{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
publicado originalmente en:Liberty Hub
6/11/2016 6:58:35 PM
11
Libertarian is backwards I'm sorry. We need to secure sustainability or humanity will face extinction through multiple means without a strong government.
My #1 goal above all else is the survival of mankind and I don't see libertarianism to really align with that
Also whoever is prez always expands government (republican or democrat) republicans just say they wouldn't but they do just as much as the dems. They are both the same party just republicans draw off the stupid voters to win the election. Sorry not sorry
English
-
[quote]Libertarian is backwards I'm sorry. We need to secure sustainability or humanity will face extinction through multiple means without a strong government.[/quote] So what you're saying is... ...by preserving the rights of individuals... ...humanity will go extinct? You'll have to elaborate more on that, because it sounds ridiculous. [quote]My #1 goal above all else is the survival of mankind and I don't see libertarianism to really align with that[/quote] That seems odd given the state's propensity to kill people. Again, I fail to see how we get from: Step 1) Preserve individual rights, to Step X) Humanity goes extinct. Has it occurred to you that individuals possess the right to life? [quote]Also whoever is prez always expands government (republican or democrat) republicans just say they wouldn't but they do just as much as the dems. They are both the same party just republicans draw off the stupid voters to win the election.[/quote] I don't see how that justifies an authoritarian government.
-
Being realistic a uniform society is required to ensure resource management. Earth is limited in resources population control must and will be put in place. Efficiency of recourses will supersede the rights of the individual. It is only time before a government is stronger than anything we have seen before. Unless the human population is reduced heavily before hand I doubt we will see a libertarian nation ever exsist again. It is a dying if not dead ideology already. It's being realist. Libertarian views threaten the health and security of it's citizens through reducing government in ways of public health and education. Both resulting in extending the average lifespan and quality. Anyone who pushes their ideology during the elections will accumulate power in office to force their ideology. Ex. Libertarians miraculously win White House. But still lose senate. He can't do anything unless he improves government benefitting him so he can push through reducing government. Fortunately a libertarian will never have the white house
-
[quote]Being realistic a uniform society is required to ensure resource management.[/quote] The USSR was pretty damn uniform. They also suffered from mass starvation. Mao's China was also uniform. Guess what? Mass starvation. Islamic Fundamentalist nations are also very uniform. You just have to put up with the public stonings and beheadings. [quote]Earth is limited in resources population control must and will be put in place.[/quote] Okay buddy, we're starting to enter Orwellian territory. Are you sure you're ready to label yourself a totalitarian, yet? [quote]Efficiency of recourses will supersede the rights of the individual.[/quote] There's a whiff of irony about this statement. Nations that respect individual rights tend to be more prosperous. Nations like Venezuela, which tread on individual rights, are not prosperous at all. The two best examples are Hong Kong and Korea. Hong Kong is China's golden goose. It's still allowed to operate semi-freely because of the prosperity that economic freedom brought. Now contrast North and South Korea. South Korea has more economic freedom by orders of magnitude. It also has an economy 38x the size of North Korea (which basically represses every individual right you can imagine). (http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html) [quote]Unless the human population is reduced heavily before hand I doubt we will see a libertarian nation ever exsist again. It is a dying if not dead ideology already. It's being realist.[/quote] Mhmm. Sure it is. Freedom can survive independently of an ideology. There are doubtless very few Venezuelans that call themselves Libertarians. However, any Venezuelan that deals goods on the black market is unconsciously participating in an agorist, capitalist act. [quote]Libertarian views threaten the health and security of it's citizens through reducing government in ways of public health and education. Both resulting in extending the average lifespan and quality.[/quote] We already had a discussion about education. If I remember correctly, you stopped replying after it was established that there was no reasonable explanation for a hiring rate 10x faster than an enrollment rate, or a 200% increase in spending. All of that, plus the fact that test scores hadn't increased. Oh, and let's not forget that following education budget cuts since 2008, test scores haven't dropped. In fact, if they haven't remained the same, they've gone up a point or two. Remember that?
