/lit/ - Literature

Most people want someone other than Obama or Romney. They just can't agree on what specific aspect should be different so this is what we end up with.

>>3009873
Good point.

But why aren't there more reasonable candidates? (inb4 Ron Paul)

>If this comic was true, we wouldn't be discussing Obama vs Romney [as realistic president candidates]. We would laugh them off as silly.

I don't think you understand the purpose of a two-party political system.

>they still think the only option is to be a conditioned sheep or a free individual

lol america

If this comic was true we wouldn't be discussing why if this comic were true we wouldn't be discussing Obama vs Romney [as realistic president candidates].

>>3009880
Because it's a rational response to the system. Voting for a third party candidate may be closer to your particular views. But it may be a rational response to vote for someone who is less satisfactory to avoid your worst-case scenario from getting in. The Nader 2000 scenario. So the system tends towards a smaller number of compromise candidates.

Obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's probably the most important dynamic at work.

GARY JOHNSON.

You're right, OP.

Most people play vidya and watch animu. The fact we don't here already proves we're less sheep than the usual 4chan weebs.

>>3009867
maybe it's not that no one is special, but that everyone is

>>3009898

This. Even if you disagree with his politics it makes third parties more viable for future elections.

>>3009911
As would voting for Jill Stein, whose policies I do agree with.

>>3009914

A vote for Jill Stein won't push Gary Johnson up past the 5% point. If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote in 2012, the Libertarian Party has access to millions of government dollars in 2016 to use for campaigning, etc.

Increased awareness of the Libertarian party will lead to increased awareness of third parties in general.

Therefore, this year your vote would be better served going to Gary Johnson.

>>3009925
First, who decided that Gary Johnson would serve as the standard bearer for third parties? Second, how would it benefit me to have the Libertarian Party established as a third party? I don't want the Libertarian Party in power, I want the Greens. And even if the Libertarian Party got above 5% I strongly doubt that this would help the Green Party at all. Liked you'd spend your campaign dollars on the Green Party? It'd result in visibility for the Libertarian Party, not the Green Party. Arguably it'd make the situation worse for the Green Party by making the Libertarian Party the "official" third party and the Green Party the 4th Party.

You're asking me to vote for a party I don't believe in so that it is better able to win elections in the future. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

I believe this comic is about our tendency to dehumanize people with different/wrong opinions and beliefs, like some are doing here.

>>3009934

The people chose Gary Johnson as the standard bearer. Sorry, but he's just more popular this time around.

If people see one third party gaining more traction, then they will be more likely to vote for others.

Of course Libertarians wouldn't give their money to the greens -- we are rather ideologically at odds about many things after all -- but if you don't see how a third party gaining legitimacy grants legitimacy to all other parties, then you are looking at this with tunnel vision.

>>3009943

For the record, if the Greens were the third party of choice this election year, I would cast my vote for them in a heartbeat if it would help push them past the 5% point.

>>3009946
Well, then, you're an idiot.

Jesus, the amount of people here that believe choosing a face for the government will have any relevance to the running of the country is remarkable.

>>3009950

It helps to have someone reasonable in power to veto all the stupid shit congress shits out.

>>3009949

I'm an idiot for wanting an end to the two-party system by any means necessary?

>>3009953

Trying to do anything 'by any means necessary' is already pretty stupid.

Setting your sights as low as 'two-party political system' is idiotic.

>>3009953
But it makes no difference who's in power. The elections are just a popularity contest, with the same political relevance as the X-factor. People are sold on the idea that everything is going to change and their lives will be so much better, and completely forget how screwed over they are already. Nothing will change, except one or two minor policies. People get so swept up in supporting their own party, they cling to them like an extension of their own identity and belittle people supporting any one else, but you honestly wouldn't have any idea who won the election if you didn't watch it - If you left the country, ignored the election completely and returned a year later to analyse society, you wouldn't have the faintest idea who won.

>>3009955

One step at a time.

The two party system is a blight on our Republic.

If you don't care strongly enough about something to sacrifice some of your integrity to achieve it, then you don't care about it at all.

>>3009959

Unless you had a president who vetoed all the idiotic shit set before him and allowed nothing to pass that was unconstitutional.

You know, like the president is supposed to be, instead of the pseudo-monarch people expect them to be these days.

>>3009939
you're obviously right and the fact that no one else seems to get that just serves to highlight how autistic /lit/ really is.

>>3009960
It's really not any worse than a 3-party or 4-party system would be.

>>3009970

I really don't think we should have ANY parties.

But since they seem to be unavoidable I think a system split between as many parties as possible is the best solution.

>>3009973
>I really don't think we should have ANY parties.
And why's that?
>I think a system split between as many parties as possible is the best solution.
Coalition-wrangling in Italy and Israel hasn't exactly turned out well.

There's no electoral system that's going to elected Ron Paul by the way; get over it.

>>3009975

Because party-based politics inevitably lead to idiots cheering on their side at the expense of all others like a drunken soccer fan. Some of our founding fathers warned us about the dangers of political parties (look it up yourself, don't take my word on it.)

Anything, in my opinion, is better than a system of two parties who disagree only on petty social issues and who gets handed our extorted tax dollars.

Ron Paul had his chance, I supported him, but his campaign is no longer relevant right now. I would vote for him again in the future, but I am not a part of the cult of personality that has sprung up around him. I voted for him because I like his politics, and I would vote anyone else for the same reason.

>>3009975
>And why's that?
Not him, but stochocracy!

>>3009973
I believe in globalization. I think we are all too interconnected now to cling on to antiquated nationalist values. We need global governance to prevent the greed of the west spilling over into the rest of the world with devastating consequences; Western civilization is a loaded gun pointed at the head of this planet. I still believe in state laws (When states are individual countries;) If a certain country agrees, by public referendum, that they would like public healthcare, medical marijuana, subsidised tuition fees or anything else at state level, then they can have their own laws. But the condition of our world is in such a horrendous place that we can't go on ignoring it, focusing on the individual shambles that is the isolated popularity contest. We need a stabilized global political structure.

>>3009977

I would love to continue discussing this with you but it is quite late and I must be getting to bed. Know that while I disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

>>3009977
Yeah, the gold standard and repealing the civil rights act make him look oh so appealing.

>>3009980

>the greed of the west spilling over into the rest of the world with devastating consequences

But that's what globalization is.

>>3009985
Because it is unregulated.

>>3009880
Because the two party system prevents any party, bar the Republicans and the Democrats, from ever gaining power. They have a duopoly on American politics, which means they can basically be as shitty at running the country as they want, because one of them is always going to win. Furthermore, due to the nature of the American congress, chances are even if you do become president the opposition are going to block you and try to fuck you over at every opportunity (as the Republicans have done during Obama's first term) in an attempt to make you look bad. And the American education breeds ignorance, so a majority of the population are unaware of how fucking terrible their political system is.

There are a shit load of other flaws that contribute to the American system of government being one of the worst in existence, but I have a cottage pie in the oven and I need to go and eat that nigger up.

>>3009977
Yeah, it's a real travesty that people have a convenient proxy for a candidate's position on the issues like that. The open party system where any view that holds sufficient support among people who actually bother to participate in the process (i.e. not Paulbots) is fine; the positions you like don't get entertained because no one supports them, not because of the ebil two party sytem.

>>3009905
But they aren't, they really aren't. A majority of the world are unthinking sheep, despite what this image may imply. The problem is, a lot of the unthinking sheep are under the impression that they are not unthinking sheep and do their very best to ensure that everyone in the world knows just how different and unique are. That is the person at whom OPs picture is directed. But the problem with that, is that it makes it hard to identify someone who is actually capable of independent thought.

>>3009989

>Furthermore, due to the nature of the American congress, chances are even if you do become president the opposition are going to block you and try to fuck you over at every opportunity (as the Republicans have done during Obama's first term)

This is only something that has occurred in the last 20 years or so. It doesn't seem fair to blame that on the 'nature of the American congress'.

>>3009989
That's pretty similar to the panorama we have here in Spain, except for the Civil War influence.

