their business venture of designing designer purses. Don't know how many people start from dirt poor and have the influence/connections of their family or the cash flow generated just from falling out of the right vagina. Which could lock you in poverty, or give you the opportunities the overwhelming majority of the population could only dream about.
　
　
If success is your goal, work hard and attack each and every opportunity that passes your way with all it is worth. If being one of the richest (top 1%) is your goal, good luck, but if you are not born into that kind of wealth the odds are stacked against you. Not saying it is impossible but for the majority there just isn't enough years in the average life expectancy to reach that level of wealth on your own without some kind of help from another source.