-
Russia and china only pulled pieces of Marx. Communist nations=/= Marxism . His ideology was not followed and even Lenin accelerated plans that caused the problems in Russia. China followed suit. We are not ready to give up sense of self hence another factor to them not working. One of the worst assumptions that can be mans downfall is since capitalist countries are most prosperous they are the best. The wealthiest countries are as they are because they exploit other countries for resources through military or bureaucracy. That's not the economy at work. Under any system Valenzuela will not prosper and especially not under US puppeering. My original argument isn't which is better. My argument is sustainability. Things like the stock market is unstable and causes economic downturns. The zig zag of "what goes up must come down". The wave system causes cycle of hardships. The consumption of resources or population only shows a disgusting abuse of power not a perfect system. Love the Valenzuela reference but ignore the UK countries that share the same system just different wealth.
-
[quote]Russia and china only pulled pieces of Marx. Communist nations=/= Marxism . His ideology was not followed and even Lenin accelerated plans that caused the problems in Russia. China followed suit.[/quote] I don't remember even mentioning Marxism, but it's odd that you rush to defend it. Also, Russia and China failed because of forced collectivism. Marxist or not, [i]that[/i] was the model. [quote]We are not ready to give up sense of self hence another factor to them not working.[/quote] We? Referring to people in general? And what do you propose in order to get rid of this "sense of self?" Social engineering, perhaps? You really want to head into Rand's Anthem? [quote]One of the worst assumptions that can be mans downfall is since capitalist countries are most prosperous they are the best. The wealthiest countries are as they are because they exploit other countries for resources through military or bureaucracy.[/quote] That's odd. I don't remember Hong Kong ever exploiting anybody. Or Singapore, for that matter. South Korea certainly doesn't haul truckloads of material wealth out of North Korea. Zimbabwe isn't being invaded. [quote]My original argument isn't which is better. My argument is sustainability. Things like the stock market is unstable and causes economic downturns. The zig zag of "what goes up must come down". The wave system causes cycle of hardships.[/quote] While in collectivist nations that don't recognize individual rights, there is no cycle of hardship. There's just constant, unending hardship. [quote]The consumption of resources or population only shows a disgusting abuse of power not a perfect system.[/quote] There's virtue to be had in poverty, then? A prosperous nation is immoral? Can we not all be prosperous? [quote]Love the Valenzuela reference but ignore the UK countries that share the same system just different wealth.[/quote] Compare Venezuela to any European country on the Human Freedom Index. There's an enormous difference, and it shows. Look at the countries on the bottom and think about if you'd like to live there. Then look at the countries at the top. The differences are glaring.
-
1.I brought up Marxism. 2. If you don't find hong kongs I can't help you there. 3. South Korea is only prosperous because of American intervention and funneling of resources into the region 4. Unending hardship was already there before. See that's the problem. It goes with my argument mentioned previously. Prosperity isn't a problem it's prosperity under the deprivation of others and pretending it's better. 5. If you think freedom has anything to do with it I fail to see the connection. There are plenty of countries with more freedom living in poverty. You compare Valenzuela to UK and claim it's freedom that makes the difference. I say the difference would be there under any system of government. Looking at the history would show that
-
[quote]1.I brought up Marxism[/quote] Okay. [quote]2. If you don't find hong kongs I can't help you there.[/quote] The idea would be that you show how Hong Kong has become prosperous at the expense of somebody else. [quote] 3. South Korea is only prosperous because of American intervention and funneling of resources into the region[/quote] China poured lots of resources into Vietnam, and yet there's little prosperity. Under the Lend-Lease Act in WWII, the U.S. also poured a ton of money and resources into the USSR. They failed to become magnificently prosperous. The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet there's little prosperity. China has also poured resources into North Korea. It's like China's little pet, in fact. However, North Korea has still failed to bring its people out of poverty. [quote]4. Unending hardship was already there before. See that's the problem. It goes with my argument mentioned previously. Prosperity isn't a problem it's prosperity under the deprivation of others and pretending it's better[/quote] And, again, I point towards Hong Kong. Who becomes impoverished when Hong Kong becomes prosperous? What about Singapore? Who loses when they win? Who loses when the U.S. wins? Who loses when [i]I[/i] win? Who lost when I collected my paycheck yesterday? [quote]5. If you think freedom has anything to do with it I fail to see the connection. There are plenty of countries with more freedom living in poverty.[/quote] Show me an example of a country high on the HFI that exists in a state of abject poverty. Then show me a country low on the HFI that lives prosperously. Then check and see. Are they the exceptions to the rule? [quote]You compare Valenzuela to UK and claim it's freedom that makes the difference. I say the difference would be there under any system of government.[/quote] A Parliamentary system brings prosperity? I disagree. A governing system doesn't necessarily contribute to the wealth of a nation. Look at Iran in the 70's. They were basically monarchical. A European traveler would have felt right at home - Iran was a modernized, Westernized nation. Look at Japan at the onset of WWII. It still had an emperor, and yet it was becoming a industrialized powerhouse. Look at India in the late 1940's. They were technically a democracy, but people lived in squalor.
