Atheist Anti-christ Anarachist Liberals

A little bitty tear let him down?

anyone for foosball?

It's a miracle. He's secreting tequila from his eyes.

<shock, awe>

You outta see the stains on my bed sheets.

This is a tough list, Dys. I'm almost all of those things. I don't call myself an atheist, but I have no specific theist philosophy, I'm with you on the anti-Christ in the trinitarian-messianic sense, I'm politically a Liberterian which is samish to your philosophical anarchist, and moderately liberal (getting more so all the time, I fear). I guess I'd have to put myself as a toe-tester in your group.

Well JB although I consider Thomas as a significant person in my philosophy, I do have probs with libertarians in general (public lands/preservation etc)

I hear you, Dys. That's where the conflict between Libertarian and social liberal comes into play. As much as I would like the government to stay our of my shorts, I'm finding myself struggling for ways to save the earth and feed the hungry without public intervention.

It certainly won't be accomplished J_B on a voluntary basis.
Many greedy people among the rich would love everything to be voluntary so that they can refrain from helping unless it serves some tax purpose. I say our environmental and social problems are collective problems and should handled as such. I don't want to be able to NOT participate in public welfare and education solutions; I want to be taxed as a member and beneficiary of living in this prosperous society; and I want everyone else to be taxed in the same. Contributing to the solutions of our problems is an OBLIGATION, not an opportunity for virtue.
O.K. now; where were we? Having fun until my dark cloud passed over the thread.

JL- I disagree. I think that in a free society, people should be able to be charitible or not, where and when they desire. I don't think that it is the perogative of the government (although they have assumed that perogative) to extract money from taxpayers, to fund programs of which they have a particular interest. Add to the mix that government programs are blatantly wasteful, and you have a recipe for special interests, favors and other forms of skullduggery.

Ok this might turn into a productive thread (how interesting) anyway Phoenix, I used the idea of land use/preservation to reject Libertarian ideology (social issues aside) I would like to address this specifically and then, perhaps, we could enlarge our scope to other areas.

I believe that the rich extract their own welfare from the government (people in positions of influence and power generally get what they want unless blatantly overexcessive) while the poor are decried for getting help with taxpayer's money. Truth is, without exploiting the working poor, the rich would have no base on which to build. In recent decades, working families have had to rely more and more on two partners' income, where in the past one alone could support a fanmily. The wealthy interests drive down wages, retirement benefits, etc., while increasing their own profit share. Decry the situation in the name of the poor and every reason is trotted out to bar them benefits.

While it is true that government programs always tend to get bloated and misused, and should have built in regulations that must be re-examined often, the same is true of giveaways to the rich. They put a brake on help for the poor, but are still accelerating aid to the wealthy.

edgarblythe- There is no doubt in my mind that there are some miscreats amongst the rich, as there are in all classes of people. The Enron brouhaha is a prime example of the sort of people who milk businesses and defraud their stockholders. I could also point out smaller examples of this phenomenon, of which I am aware of personally.



I have never begrudged the rich. IMO we need the innovators, the people with vision, the people who put their money where their mouths are, to run this economy. I have always had the utmost gratitude for those who had the vision to "build the better mousetrap", and to sell that mousetrap to us.

Yes, we need the working poor. The reality is though, that in many jobs, one worker is interchangable for another. The people who run the companies are a more rare breed. The president of the bank could wash the floor of the bank; the one who washes the floor could not take over the running of the bank.




And that is precisely why I am a libertarian. Economics and politics are far too tightly intertwined in the US. Therefore, there is a huge amount of room for favoritism, "sweetheart" deals, and other forms of chicanery.

You are right. Often these "deals" favor the rich. That is because the rich fork over a lot of dough to political candidates. Then the politicians are beholden to their benefactors, and vote accordingly, to ensure a steady money flow into their political war chests. Take away that incentive from the politicians, and you bet your boots that things would change.

"Libertarians will be much better off if they work with, rather than against, environmentalists. To do so, libertarians must:

Learn to think of the economy as an ecosystem;
Not argue with environmentalists over technical issues;
Instead, focus on the lack of property rights as the fundamental environmental problem;
Play on environmental suspicions of big government; and
In the case of federal lands, worry more about the incentives facing land managers than on who actually holds title to the land."

The politicians are in the hip pocket of the rich interests, be they Democrat or Republican. That does not mean I condemn every rich person. I shouldn't have to spell out on every thread that I never said I held anything against a person for the fact of their being rich, just as I did not defend people who would milk the system when they could work and care for themselves. That's where it usually falls apart. Those two extremes and nothing allowed in between.

I like that "think of the economy as an ecosystem," by the way.

I should just let Edgar speak for me on this matter, but let me say that while I'm having trouble with the very cumbersome bureaucracy of social security right now, I would never vote to get rid of either bureaucracies or social security. We should improve them, to keep a strong political hold over their operations.

Eaxactly. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

I am a recipient of social security. I paid into it for years. If I had my druthers, I would have much rather taken the money that I paid in and invested it myself. I'm sure that I would have done lots better!

Phoenix, but the reality is that many, if not most, people do not have your discipline and would--if there were no mandatory social security contributions--end up starving on the streets; and since we are less than monsters, we would end up bailing them out at greater expense, and greater humiliation for them

Correct. One is often poor precisely because one does not know how to wisely invest money.