>>3009997
>A majority of the world are unthinking sheep, despite what this image may imply.

You really need to learn that when you use this comparison no one takes you seriously anymore.

>>3009998
Well kn, I wasn't trying to imply it was solely the fault of the structure of congress. But the structure of congress allows it to happen.

>>3010001
I know. I was aware of that when I wrote it.

>>3010002
*well no

>>3010004

Let me guess: people will automatically ignore you because they are predictable sheep?

>>3010001

>>3010007
Not at all.

>>3010010

Then how were you able to predict that people would not take you seriously if you typed those words? Isn't exhibiting such a a Pavlovian response exactly what a sheep would do?

>voting
>"phd in math 300k starting umad?" threads
>"lel your degree sux I'm getting a great job"
>job
>working for money

>not sheep
>lolyeah.jpg

Hey guess what guys, NONE OF YOU ARE SPECIAL. It irks me to no end when people have to grow their dicks by making themselves out to be anything more than an average human being. If you had two brains or extra muscles or fifteen balls or something then you wouldn't be average. Not the case? THEN YOU ARE AVERAGE. EVERYONE THINKS ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO.

>>3010127
b-but i'm neuroatypical

>Not voting Green
>Not voting Socialist
>Not voting Islamocommufascinazi

>>3010144
it's funny you say this because this comic does have a particular Ron Paul vibe to it.

and xkcd is seriously one of the worst webcomics out there.

>>3009959
This.

>>3010148
But aren't all comics just the author sockpocketing a half dozen characters? I don't read it, but it doesn't seem half bad

Also. The point is that even if you differ, your mental thinking is still deriving from the fallacious and emotional manipulation as the next guy in line generally.

>>3009889
Implying a rational response to a stupidly created system would be overthrowing and creating a non-stupid system.

>>3009898
Hear hear. This is the only way your vote can be useful if you dislike Obomney. I love Ron Paul, but writing him in will be next to useless. Several states don't allow write-ins.

being mediocre and not frighten other lambs is good mmkay?

>>3010202
wouldn't be*

>>3009882
>I don't think you understand the purpose of a two-party political system.

to control the masses of course!

>“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”

Bill Hicks

>>3009882

>2012
>two-party system

>>3010412
tooparty

>>3009882
>Only having two parties to choose from, and they both suck.
Yup. That's the pinnacle of democracy, all right.

>sheeps dont exist. youre just an edgy wannabe philosopher!

That image is completely false.

If people thought about the situation as much as the sole few who do, they would quickly realize that all governments are lying cunts. If the majority of people pondered their lives and the meaning of it, nobody would be doing stupid shit.

Nobody would vote. Nobody would enable cocksuckers to steal your pensions and jobs.

The fact of the matter is most people ARE sheep, whether or not they choose to be so voluntarily or not is irrelevant. They're idiots. Of course, that doesn't make me smart just because I can point that out, but that doesn't negate the fact that the majority always chooses to turn the other cheek instead of confronting their problems.

Why do you think people always assume you're on drugs when you try to stimulate a conversation on a deeper level? Why do you think people always want to party and forget about their problems by getting shitfaced in some club or bar?

The entire point is to forget the mess they're in. Because thinking leads to depression. And god forbid you look at the world from a realistic point of view, that is just mad! Here, have some Prozac and shut the fuck up. Forget tens of millions are suffering. Forget the wars. Forget the worldwide poverty. It's so far away! Why should you care? You have your own problems to worry about.

Have you honestly never asked yourself why reality TV shows are so successful? Why music like "YOLO YOLO SWAG" is so popular? Dont even give me none of that; "but anon, music back then sucked too!".

No it fucking didn't. Im not romanticizing the past either, Im talking about bands like Beatles, The Who, shit, dozens of others. The lyrics may have been just as pointless, but they played from the fucking heart. They were high as shit, but they played from their hearts. And that shit was mainstream. Sure there were bands like New Kids on the Block-esque bands out here and there, but they were hardly considered the epitome of the mainstream media. Only later, towards the 90's did it all start to change.

Right after most human rights were achieved for women and black people, people started to accept music with absolutely no fucking point whatsoever. House music started its rise to fame, and then fucking Dubstep.

But Im digressing, personal tastes and yada yada, whatever. My main point is that people have become complacent. They literally became sheep. And what's worse we have these fuckers running around attacking the people who try to shed light on this issue like countless of others before them;

"You're edgy! You're not deep! YOU'RE the sheep for thinking everyone else is sheep! The world is beautiful and innocent and wonderful full of intelligent people." or "Yeah the world is shit, but what does being depressed about it accomplish?! Nothing!"

Shit, you're right. We should collectively stop being depressed about events that put humanity to shame.

When you look at the world as a whole, even the happiest person would fall to their knees and weep. Why is it considered a mental disorder to be upset at the status of the rock which we live on?

>>3010488
>>3010487
>>3010482
I agree think this ever day. Would prozac Or some other drug stop it though? Because I really want to just get on with my life for a year, and then go back to thinking like that. I need a year without that incessant voice in the back of my head, I really do.

>>3010487
OK, Bill, Settle down now.

>>3010495

Effects and side-effects vary from person to person so you might have to try other pills to see which one works better for you. But it does make depression a bit more bearable. You aren't going to be swimming on clouds for a year though.

>>3010487
>House music started its rise to fame
And thank God for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC2oxemn9B8

>>3010597
>House Music

You went to the wrong raves, son. Jungle is Massive

>>3010616
Nah, House dancing is so fucking amazing. See the video I linked earlier.

>>3010487
I generally agree, but I don't think people are more sheep now that they were in the past or anything like that.

Nowadays there's just more of everything out there, so occasionally you'll see really "stupid" things being very popular.

People are and will be sheep to a certain degree. Evolution made us so.
The only cure is EDUCATION. More education, better education. It's the only thing that can elevate humanity.

>>3010618
I agree house music is good. But Jungle had a fucking huge underground scene. Mickey Finn, Kenny Ken, Bassman, Hype and a host of others all playing aircraft hangers and other illegal raves every single weekend. You could go to anywhere from Battersea to Manchester and find a rave with hundreds of people in. House never had the same kind of scene attached. It had a small following until DJ Luck and So Solid Crew came along with mainstream garage, then it was just 13yo girls into it.

>>3010487

What are you talking about? The Beatles were responsible for the pussification of guitar music; there fan base was almost exclusively teenage girls.

And also get your music history straight: No black music = none of the bands you admire existing. Ever heard of the blues?

>>3010487

I'm sorry but House music did not start in 1924 (when women got the vote) or in the 1960s when Civil Rights was a huge thing.

>>3010634

Pretty sure it was a different matter in the US. House music had huge scenes in New York City and Detroit, for instance.

>>3010487

You were doing fine until the whole 'Beatles r better than modern shit pop lel' and 'women and black people are to blame' thing.

>Fuck you, I am special and I'm definitely less of a sheep than 95% of people.

ask 100 people if they are special and about their feelings of being sheep. all i'm saying here that you're probably stupider than most people, op. that's all. probably in the bottom 5%, not top 5%.

>>3010665
Okay, US was probably different. Over here Jungle was our underground scene. House did come in for a bit, acid house was briefly popular, but we soon twisted it into garage, then virtually replaced it with Eurodance, trance and techno.

>>3010196

Other comics are pretty to look at. XKCD's minimalist style is tiresome and lazy.

>>3010207

It's not any worse than being a mediocre weirdo, which frankly describes most of the people who take pride in not following the herd.

>>3010488

People should stop being depressed because being depressed almost never leads to good things. Being depressed doesn't make things better.

>>3010735
the darkest hour is just before dawn, anon.

xD

actually i really dislike how embarassed people are of sadness and depression. it's a reality.

>>3010487
this is you

It's always nice to see shameless individualists complain that their government let them down.

>>3010773

I'm not saying people should be embarrassed. I'm saying people should try to make changes to feel better. Being embarrassed does nothing but make you feel worse.