-
China poured lots of resources into Vietnam, and yet there's little prosperity. Under the Lend-Lease Act in WWII, the U.S. also poured a ton of money and resources into the USSR. They failed to become magnificently prosperous. The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet there's little prosperity. China has also poured resources into North Korea. It's like China's little pet, in fact. However, North Korea has still failed to bring its people out of poverty. [b]yes because weapons and military personnel are what make other countries prosper. China didn't give nearly as much as the US. Btw both sides gave "resources" including the US to their allies in the region so you can't just imply china caused the lack of prosperity. Same applies to Korea. [/b] And, again, I point towards Hong Kong. Who becomes impoverished when Hong Kong becomes prosperous? What about Singapore? Who loses when they win? Who loses when the U.S. wins? Who loses when [i]I[/i] win? Who lost when I collected my paycheck yesterday? [b]you keep going off my point of the inevitability of resource depletion under competition [/b] Show me an example of a country high on the HFI that exists in a state of abject poverty. Then show me a country low on the HFI that lives prosperously. Then check and see. Are they the exceptions to the rule? [b]what is your criteria of human freedom? A persons index online or being able to do what you want. If the latter than I'd like you to point to a place with few laws and small government if at all that is prosperous[/b] A Parliamentary system brings prosperity? I disagree. A governing system doesn't necessarily contribute to the wealth of a nation. Look at Iran in the 70's. They were basically monarchical. A European traveler would have felt right at home - Iran was a modernized, Westernized nation. Look at Japan at the onset of WWII. It still had an emperor, and yet it was becoming a industrialized powerhouse. Look at India in the late 1940's. They were technically a democracy, but people lived in squalor.[/quote] [b]so you are supporting my claim that the system isn't what creates the wealth. Perfect. Japan was quite the superpower at the time under their militant uniform society I agree[/b]
-
[quote]yes because weapons and military personnel are what make other countries prosper. China didn't give nearly as much as the US. Btw both sides gave "resources" including the US to their allies in the region so you can't just imply china caused the lack of prosperity. Same applies to Korea.[/quote] China gave an ample amount of personnel. Furthermore, it isn't even just a matter of who gave more. If these things truly contributed to the long-term prosperity of a nation, then you'd think that North Korea would amount to more than the world's dystopian freak show. You'd think that the USSR would have boomed after the Lend-Lease Act. I'm not implying that China caused the lack of prosperity. I'm arguing that it has no real bearing on the prosperity of a nation. South Korea is a utopia compared to North Korea. It's ridiculous to think that we could make North Korea the same just by dumping military equipment into it. [quote]you keep going off my point of the inevitability of resource depletion under competition[/quote] So state-sanctioned poverty is moral because it conserves resources? [quote]what is your criteria of human freedom? A persons index online or being able to do what you want. If the latter than I'd like you to point to a place with few laws and small government if at all that is prosperous[/quote] (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/human-freedom-index) [quote]The Human Freedom Index presents a broad measure of human freedom around the world through the use of 76 indicators of personal, civil and economic freedoms to rank 152 countries around the world.[/quote] There's the criteria. A prosperous place with few laws and small government? [b]Hong Kong. Singapore. South Korea. The Caymans. New Zealand.[/b] There's a clear connection between a nation's wealth and its ranking on the HFI. [quote]so you are supporting my claim that the system isn't what creates the wealth. Perfect.[/quote] Now hold it right there. The [i]economic model[/i] plays a massive role. The [i]government model[/i] doesn't necessarily have that much influence. Don't confuse the two. I used Japan as an example because they were ruled by an Emperor. An emperor can be Marxist or capitalist, and that model will have a much greater influence. [quote]Japan was quite the superpower at the time under their militant uniform society I agree[/quote] Japan's success followed a "Westernization" of the economy, including a focus on expanded economic freedom.
