invite response« First « Previous Comments 242 - 245 of 245 Search these comments
Not to mention the 'society wives' or 'climbers' as someone else here called them, who want to marry a rich guy regardless oftheir feelings for him, so that they can sit around all day, play social tennis, breed, show off their wealth and plot and dream about status symbols all day long. Their children are sent to exclusive schools and are groomed to take automatic positions high in organisations or government through their connections, or just spend their inheritances holidaying all year long. Would you say they're working hard, or getting a 'free ride', bap? When they're watching the Paris fashion shows and planning to buy the latest Versace dress, doing it with YOUR money? because their rich husbands are merchant bankers, or own an insurance company, or whatever, raking in money from people like you... e.g. Paris Hilton, and dozens of other heirs... would you rather be the hamburger seller on $2 an hour, or the extremely hard-working Paris Hilton, bap?
the new guy starts at $4. This keeps both workers happy. The new guy can see where he can get and the experienced worker has no moral issue from training someone earning a like wage.
yeah, right, so the $4 guy can't even survive, unless he's living at home with mumsy and popsy. this is adolescent paper-round pay. and the private sector keeps pay rates confidential, remember?
sorry, i couldn't resist writing again, it's all so laughable. this is what happens when people are raised in countries where labour unions are weak, and brainwashed by the ruling elite to kick their own asses for themselves so they don't have to pay other people to put you down.
ooh, no, i get it all right. i get how the whole thing works.... or doesn't work...
How do you feel about forced birth control for anyone recieving government aide?
It employs a bunch of people that could not work a real job if needed.
hmm
yes, govt as a huge sheltered workshop, I've seen it all...
Note that JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame was on government aid for about a year, possibly while writing her book - she has a daughter - and now she is literally richer than the queen... so things can change over time, and the market doesn't necessarily reward people fairly...
besides which, those aid recipients vote, and have guns, apart from the human rights issue, and people might be angry...
"A woman is pregnant with her fifth child. She has tuberculosis, and her husband has syphilis. Their first child was born blind, the second child died at birth, the third child was born deaf and dumb, and the fourth child was born with tuberculosis. She is willing to have an abortion, if you think she should. Should she go ahead with the abortion or not? If you chose for her to have an abortion… Congratulations! You have just killed Beethoven."
« First « Previous Comments 242 - 245 of 245 Search these comments
For many (if not most) Libertarians, the subject of morality is all but taboo. The very mention of the terms "social justice", "fairness", "level playing field", or "promoting the greater good" in polite conversation often results in icy stares, furrowed brows and suspicious glances. If you insist on debating using such terms, you're likely as not to be labelled a Socialist, Liberal, Left-wing wacko, etc. Some would argue that Libertarianism --in its purest/most extreme form-- mixes with morality like oil with water.
Many of my own views are heavily influenced by Libertarian ideals: pro-free trade, pro-tranparency, pro-individualism, pro-gun, pro-free speech/press, pro-limited government, pro-separation of church and state, anti-subsidies, anti-tariffs, anti-protectionism, anti-welfare, etc. And yet, I can't quite seem to shake the notion that government exists for some purposes OTHER than single-mindedly promoting the accumulation of wealth. No matter how many benefits that capitalism brings us (and it does bring us many), if completely unregulated it also tends to create rather severe social/economic imbalances over time. Imbalances, that if left alone (as Greenspan himself acknowledged), can seriously destabalize a society. The term "meritocracy" itself, is a term that centers on "merit", a primarily moral concept. And yet "meritocracy" strongly evokes the Libertarian ideal in its American form --as in, rising and falling in society based on your own merits and not by birth lottery/social caste.
Some people have described me as quasi or "Left-Libertarian". I guess this is accurate because I see other legitimate uses for government besides maintaining police and standing armies. I also see "greater goods" (there's that pesky 'morality' creeping in again) such as public education, public roads/highway systems, enforcing consumer protection laws, worker safety laws, civil rights, limiting pollution/protecting the environment (not to be confused with NIMBYism) and so on. I also see "goods" in these government services for capitalism itself. A healthy, educated, safe, mobile, self-empowered populace tends to be much more productive and efficient. This is a "good" that even the most jaded plutocrat could love.
Personally, I like the fact that I live in a country that prohibits overt discrimination based on gender, race, religion, etc. I actually like the fact that slavery and child labor is illegal. Having some of my tax money used for "social safety nets" for poor citizens (and legal residents) and the disabled/mentally ill --as long as it does not completely dis-incentivize industry-- doesn't bother me. Nor does prosecuting and jailing executives who cheat or poison consumers. Does this make me a Communist? If so, I guess a good percentage of Americans are commies too.
Is it possible to be a "proper Libertarian" and care about moral/social issues at the same time?
Do I have to believe in hard-core social Darwinism and market fundamentalism in its most extreme form to stay in the "L" club?
Is this a conundrum with no resolution?
Discuss, enjoy...
HARM
#environment