I would tend to agree. I think libertarianism has a stronger anarchist streak in it than some would care to admit to.
There are other hybrid ideas out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
Wrap yer brain around that one.
Not ironic at all when you consider I don't believe everyone should be voting nor do I believe everyone should have equal consumer power.
Perfectly consistent.
The problems in both systems lie with those who do not suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Uh, pecans. I could care less if one guy owned all the pecans.
Again, you have to tell me what they've monopolized before I can venture a guess of whether or not I care.
I think necessity is the mother of invention. I would think monopolizing oil would be a blessing to environmentalists. I can imagine a boom in alternative energy sources if, in fact, oil were monopolized.
Maybe, we'd finally get off our asses and find something else on which to run our engines.
We've already learned, you don't have to have oil to make an engine run. Now, make the price prohibitive -- due to monopoly -- and watch alternative energies take off.
Screw Mr. Oil Tycoon.
Also; so many industries are dependent on cheap and available energy, I can't imagine a monopoly would be able to sustain a prohibitive price for very long without biting a thousand hands that feed it. After all, Mr. Oil Tycoon can't run the oil company himself and he must employ thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands (in a monopoly) -- that depend on their needs being delivered by a transportation industry that can't exist if a monopoly drives energy prices out of reach.
Native range as of 1997.
Really? Have you seen the debt and deficits President Obama has managed to rack up over the past year?
All because of voters.
Who gives a if you give a ? Must be nice in the Yonicentric universe. Maybe you can just vote for everyone and control all the wealth yourself Yoni.
Hmm not sure about that. How much direct responsibility do voters have?
Does every person who voted for Obama share some blame for whatever he does in gov? Or just blame of they supported the actions he's taking?
What about if you voted for him even though you disagreed with half of his
platform, in order to prevent someone from winning whose platform you disagreed with entirely?
Hey, you asked the question.
Who gives a if you give a ?
Sounds like a plan.
Yes and yes.
You're an idiot.
My question was rhetorical mainly to point out how ridiculous your statement was.
You never cease to amaze Yoni.
I said voting isn't measurable short term, unlike shopping. I'll stand by that.
(Pokes fun at economicus)
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2010 at 06:30 PM.
You're the idiot if you don't recognize the value of voting for a lesser evil, IMO.
Are you Captain Kirk, gaming the Kobayashi Maru?
Now if you want to argue against voting for either using something like the Lottery Paradox, go ahead. However, I see no need for ad hominems. I was asking a valid question.
Why doesn't everyone in the country share some responsibility? Surely, if one were to receive blame for voting for the "wrong" candidate, then one could receive blame for not doing enough to support the "right" candidate.
As well, placing blame on a group of people for the actions of one is interesting. It happens in politics with regularity, but it doesn't seem half as moral in other areas. Especially if the gov individual goes against campaign promises.
For instance, if McCain were voted in and hypothetically performed the same exact way as Obama, the blame would be magically shifted on a total different part of te population.
Your thesis that voters are somehow to blame for massive deficits, massive debt and massive QE is correct, but trivial, stressing very much the *somehow*.
We stood to get the massive deficits, the massive debt and the massive QE regardless of who won in Nov 2008.
Putting it all on Obama voters is a cop out and a gross simplification.
WH23, if you want to answer my rambling screed above, Id be interested to read it.
Actually, I was saying you're an idiot if you think Obama is the lesser evil. As a libertarian, I've been voting for the lesser of evils for quite some time.You're the idiot if you don't recognize the value of voting for a lesser evil, IMO.
Are you Captain Kirk, gaming the Kobayashi Maru?
And, if you voted for Obama, thinking he was the lesser of evils, I apologize for calling you an idiot. I'll keep that to myself in the future.
That's when you get into the realm of what information is accessible to the electorate.Now if you want to argue against voting for either using something like the Lottery Paradox, go ahead. However, I see no need for ad hominems. I was asking a valid question.
Why doesn't everyone in the country share some responsibility? Surely, if one were to receive blame for voting for the "wrong" candidate, then one could receive blame for not doing enough to support the "right" candidate.
Yep. It's one of the reasons our founders hoped to keep all elections local; including that of President. Once upon a time, my local state representative was responsible for selecting the slate of electors that would vote for President.
I can pick up the phone, most days, and talk directly to my State Representative or State Senator.
If Obama is tied even vaguely and semantically to the ongoing economic fiasco in people's minds, that may be to one side's advantage.
The president owns the economy, again -- in people's minds -- despite the fact it rationally and technically it makes very little sense to say so.
I think the president's party orchestrated this whole calamity. Chief among the culprits, Tim Geithner.
I think it's fair to say Geithner was wearing a different hat when it first went down, as President of the NY Fed under Bush, as you may recall.
As I recall, the market rallied at news of his appointment to Treasury.
Elements of self-dealing were thematic post-panic, to be sure, but the loose threads led mostly to Goldman alums, i thought.
However did you trace the satanic partisan plot to sink the US economy and put the whole country in hock to megabanks and bank receivers to the Dems? That's a brand new one on me.
How'd it go down, profe?
All I have to say is: Republicans.
Maybe the inequity problem would fix itself if we stopped subsiduizing Americans that can work, and force them to work again.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