>>3010488
>Why is it considered a mental disorder to be upset at the status of the rock which we live on?

it's not. but there is reasonable and unreasonable.

i will also say that the most common shit to hear is someone calling someone else sheep. that's why the comic in op's post is funny.

>>3010616

Why are monkeys always getting lost?

Jungle is massive

>>3010681
Agreed. There are special people out there like Joyce, Hemmingway, or etc. Statistically speaking, we're most likely not one of them.

>>3010832

>>3010813
sometimes you can't feel better until you let it out and cry. everyone cries. i understand what you're saying. but people are complicated and lives are so circumstantial. i agree that people should try to make themselves feel better. sometimes crying or a time of sadness is a part of that too.

>>3010845
Pic related.

>>3010832
>>3010845
>>3010860

What is 'Jungle is Massive' ?

>>3010864
>Junglist massive

>>3010867
>Jungle is Massive

It's Junglist massive.

>>3010867
Jungle is a type of music that peaked in popularity in the UK rave scene in the 90's... And it is massive.

It's like electronic reggae to a 225bmp beat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnl8S2Ozx0

>>3010867
>Junglist massive
Jokey mondegreen of the above

How do you know? Have you explored their brains? Do you know every thought and opinion they have?

There's nothing even remotely laughable about either Obama or Romney. Stop being a fucking adolescent

>>3010955

Romeny belongs to a heretical sect but is trying to court the religious right. That's kind of funny.

>>3010958
It is pretty ironic, but it's no more laughable than the religious right supporting ultra Orthodox Jews in Isreal, whom deny the divinity of their savoir, but hate Muslims, who saw Jesus as a prophet of God and mentions him in the Quran about as much as Mohammed. Religion not making sense is too common to be noteworthy

>>3010955

>both of them saying they're different than each other

>differ only on trivial social matters like the gays

It's laughable that people think they're different. It's sad that they're both the same.

>>3010988

If you're not sure whether or not to use whom, use who.

Dem or Rep, if you are emotionally invested in party politics you are a sheep.

Chomsky was right when he described them as the two wings of the business party.

>>3011130

This.

whenever people tell me to vote Romney so "THE DEMOCRAPS DON'T WIN" I laugh in their face and tell them I'd rather not vote at all than vote for either of them.

>>3010988

>whom deny

Nigga is you sure you should be posting on this board?

just cause you cant write correctly doesnt mean you cant read

>>3011111
>>3011169
I know, I went to middle school too

>>3011147
pretty badass, bro.

wrap your head around the idea that it's perfectly possible to look down your nose at the democratic party and recognize that the republican party's current platform is to put us on a permanent austerity plan solely for the benefit of plutocrats.

>>3011244

Do you know? Do you really understand how bad it is to over-whom?

everyone does everything just as a joke now

the idiots are the ones who don't realize this and think everyone is serious

>>3011268

I actually feel this way sometimes. I think spending too much time on 4chan has convinced me that everyone is trolling.

>>3011147
If you don't think the distinctions between the Republicans the Democrats are worth acknowledging, then you deserve another 4 years under a Republican administration.

>>3011263
Of course. My confessionals are full of me crying over confused object and subject pronouns

>>3011275

Maybe worth acknowledging. I'd vote dem. But to get worked up about either of those two? To be a party person and identify as a liberal or conservative and fill your head witht the fake bullshit in the media, that is the problem. The dems are the good cop in a tightly controlled routine they run on you. They are right-wing, pro-business imperialists and do not even have the interests of 99% of the population in their houses let alone their hearts.

The GOP has been taken over by preachers and neoconservatives, their candidates made to believe that the far right is the base and any compromise is seen as weakness. You cannot reason or compromise with these people, because a lot of them feel they are doing so in the name of God.

I vote democrat only because of this, I'm practically a libertarian but the neoconservatives are worse than liberals by far.

>>3011275

They're different, sure.

They differ on trivial social issues and on who gets the tax money the extort from us.

They both support bailouts. They both support the NDAA. They both support the interests of big business over the interests of those who vote for them.

Why the fuck should I acknowledge the trivial social issues? Social issues aren't the problem here. People only care about social issues so that they can feel morally superior for being so enlightened and progressive.

>>3011307
The bailouts/stimulus were needed in direct response to deregulation by the neocons that caused the problem in the first place.
I agree with you on pretty much everything else, trade agreements, NDAA etc, but it was the neocons who had a large role in the mess.

>>3011306

>practically libertarian

>votes for the party openly in favor of big government

Don't get me wrong the repubs are exactly as scummy as you say, but you're a pretty big hypocrite for not voting third party.

>>3011307
Cynicism is fine, but don't sit at home with your hereditary privilege and tell people that social issues 'don't matter.' I'm sorry, but being able to visit a loved one who's dying in a hospital or being able to use contraception without worrying that your insurance company will refuse to pay for it matters as much to certain people as any economic issue does, and rightly so.

>>3011312

I support a free market.

It's not a free market if businesses aren't also free to fail. At that point it's state capitalism.

Neocons AND Neoliberals are fucking scum. This isn't news to me. It's why I've only ever voted third party.

>>3011320

I don't think anyone is proposing not allowing you to visit dying relatives.

My wife pays 26 dollars for three months of birth control. If you can't afford that then you really need to look at your budget. Forcing private businesses to cover things their owners may morally object to is immoral, in my opinion.

I'm pro-choice by the way, fwiw.

>>3011306

> Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
-Barry Goldwater

>>3011320
Except those social wedge issues are to keep you deathly afraid of the other half of the country's social mores to the detriment of the interests of your economic class. The consequences are real too, but much less so than the fact that you're getting reamed by plutocrats who do not give a fuck about your values to begin with.

>>3011347
Gay couples don't get visting rights in most states because they aren't considered family by law. They also don't get inheritance and other rights.
Also, $26 is an insurance co-pay, not the actual price of the medication.
Please, inform yourself a bit more.

>>3011347
Jehovah's Witnesses believe blood transfusions are immoral. Should I be denied those just because I work for some Jehovah's Witnesses?

>inb4 that's not the same thing at all, blood transfusions save lives!

>>3011375
Would Jehovah's Witnesses let you work for them if you're not a Jehovah's Witness?

>>3011371

She has no insurance. Don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because I assure you that I do.

Government should stay out of inheritance rights and marriage and the like and stick to enforcing private contracts, not enforcing sexual morality.

If homosexuality ceased to be a political issue and the government stayed out of people's bedrooms, this would not be an issue save for private institutions which you would be able to boycott.

>>3011375

So don't buy company insurance. Buy your own.

Better yet save money and use it to pay your own hospital bills.

>>3011383
Well unfortunately we don't live in that type of hyper-individualist society, and the next best thing to having no laws that inhibit individual freedom is having laws that aren't silly.

>>3011388
What if you're poor or the child of a poor person who's poor due to a lack of education because his or her parents were too poor to afford one? Is there a sure way to prevent a libertarian society from becoming an economic oligarchy?

>>3011413

We don't live in that type of society because people are too caught up in party politics and entitlement spending to vote for a candidate that would offer them that kind of freedom.

People like to play the moral crusader when in reality they just want something to feel outraged about.

Do you want the freedom to do all of those things? Vote for a candidate who offers it. Don't settle and then bitch about the government having too much control over that kind of shit, because I can assure you that as soon as the candidate who endorsed those laws is out of office then the next one is looking to repeal them.

>>3011419
the poor will die off soon enough

>>3011419

Church schools used to be free, funded entirely by the local community.

As a Libertarian I would even be alright with an expanded school voucher program in place of government run schools, as an intermediary step to true educational freedom.

Private charity should never be overlooked. I myself am not a Christian but I must confess that many Christians are some of the most charitable and giving people I've ever met.

>>3011433
>I wish to receive benefits through the church, not through the government

what are you, a Papist?

>>3011433
>funded entirely by the local community.
So poor communities will continue to be poor because they don't have the ability to fund eduction as well as the wealthier communities.

You didn't answer the initial question, though. How are the children of poor people who happen to be sick or have gotten into an accident pay their medical bills?