-
China gave an ample amount of personnel. Furthermore, it isn't even just a matter of who gave more. If these things truly contributed to the long-term prosperity of a nation, then you'd think that North Korea would amount to more than the world's dystopian freak show. You'd think that the USSR would have boomed after the Lend-Lease Act. I'm not implying that China caused the lack of prosperity. I'm arguing that it has no real bearing on the prosperity of a nation. South Korea is a utopia compared to North Korea. It's ridiculous to think that we could make North Korea the same just by dumping military equipment into it. [b]so are you suggesting china gave anything close to what the US has given? Yes it can just look at Israel you can't tell me all that power and wealth came from the region. Never said military resources improve economic standing (it doesn't at all which I mentioned before) you are arguing with your own previous points you said how the US. Nvm just going to cycle again[/b] So state-sanctioned poverty is moral because it conserves resources? [b]I'm not arguing about today. I'm arguing about the inevitable future. When resources are scarce everyone is in poverty already. So yes[/b] [quote]what is your criteria of human freedom? A persons index online or being able to do what you want. If the latter than I'd like you to point to a place with few laws and small government if at all that is prosperous[/quote] A prosperous place with few laws and small government? [b]Hong Kong. Singapore. South Korea. The Caymans. New Zealand.[/b] [b]you telling me New Zealand and Hong Kong are small governments? Heck then id agree to make the us more like New Zealand [/b] Now hold it right there. The [i]economic model[/i] plays a massive role. The [i]government model[/i] doesn't necessarily have that much influence. Don't confuse the two. I used Japan as an example because they were ruled by an Emperor. An emperor can be Marxist or capitalist, and that model will have a much greater influence. [b]originally I never brought economic or government model. Under any model the same places are still richer than others. Regardless of model or system. Pre and post change of economic or system did nothing to change their status as a whole. [/b] Japan's success followed a "Westernization" of the economy, including a focus on expanded economic freedom. [b]you have such a romantics view of westernization don't you. Japan was wealthy before and after us made it a puppet. Japan was already a superpower before any westerners touched it[/b]
-
[quote]so are you suggesting china gave anything close to what the US has given? Yes it can just look at Israel you can't tell me all that power and wealth came from the region. Never said military resources improve economic standing (it doesn't at all which I mentioned before) you are arguing with your own previous points you said how the US. Nvm just going to cycle again[/quote] Well, South Korea at this point receives almost exclusively military support from the U.S. China has continually been invested in the well-being and technological advancement of North Korea. It constantly throws its weight around in the U.N. to protect its pet nation. Yet it doesn't prosper. Seriously, go look at the HFI again. Look at the squalid nations near the bottom. Some of them are benefactors of foreign aid, if not most of them. [quote]I'm not arguing about today. I'm arguing about the inevitable future. When resources are scarce everyone is in poverty already. So yes[/quote] And we've established that a state-run economy is the worst way to efficiently allocate resources. USSR? Mass starvation. Mao's China? Same thing. An economy that leaves decisions to the people will experience more success. Luxembourg, for example. [quote]you telling me New Zealand and Hong Kong are small governments? Heck then id agree to make the us more like New Zealand[/quote] Look at the economic freedom before anything else. New Zealand recently assaulted free speech. While that's abhorrent, it will only minimally affect the economical well-being of the nation. [quote]originally I never brought economic or government model. Under any model the same places are still richer than others. Regardless of model or system. Pre and post change of economic or system did nothing to change their status as a whole.[/quote] Don't say that the economic model of a nation isn't responsible for the prosperity of the nation. The USSR had a stretch of land that is similar to Alaska - full of natural resources, including oil, minerals, and timber. They found themselves unable to provide for their people. The resources were there. The model wasn't one that encouraged gathering them. [quote]you have such a romantics view of westernization don't you. Japan was wealthy before and after us made it a puppet. Japan was already a superpower before any westerners touched it[/quote] Japan's massive spike in power came before WWII. This was driven by a deliberate attempt at "Westernizing" the economy. The culture remained very, very different, but the economic model resembled a European nation. Russia attempted the same thing, which prompted the construction of St. Petersburg. The czar wanted to Westernize the economy, but tried to use state-forced labor to do it. That's not Western.