>>3011443

My proposed solution to such problems is to grant tax breaks to hospitals which would accept patients without money or insurance.

Of course I would prefer to eliminate taxes, but I realize it's a pipe dream right now.

>>3011441

Absolutely not. I follow a faith far older than that. I just don't like the government stepping in and enforcing its demands on everyone it runs across.

>>3011465

Not to mention student hospitals, etc.

Disbanding the AMA would allow more doctors to enter the force every year, greatly reducing the cost of medical care because of competition on the free market.

Forgot to add that in, fussy child, etc.

>>3011465
>My proposed solution to such problems is to grant tax breaks to hospitals which would accept patients without money or insurance.
I'd love to see the economics of that, especially considering that libertarians want to lower taxes regardless. You honestly think a hospital in a poor neighborhood is going to accept people for free because they could potentially save a few dollars on taxes, which, under your system, would already be quite low? They couldn't stay open, let alone pay for the advanced medical equipment that stuff like cancer treatment requires.

>>3011465

Go to bed, Varg. Nobody gives a fuck about your white roots bullshit.

>>3011488
>Disbanding the AMA would allow more doctors to enter the force every year
Yes, because not letting any asshole that comes along with a scalpel operate on you is socialism.

>>3011492

>few dollars

Depends on the size of the tax break, really.

There are also the aforementioned student doctors like I said. They need SOMEONE to train on.

Cancer and the like is unfortunate, but is it really moral to rob someone else in order to pay for the cancer treatment of someone who is more of a drain on the economy than anything else?

>>3011494

I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of religious thinking, but thank you for attacking the messenger and not the message.

>>3011504

You realize that the AMA creates artificial scarcity in the medical community much the same way DeBeers creates artificial scarcity in the diamond market?

There are a multitude of medical students who wish to become doctors every year, only to be told by the AMA that the quota has been met.

>>3011513
>They need SOMEONE to train on.
They already have methods of training that work perfectly well. They don't need to experiment on poor people JESUS CHRIST

>but is it really moral to rob someone else in order to pay for the cancer treatment of someone who is more of a drain on the economy than anything else?
The resentment that letting the poor die would cause is a far greater threat and would lead to a much bigger problem (including higher crime rates, which have been proven) than reasonable taxation could ever cause.

>>3011519
Then retooling the control so that no artificial scarcity is the best option isn't it?

>>3011534
>experiment on poor people

You mean learn to do a tried and proven technique on them? Hardly medical experimentation.

>The resentment that letting the poor die would cause is a far greater threat and would lead to a much bigger problem (including higher crime rates, which have been proven) than reasonable taxation could ever cause.

I don't really care. I earned my money, they aren't entitled to it.

If they try to rob me, I will exercise my second amendment right to protect myself and my capital.

>>3011546

Of course. And the first step to that is to disband the AMA and put a board of accountable people in charge of it.

>>3009867
>Fuck you, I am special
No, screw that, I am.

>>3011553
>I don't really care. I earned my money, they aren't entitled to it.

>youdidn'tbuildthat.jpg

>>3011572

>>3011553
>I earned my money, they aren't entitled to it.
Taxation? You are the sole basis of every thing in your life? Including the roads you use?

Gah, anti-taxation fags. I can't take you seriously anymore.

>>3011553
>You mean learn to do a tried and proven technique on them?
The goal is that they learn to the point of proficiency BEFORE they have to deal with actual human lives. It would be the equivalent of letting people in flight school practice using commercial flights.

>If they try to rob me, I will exercise my second amendment right to protect myself and my capital
Here's the difference between you and me: You want to live in a society that gives you and your family the right to do anything, that doesn't physically impair anyone else or damage their property, to remain prosperous. I want to live in a society where the I don't have to worry about second amendment solutions to resentment because the weak and misfortunate among us will be taken care of.

>>3011572
The way Republicans spun that comment was so fucking opportunistic. Obama was referring to the education of workers, roads, and law enforcement, not actual businesses.

>>3011588

>roads

By Odin's Beard, why do statists always bring up roads?

The roads in my county are a fucking mess. I see at least ten people a week with a flat tire due to your precious government funded roads. You can't fix them yourself or you get fined by the government. The government won't fix them because they'd rather give themselves raises. Explain to me how this in any way benefits me?

I was born into fucking poverty and I clawed my way out of it kicking and screaming because I was motivated and dedicated enough to do it. If others aren't, then that's fine, but they shouldn't expect my tax money to take care of them.

>>3011595

Missing a vein during a blood transfusion is hardly a critically life-altering event.

And thank you for admitting you want a society where everyone who doesn't work is pampered and pandered to by the politicians who will extort money from the hard working citizens who are actually of economic benefit to their country. That's what I've been saying all this time, I'm glad we're on the same page.

>>3011609
The point of taking care of the weak is to minimize resentment among them, and to let the strong continue without impairment. Taking care of the weak benefits you and your community directly. That is my point.

>Missing a vein during a blood transfusion is hardly a critically life-altering event.
Yes, it can lead to major bleeding and possibly even infection if you hit an artery. And there are many medical procedures where the stakes are much, much higher.

>>3011609
Where do you live?

>>3011618

It would benefit me even more to keep the money that I earned from the work that I created in order to expand my business without having to take out a loan so that I can hire one of these poor people and make them no longer poor.

>Yes, it can lead to major bleeding and possibly even infection if you hit an artery. And there are many medical procedures where the stakes are much, much higher.

I don't think they're going to let anyone who hasn't practiced enough on the dummies or whatever they use try to stick a needle into a human being.

Tax breaks for hospitals = the solution to the major medical problems.

Student clinics = the solution to routine medical problems.

>>3011618
Leave it to the typical republican to cite one instance of which he has no knowledge of to prove a vast, complicated argument. Every speech I've ever seen a republican give typically winds down to this sort of simplified bullshit.

>>3011629

Indiana. I'm not willing to be any more specific than that.

>>3011631

I'm not a Republican. That party no longer aligns with my beliefs. The death of Goldwater was the death of Republican conservatism.

>>3011638
You share many of their views though, whether you claim them or not.

>>3011631
Can you be a little less vague?

>>3011640

Perhaps, but I also share many social views with the Democrats. Does that align me with the Democratic party?

>>3011641
>Here's a story of this one guy who became successful doing this, so why can't the millions in poverty just do the same thing? Seems simple enough. By the way, he wasn't raised by a single mother alcoholic who spent 16 hours a day in sedation.

>>3011646
No, but the argument you're presenting in this thread is signature Republican.

>>3011609
>why do statists always bring up roads?
Because they're the most definitive example.
>Explain to me how this in any way benefits me?
Not the fault of the concept of taxes. It's the fault of either your nation's passivity or your political system. Sorry, that's how it is.

>where everyone who doesn't work is pampered and pandered to
Unless you fully accept letting people die in the streets (with the public sanity problem it entails), or another radical solution, it would cost less to give a good roof and enough money to survive to every homeless person than it is to go halfway and only give out welfare checks and hospital coverage. From a pragmatic situation, it would be better to pamper the lazy asses than to deal with the moral issues (and the worlds' reaction at large), public safety issues (including crime and epidemics) and economical issues when the social ladder stops working.

There.

>>3011647

Funny you mention that. I WAS raised by a single alcoholic mother who spent every hour she wasn't working sedated with alcohol. She also brought home various boyfriends who would beat the shit out of me while she was unconscious.

Throwing people a pity party doesn't help them. At all.

>>3011654
So where's your mother now?

>>3011654
>She also brought home various boyfriends who would beat the shit out of me while she was unconscious.
And for the guy who, woops, has been hit a bit too much on the head and goes all catatonic?

>>3011630
>It would benefit me even more to keep the money that I earned from the work that I created in order to expand my business without having to take out a loan so that I can hire one of these poor people and make them no longer poor.
Who's going to pay for law enforcement? Who's going to pay for the education of your workers? Who's going to pay for the infrastructure leading up to your business? You are. Would you rather be taxed more and have the accountable local government pay for these things, or have to save up, possibly for generations, just to purchase the capital necessary to START a business, which could be unsuccessful?

>Tax breaks for hospitals = the solution to the major medical problems.
>Student clinics = the solution to routine medical problems.
Those are just assertions. You haven't argued for them.

>>3011656

She found Jesus and stopped drinking well after I reached adulthood. She earned her degree in Nursing and now has a relatively successful career.

>>3011658

It's unfortunate, but it happens. Perhaps with less regulation on the sale of firearms that guy could have better defended himself.

>>3011653

>Not the fault of the concept of taxes. It's the fault of either your nation's passivity or your political system. Sorry, that's how it is.

I agree with you on this. Our political system is fucked. Why should I not be able to fill a hole in the road directly in front of my house with tar and gravel? How is the government regulating that to that extent a benefit for anybody?

>Unless you fully accept letting people die in the streets (with the public sanity problem it entails), or another radical solution, it would cost less to give a good roof and enough money to survive to every homeless person than it is to go halfway and only give out welfare checks and hospital coverage. From a pragmatic situation, it would be better to pamper the lazy asses than to deal with the moral issues (and the worlds' reaction at large), public safety issues (including crime and epidemics) and economical issues when the social ladder stops working.

I'm fine with letting people die in the streets if they aren't willing to go to one of the free student clinics or work to better themselves. There have been times in my life where I was forced to scrounge in dumpsters for enough food to live on because I refused to accept food stamps. You know what? I survived. So can they.

Giving people no incentive to work and better themselves leads to a lazy entitled generation of welfare dependents.

>>3011632
Explains why your roads are so shitty, it's one of the poorest states in the country. There's just about a direct correlation between how poor a state is and how conservative it's voting record is. They also tend to tax less and have much shittier public institutions because of it. That's probably why you hate the government so much.

>>3011673

>California

>>3011659

The community could fund its own law enforcement through donations, if they thought they needed it enough.

I personally like the old west style of justice where the sheriff would deputize individuals in time of need.

My workers don't necessarily need to be educated. They need to be able to do the job I have for them. What do I care if they can do long division if that isn't part of their job description?

And as I said, the infrastructure around here is a joke, as it is in much of the country. I have enough capital saved to build a gravel road from here to the nearest town. Give me another year and I could pave it. Why should I not be able to do this?

I started my business with $100 dollars in my pocket and an old used shovel. Leave the creation of bigger businesses with the people whose parents accrued enough capital for them to start one.

>Those are just assertions. You haven't argued for them.

Frankly I don't have enough time to delve into the logistics and math of such things on this imageboard. It's a situation so complicated that people who dedicate their entire lives to it can barely explain it in an entire book.

>>3011690
What are you implying by California? I live in Connecticut, and I quite like our local government despite its flaws.

>>3011697

California is poor as fuck and liberal as fuck.

>>3011670
>if they aren't willing to go to one of the free student clinics
How do you have free student clinics without taxation? Work me through that please.
>There have been times in my life where I was forced to scrounge in dumpsters for enough food to live on because I refused to accept food stamps.
Because we have the chance of living in a society where perfectly or even slightly spoiled food can go to the dump. That's called wastage. You're advocating the same thing the government does.
>Giving people no incentive to work
There are two kind of incentives
1) survive, it produces angry, unmotivated people, because the jobs aren't always sunny or correspond to their personality
2) intellectual, "I'm just bored" or "Man, this stuff looks cool, I wanna do that", doesn't produce angry people because they do things that are interesting to them

>>3011706
>How do you have free student clinics without taxation? Work me through that please.

The government funds private medical schools? News to me!

>Because we have the chance of living in a society where perfectly or even slightly spoiled food can go to the dump. That's called wastage. You're advocating the same thing the government does.

We live in a society where we can do that because our traditionally free markets have created a prosperous society. I'm not advocating wasteage, I'm advocating survival by any means necessary, including living off of the waste of others if you need to.

And I hate to break it to you, it's called "work" for a reason. if everyone enjoyed their jobs it would be called "happy fun make money by playing time." I hate my job every day and I'm the one who created it. But you know what? It's a service someone has to do and I make bank by doing it.

>>3011690
>The community could fund its own law enforcement through donations

This is what conservatives actually believe

>My workers don't necessarily need to be educated.

Yeah, because their entire lives are what they can do for YOU, not what they can make of their own lives. You make me sick you fucking selfish prick.

>
And as I said, the infrastructure around here is a joke, as it is in much of the country. I have enough capital saved to build a gravel road from here to the nearest town. Give me another year and I could pave it. Why should I not be able to do this?

If you want to fund or sponsor a road or highway there is literally nothing stopping you. If you had any intention of doing this Mr. Conservative you could have done it already.

>>3011712

Because of liberal governmental policies.

>>3011690
>The community could fund its own law enforcement through donations, if they thought they needed it enough.
And poorer communities will continue to rot due to an inability to pay for it. Do you honestly think that a community of people who live from paycheck to paycheck is going to have the ability to pay for proper law enforcement?

>The community could fund its own law enforcement through donations, if they thought they needed it enough.
You have nostalgia for a place and time where lawlessness and crime were rampent?
>My workers don't necessarily need to be educated
And that would reflect in the quality of work they produce, the type of government they elect, and all societal interactions as a whole. The rich will pay for their children to be educated, ensuring that they rule over the poor and uneducated masses, creating an aristocracy worse than that of 18th century France.

>leave the creation of bigger businesses with the people whose parents accrued enough capital for them to start one.
And those same people with rich parents will purchase that capital monopolizing production.

>>3011702
California is not poor as fuck, it's a very rich state. The state government of California is poor as fuck because it's very, very poorly run and California state politics are extremely shitty and dysfunctional. It's not just because California is liberal. It's because California includes portions that are very liberal and also portions that are very fiscally conservative, so there's both strong interest in spending programs and a strong desire to keep taxes low. And, like I say, our state politics is really shitty and none of our state politicians can get anything done - because both parties are basically machines which are corrupt and fairly incompetent.

If California was just liberal, it wouldn't be as broke as it is now. I'm not saying it would be better run or better off - it would probably be run more shittily, and taxes would be a lot higher which wouldn't really be good for the state. But it wouldn't be insolvent the way it is now.

>>3011702
California has one of the top 10 highest median incomes in the country. The state itself has a large deficit, like much of the country, but the people are doing much better than any red state (with the exception of Alaska)

>>3011715

Why couldn't the community fund its own law enforcement? If anything this would be a good thing because police officers would actually be held accountable by the people they are supposed to be protecting.

>Yeah, because their entire lives are what they can do for YOU, not what they can make of their own lives. You make me sick you fucking selfish prick.

They are free to educate themselves if they save enough money to do so. I'm not stopping them. Shit, they could educate themselves for free at the library. Nothing stopping them. If I had a position that needed someone with a specialized degree and I had a worker who had proven himself valuable to my business interested in earning said degree, I'd offer to split the cost of his college with him. How am I in any way in the wrong here for not valuing others over myself? Altruism is NOT a virtue.

>If you want to fund or sponsor a road or highway there is literally nothing stopping you. If you had any intention of doing this Mr. Conservative you could have done it already.

Why would I give my money to the people who have proven they cannot handle infrastructure effectively? That makes literally no sense.

>>3011719
It's really, really not. California probably would be more fiscally solvent if not for Prop 13, which is a conservative measure. The fact that California is extremely liberal in presidential elections shouldn't be taken to mean that its internal politics is always the liberal. This is after all the state that produced Reagan, and that mindset still finds places to flourish here. The reasons for California's current status is much more complex than "it's liberal", believe me.

No one here likes Obama or Romney.

I'm going to vote Obama this year, but in 2016 I will vote third party.

>If this comic was true, we wouldn't be discussing Obama vs Romney [as realistic president candidates]. We would laugh them off as silly.

This is flawed logic. Two people can take the same action but for separate reasons, and with different conclusions in mind. Therefore, voting for the most popular candidate doesn't necessarily make you a sheep. Also, two people can come to the same conclusion, or have the same idea, without coming into contact with each other, this also doesn't make them sheep.

And you have to be careful that you aren't simply being a contrarian, which is just as flawed as being a conformist.

>>3011726
>Why couldn't the community fund its own law enforcement?
Uhhh, they do. It's called taxation.

>>3011726
>Shit, they could educate themselves for free at the library.


Learning is social you fucking maroon. Maybe you should spend some more time at the free library.

>>3011722

>And poorer communities will continue to rot due to an inability to pay for it. Do you honestly think that a community of people who live from paycheck to paycheck is going to have the ability to pay for proper law enforcement?

First, they should look at their budget. Plenty of these "paycheck to paycheck" families have a fancy escalade sitting in the driveway.

If, after that, they still cannot fund a proper police force, they should form a volunteer community watch.

>You have nostalgia for a place and time where lawlessness and crime were rampent?

*rampant

Towns in the old west actually had a relatively low rate of crime. That's a misconception brought on by westerns.

>And that would reflect in the quality of work they produce, the type of government they elect, and all societal interactions as a whole. The rich will pay for their children to be educated, ensuring that they rule over the poor and uneducated masses, creating an aristocracy worse than that of 18th century France.

How does my worker's education in any way affect his ability to dig a hole or pick up dog shit or move heavy lumber?

If they are interested in becoming educated they have avenues available to them. If they'd rather smoke rock cocaine and fuck everything they get their hands on in their free time, it isn't my problem.

>And those same people with rich parents will purchase that capital monopolizing production.

Nothing in a free market stops a socialist coalition of workers from purchasing the capital to own their own factory run under socialist standards. Whatever happened to sharing the wealth, socialists?

>>3011737

I meant voluntarily, instead of the police force extorting the money from them to fund itself.

>>3011740

I taught myself Spanish from free works at the library. Practiced with native speakers I hired.

I taught myself small engine repair, too, from free books at the library, so that I could repair my lawnmowers when they broke down.

I realize that libraries are funded by taxation, but as a Libertarian I'm not for eliminating government entirely, and as I said I realize eliminating taxes is a pipe dream at this point, so this is one of the things I'm fine with my tax dollars going to fund. Helping people help themselves is infinitely better than pampering and pandering to them.

>>3011746
education for children up through teens is deeply social

not that it needs to be provided by the state, i'm just saying that's probably the kind of education that ayrt had in mind.

>>3011750

Oh. I understand.

Forcing children into a government mandated school is not the only way to socialize your children, it's just the lazy way.

My wife and I homeschool our children and they have plenty of opportunities for socialization.

>>3011746
>I taught myself Spanish from free works at the library.


You can't learn Spanish out of a book, faggot. You need to speak it for extended periods of time to other native speakers to gain any semblance of fluency. You're so full of fucking shit and you clearly know fucking nothing about language development, the learning process, or anything involving the scientific and humanitarian side of anthropology.

Pro-tip: Don't send your kids to school, just throw them some books when they're 5 and say "get cracking, I'm not pampering you."

OH THE IRONING

>>3011742
>First, they should look at their budget. Plenty of these "paycheck to paycheck" families have a fancy escalade sitting in the driveway.
Really? You're going to buy this Reagan welfare myth? Don't be silly.
>Towns in the old west actually had a relatively low rate of crime.
I'd love to see actual independent (not self-reported) statistics on this. Seems unlikely.
>How does my worker's education in any way affect his ability to dig a hole or pick up dog shit or move heavy lumber?
Because the microcosm reflects on the macrocosm bro! An uneducated population isn't just subject to tyranny (like the Founders said), they also have a much higher likelihood of committing crimes. Do you want to live in a society full of illiterate people?

>Nothing in a free market stops a socialist coalition of workers from purchasing the capital to own their own factory run under socialist standards
How would be able purchase capital if their wealth is divided equally among their workers?

>>3011753
yeah we cool

just wanted to be sure that was clear

>>3011746
How would you feel about the possibility of free public wi-fi? That would do more to help people who wish to educate themselves than public libraries would, but it's also very socialist.

>>3011755

You can learn vocabulary and grammar from a book. As I said, I practiced the speaking part with native speakers. At no point did I require schooling for it.

I tutor my children very well. They do above average on every test thrown at them.

>>3011760

>Really? You're going to buy this Reagan welfare myth? Don't be silly.

I used to live among these people. It happens. Denying it is being intellectually dishonest.

>I'd love to see actual independent (not self-reported) statistics on this. Seems unlikely.

I'll try to dig up some studies if you give me a moment.

>Because the microcosm reflects on the macrocosm bro! An uneducated population isn't just subject to tyranny (like the Founders said), they also have a much higher likelihood of committing crimes. Do you want to live in a society full of illiterate people?

Of course I don't, but it's not the government's responsibility, it's the responsibility of the parents.

>How would be able purchase capital if their wealth is divided equally among their workers?

Obviously they would have to pool their wealth. In a socialist-style factory all workers would receive an equal amount of the profits and pay an equal amount into the daily maintenance of the factory.

>>3011746
>I meant voluntarily, instead of the police force extorting the money from them to fund itself.
Having people who are accountable administer the money is far better than having individuals administer the money, if you want to minimize corruption. Government tax records are available to anyone, individual tax records aren't.

>>3011762

I would even be fine with that, but I am a tad more liberal than most Libertarians. I just feel that if my tax dollars are going to help people, I'd rather them go to teaching them to help themselves.

"Teach a man to build a fire and he's warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."

>>3011761

Absolutely.

>>3011769

Complete and total transparency on the part of the police force would deal with that problem quite nicely.

>>3011766
>I used to live among these people. It happens. Denying it is being intellectually dishonest.
I lived among the poor in my youth and I never did, but i'm not denying that it occurred, i'm just denying that it's a widespread problem.
>Of course I don't, but it's not the government's responsibility, it's the responsibility of the parents.
You keep forgetting about the parents who simply don't give a shit. These parents also tend to not use contraception as often and have more children. Unless you want to get into the politics of horrific eugenic programs, it's necessary to educate these people (or at least their children) to ensure a more secure and prosperous society.

>>3011766

one of said studies. plenty more, but look for 'em your damn self.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/westhistquar.42.2.0173?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2134&a
mp;uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101083183803

>>3011772
How is it possible without at least some form of bureaucracy? It'd be impossible on a large, city-like scale.

>>3011777

This is certainly a problem. Getting rid of the subsidies keeping these people alive will be a good first step towards assuring their children are not the lazy ignorant fucks that they are.

>>3011778
How'd you get access, did you log in through your local library or something? It's only giving me a preview and asking me for $10

>>3011780

Do it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

there is ALWAYS some old codger who keeps tabs on this shit and raises a stink when something isn't right

>>3011784

Oh, I forgot. I'm enrolled in the University of Chicago.

Still, you ought to be able to request that article through your local library if it interests you. If not there are plenty of other studies on the subject.

>>3011783
My father was born into one of those families. He literally had 16 siblings. 16.
The fact that he came to the United States and was able to find government assistance for higher education is why i'm not a complete fuck-up today.

>>3011791
I'll research it later. My initial bias if it is true is that crimes probably weren't reported anywhere near as often as they are now and that people handled these situations themselves, but i'll see.

>>3011794

Well, that's fortunate for you.

I was born into a shitty family and clawed my way to self sufficiency without government help.

I feel prouder of my accomplishment.

>capatcha: ARMS- Liberty

Damn right capatcha. Damn right.

>>3011787
I think i found the essence of our ideological difference. I don't see the government, at least when it's democratically elected and working correctly, as a separate entity from the general population, but as an extension of that population. We give them some sovereignty over us in return that they keep us safe, educate us, run the day-to-day bureaucratic work, and allow us to worry about other things. Shouldn't the solution be better and more accountable government, especially local government where much of this stuff is payed for, rather than no government?

>>3011804
>without government help.
So you didn't go to a public school, you don't use public libraries, and you've never used infrastructure payed for by the government?

>>3011812

Oh I'm not advocating no government. I'm a Libertarian not an Anarchist.

A smaller more accountable government is exactly what I'm after. I'm even fine with a tax-funded police force tbh, I'm just playing devil's advocate on that one.

>>3011817

I went to a public school where I was beaten by bullies for being smart, ridiculed by girls because I wasn't well-dressed and good at sports, told by teachers that my opinion doesn't matter and I should never question what they teach me, and forced to eat garbage for lunch. The food I dug out of dumpsters is better than the shit they served at my school.

I used a public library, sure, but I could just as easily have taught myself at a private university library. I just couldn't have taken the books home with me.

And, as I said, the infrastructure around here is more of a liability to my vehicle than anything. If you mean infrastructure in a larger sense, then my water has fluoride in it. Thank you, Mr Government, for putting waste byproduct of aluminum production in my drinking water!

>2012
>murika still not having the Party! Party! Party! party
>lolmurifags

this thread is just dreadful no matter how you look at it

>>3011853

Oh yeah? Well I fucked your mother until her pussy bled.

>>3011831
>MUH BOOTSTRAPS

The cognitive dissonance coupled with the martyr complex is just.. so wonderful.

>>3011860
This thread is so stupid I forgot to sage. Not that it matters on this board.

>>3011850
Oh shit, me too

>>3011831
I think what we need is a smaller federal government and more responsibilities relegated to local state, city, and town officials. That's how we save government: not by just making it smaller, but making it more accountable to the people directly effected. It would enfranchise so many citizens if they can literally drive up to and make a speaking appointment with any local official.

If you aren't a socialist then you're either uneducated or a scumbag

>>3011860

At one point I didn't even have boots to put straps on.

How does it feel knowing you don't have the same level of motivation, drive and intelligence that I do?

>>3011872
Or we could simply have an anarchist system which is literally run by the citizens, instead of citizens making appointments with officials who aren't going to listen to them.

>>3011872

Well well well. You're starting to sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

Check out his book "Liberty Defined" if you want to compare your views to his.

>>3011888

Anarchy would be ideal but human nature dictates that governments will inevitably form.

What we need to do is muzzle and neuter the government. Make it into a nightwatchman instead of Big Brother.

>>3010207
I'm a published writer, and looking to establish an American Fascist organization.

How do we define mediocre?

>>3011889
No, I believe in financial redistribution to a certain degree, I just agree with him about power being relegated to as locally accountable a level as possible.

>>3011884

It doesn't feel like anything, because I honestly derive no satisfaction from being better than you. However, I have faith that we'll make a society where you'll catch up and live an enriching and honorable life. :)

>>3011888
Those officials are appointed by the citizens. If citizens were to run the system then wouldn't the citizens running it have to be appointed by the majority of citizens? What's the difference?

>>3011904
He's advocating a social system where there is no such thing as an official- there are no power structures period.

>>3011896

You'll get there someday. I have confidence in you.

>>3011897

>enriching and honorable

>government steals my money by force to give to people who won't work

wow, this is really what you think a rewarding and enriching life is?

>>3011907
>Libertarian
>No idea what's going on
>Always choose two.
:)

>>3011922

Enlighten me then. I'm open to new ideas.

>>3011907
There's a difference between won't work and can't work.

>>3011931

Elaborate, please.

>>3011941
Can't find a job, disability, impairment, lack of qualifications, ect.

>>3011946

I couldn't find a job so I made my own work. Nothing stops anyone from doing this. Even the most crippled bum is capable of buying a cooler, some water and ice, and selling bottles for $1.50 each on a hot day.

Why should we support those who are a drain on our economy?

>>3011949
Go to bed Gina

>>3011925
>"I'm open to new ideas."
>Has done nothing but put words in others' mouths
:)

>>3011949
Implying people selling bottles on the street are benefiting the economy? Anybody not on a corporate level is a drain in the economy. You wanna mick Romney up in this biatch and ignore half the population?

>>3011949
I agree. But why should we defend property? I mean if you can't defend your water I don't see why I should be forced to pay for the water.

>>3011957

I see you're not even attempting any more. Shall I consider this a win on my part?

>>3011891
But that defeats the purpose of having a government. A government by nature is comprised of people wanting to gain benefit from themselves through governing others. If society understood this, then anarchism would be possible.

>>3011967
Gain benefit for themselves*

>>3011961

I'm not getting into an argument over property rights.

Though in the natural state of the world you own only what you can defend.

>>3011960

How is providing a useful service a drain on the economy? It benefits the economy by putting the money into the hands of someone who worked for it and will spend it.

>>3011949
How the fuck is can someone live off that, especially when 7/11 is selling the bottle for $1.19 because they get them in bulk?

>>3011967

Anarchism will never be possible. I'm sorry. Anarchism would lead to warlords popping up just like in Somalia.

>>3011967
actually government exists because people realize that organized work is more profitable than non-organized. It's the same reason why businesses are not anarchic but are structured vertically.

I think that anarchists should think that of government as the corporation that owns the land of the nation. Citizens as its shareholders and taxes as the rent that citizens pay to inhabit and use the soil that is owned by that corporation which is the nation.

>>3011979

Some people are willing to pay the extra money to avoid the hassle of going across the street. Sad but true, and that laziness can be exploited.

>>3011967
>A government by nature is comprised of people wanting to gain benefit for themselves through governing others

No. Seriously. No

And yet you do not want the natural state. You want government only in so far is convenient for you. How convenient...

>>3011978
Nothing is being produced, he's just buying cheap water, marking up the price, and selling it (if he can). He may as well be doing nothing, since all that's happening is money exchanging hands. This is great for him, but don't pretend he's actually contributing to the economy of his municipality, or something. The money he's getting came from non-resalers' pockets.

>>3011985
I believe he was saying that for anarchism to be possible there must first be a massive ideological/cultural shift in the global population whereby people no longer suffer to be oppressed by the state and capitalism. If this were to occur, it would most likely be impossible for a "warlord" to "pop up" from within the new stateless non-capitalist society.

>>3011993

the money he makes can be put back into the pockets of businesses who will in turn invest it.

He can save his profits and make a business that actually creates wealth.

It's better that he do that than he get handouts for doing absolutely nothing.

>>3011991

You're right. I don't want to live in Somalia. I want to live in a place where a man can live by the sweat of his brow without the fear of a local warlord raping his wife and daughter, enlisting his sons in a child army, and cutting off his hands.

>>3011993

What happens to the money after it exchanges hands? Just stays in limbo?

>>3011995

Possibly. and in a post-scarcity world Communism is the only form of government that makes sense. We're dealing with the here and now.

I think the majority of you miss the point of the comic. It has nothing to do the mass population being "unthinking sheep" but rather that many of us hold ourselves higher than others. Many of us, especially those who frequent 4chan, rarely place themselves as inferior to others. I think this happens because people want to see themselves as better even if that is a lie.

>>3012001
Scarcity is a product of capitalism. There's enough food, water, and shelter for everyone on the planet.

>>3012000
It does the same as other money does, that's not the issue. The issue is that you're either paying him or you're paying the government to sustain him.

In all cases, money MUST exchange hands for him to survive.

And if nobody buys his water, he'll starve. But if he gets a guaranteed handout from the government, he won't. See?

>>3012013

So paying people for doing nothing and creating a dependence on government handouts is morally superior to encouraging them to work and support themselves?

Some people die. Big deal. It happens. Stop crying over spilled milk and trying to play the hero to every poor person on the planet.

>>3012012

There is a finite supply of wealth right now, is what I am saying. Even if it is enough to sustain everyone currently on the planet, it is still finite.

>>3012024
>Some people die. Big deal. It happens. Stop crying over spilled milk and trying to play the hero to every poor person on the planet.

And this is where conservatives and liberals differ.

>>3011998
yeah naturally. You just want rights only as long as they apply to yourself.
You don't want a fair government you want a game where you always win.

>>3012032

I don't always win. I was playing against a stacked deck and I managed to prosper.

If someone doesn't, why should I care? I came from the same background. Obviously there was something inherent in my character that they are lacking.

>>3012031

I suppose so.

Funnily enough 200 years ago what I just said would have been considered liberal as all get-out.

>>3012024
It's not morally superior. It's more useful.
Starving people only brings social unrest and criminality.
When the state is incapable of guaranteeing a citizen his livelihood criminal organizations do.

>>3012024
Poor people actually use the money that they're given through welfare programs. If I remember correctly, 1 dollar in food stamps results in 1.25 in economic activity.

>>3012034
There is no reason why you should care.
There is no morality without love for others.
I may ask you: why should I be honest? why should I care about being moral?

There is no rational reason.

>>3012038

Like I said, if someone tries to fuck with my capital I will exercise my second amendment right.

This doesn't concern me.

>>3012040

The difference is in my example the money wasn't stolen from hard-working citizens to pay a bum who is too lazy to even sell water on the street.

>>3012046
>if it's voluntary, it's not theft!

Puh-leaze.

>>3012046
I don't know.
You don't sound to me like a good business man if you think that paying moderate taxes is worse than facing the mafia with your gun.
I get the impression than more than a successful person you are a lower-middle class hick.

>>3012046
It's not stealing they are part of a nation. If taxes are stealing then rent is stealing too.
Remember: you never really own land. It's rented to you by the government.

>>3012046
Most if not all of the money that the state takes by force is money that was extracted from wage-slaves by force. The state serves to shield capitalists from the pitchforks.

>>3012055
Yes, rent is extortion.

>>3012051

it's not. How could something voluntary be theft?

>>3012053

The state itself is simply a criminal organization. If I don't pay my protection (taxes) something bad will happen (federal fuck-me-in-the-ass prison).

>>3012055

The president and congress do not own the land I bought. I own it. They extort protection money from me because I own it.

>>3012057

>wage-slaves

No such thing without government intervention.

>>3012067
Please explain.

>>3012072

Monopolies create wage-slaves.

No monopoly has ever formed without the government propping it up.

>>3012080
I disagree. Capitalism creates wage-slaves. Capitalist businesses make profit and that profit is extracted from the value of a worker's labor.

And capitalism, with its chief concern being the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, trends toward monopolization. The extreme hypothetical end result of capitalism would be all of the worlds land and resources controlled by one family or individual.

>>3012094

Labor has no value save what the laborer is willing to work for.

Capitalism is simply a system of free market distribution of goods. Naturally those with more capital will tend to be the ones with more goods. Nothing prevents others from saving and obtaining the capital to form their own business.

>>3011990
Then please tell me why they are all immensely rich, at least on the federal level.

>>3012116

Because this government has been turned into a complete plutocracy.

>>3012119
And so has every other, bar Castro's. Hence governments by nature being run by people who are looking for personal gain.

>>3012123
Also, I'm talking about material gain here.

>>3012123

Getting rid of government completely is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It has benefits to humanity, but given too much power it becomes a destructive force.

>>3012131
I agree, but the benefits can be gained in different ways, and as far as i know, for a government to be effective it needs power. Partial democracy doesn't work, just as much as communism doesn't work. Either the responsibility needs to lie solely on the people, or solely on the government, and personally I think it should be the people.

I also think for that to work, there needs to be a much more effective education system, and that it needs to reach everyone, but that's another issue entirely.

lrn2cosmicconsciousness OP ya big faggot

There is no WE just I the universe.

Taking libertarians, republicans, capitalists seriously, is something that I seriously hope you gentlemen and ladies realize is outdated in the time we live in, the year 2012.

>>3011713
>I hate my job every day and I'm the one who created it.
So, you're basically unhappy for the 40 (60? 70?) hours you work a week so you can enjoy the weekends with your money? That's life?

>>3009867
Well sure, everybody thinks like that but they're all stupid and delusional. I'm the only one with an opinion that can be trusted.

>>3012034
>If someone doesn't, why should I care? I came from the same background. Obviously there was something inherent in my character that they are lacking.
Or you had better luck. Which has nothing to do with your character, before you reply on that.

>>3012113
>Capitalism is simply a system of free market distribution of goods.
Nope. Capitalism has nothing to do with free market and distribution.

>>3014434
>tfw the American Dream

>>3014434

That means my life is better than 99% of the people who came before me.

Go and ask a serf if they'd like to trade places with me.

Also congratulations. I'd forgotten about this thread but now you've birthed a tripfag. You have only yourself to blame.

>>3014457

Luck had nothing to do with it. If anything luck was working against me.

>>3014465

I'm not arguing semantics.

>>3014679

>>3014729

Which is why I never sold my soul to work in a factory.

I pay my workers above market wages. They have nothing to complain about.

>>3014746

NO YOUR WORKERS DESERVE EXACTLY AS MUCH AS YOU YOU GREEDY PIG TYRANT YOU ARE WORTHLESS YOU LAZY FATCAT HNNNGGGGGHH>

>>3014746
>I pay my workers above market wages. They have nothing to complain about

>>3014729
THis is retarded, if they were better at management they would take out a loan and start their own business and beat them out. The only issue with this is if some entity is making money by having a bad economy (such as when we bailout banks) showing that government intervention is at the very least negative to the economy.

approximately 90% of this thread is 16 or younger, op most of all
time for autosage

>>3014771
>implying the ability of a slave to own slaves of their own justifies a system of slavery

>>3014781

Implying Capitalism is anything like chattel slavery.

You retard.

>>3014770

>>3014751
But they do.

>>3014787
>SLAVERY IS FREEDOM
>WAR IS PEACE

>>3014803

They're welcome to go and start their own business, then. I'm not stopping them and I pay them enough for them to have some savings.

Most of them seem happy to work for me. The work isn't all that hard and they make more than a living wage.

The only time they ever even get chewed out is when they cost the company business or money.

>>3014787
Obviously. The point is that the ability of a wage-slave to eventually profit from the labor of their own wage-slaves doesn't justify the system that creates that wage-slavery. Capitalism requires an underclass of workers and a mass of unemployed to be used as a whip against them.

>>3014771
Saying "well they should have played the game better" is no justification for the inherent wrongness of the game's rules. John Stuart Mill has a brilliant analogy where he compares Capitalism to Nero setting up a race that all citizens are forced to compete in, and the slowest 10% are put to death. When that bottom 10% complain and insist that they should not be put to death, Nero merely replies "Well if you had been faster, you wouldn't be!" He's right, but it is utterly irrelevant to the point they're making.

Essentially, you are that guy saying "Just run faster!" Yes, potentially that worker COULD have strived and become a manager. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the system itself is exploitative.

>>3014807
>Being a libertarian
>Being able to see happiness in anything but your wallet

At least Rand was honest enough to not pretend like she could choose two.

>>3014787
But it is.

>>3014787
The key commodity of the capitalist production is labor power, the source of all surplus value, profit, and wealth. Since a person's labor power cannot be separated from their very being, it means that humans are literally bought and sold in the marketplace.

>>3014820

Some people are happy to have just a living wage and whatever. Not me. I chose something different. I chose...rapture.

>>3014818

Don't like the game? Don't play. I'll sell you a gun at a good price.

>>3014842
>Play by the rules or die
I like how that by attempting a counterargument you made your position CLOSER to the exaggerated Nero analogy than I did.

>>3014842
>Don't like the game? Don't play. I'll sell you a gun at a good price.

Are you telling people to commit suicide, or become homeless? There is no "not playing", either you participate in capitalism or you end up homeless, sick, hungry, or in jail.

>>3014851

But the thing is that life IS a game where the losers die. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I was close to losing myself but I manned up and pulled ahead. It wasn't easy and at some points death did seem like the better option, but I prospered and made something of myself. Everyone else has the capacity to as well, no exceptions. except in the case of the mentally and physically handicapped who should have probably been aborted anyway.

>>3014856

Suicide is a valid option, I think. Why shouldn't it be? And if wage slavery is so terrible, homelessness isn't that bad of an option. I lived comfortably if not lavishly at many points during the time I spent dredging edibles out of dumpsters.

>>3014862
You seem like a sociopath

>>3014873

You're hardly the first person to tell me that. If my sociopathy helps me get ahead in life then I, quite frankly, couldn't care less.