NationStates

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:23 pm**

PapaJacky wrote:
Liberty of Republic wrote:
Wow. You do realize that not all or even most humans are so "evil" as you like to put them out to be.

Oh no, I do have faith in humanity. I just don't have faith in for-profit humans.

I have issue with the word progress or even the term progressive. It implies that we have more freedoms now then there is yesterday. What I mean is, we all have basic freedoms(which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution does cover)which includes Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness(which means property when Jefferson wrote this document).
To include other such things as healthcare, wages, and more is only to interfere with other individuals.

"More freedom" isn't good in many cases. The word "Progressive" doesn't imply that we have more freedoms, because in truth, it does cockblock the Capitalist class from exploiting the people and the land, what it does imply, however, is that we are better now than we were before, which is entirely true.

So if someone wants to make a profit and improve their lot, they are bad. Oh yes the logic is there. :roll:

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:50 pm**

Liberty of Republic wrote:To include other such things as healthcare, wages, and more is only to interfere with other individuals.

To include such things as the right to be a boss or a landlord is only to interfere with other individuals.

Liberty of Republic wrote:
PapaJacky wrote:
Oh no, I do have faith in humanity. I just don't have faith in for-profit humans.

"More freedom" isn't good in many cases. The word "Progressive" doesn't imply that we have more freedoms, because in truth, it does cockblock the Capitalist class from exploiting the people and the land, what it does imply, however, is that we are better now than we were before, which is entirely true.

So if someone wants to make a profit and improve their lot, they are bad. Oh yes the logic is there.

People can improve their lot without becoming capitalists.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:25 pm**

Liberty of Republic wrote:
PapaJacky wrote:
Oh no, I do have faith in humanity. I just don't have faith in for-profit humans.

"More freedom" isn't good in many cases. The word "Progressive" doesn't imply that we have more freedoms, because in truth, it does cockblock the Capitalist class from exploiting the people and the land, what it does imply, however, is that we are better now than we were before, which is entirely true.

So if someone wants to make a profit and improve their lot, they are bad. Oh yes the logic is there.

No one said they were bad. I'm saying you shouldn't have faith in someone who's for profit.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:52 pm**

Why not go all out and vote for the Libertarian National socialist Green Party?

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:19 pm**

Genivaria wrote:Like many other Americans I have become tired of our rather limited choices when it comes to voting, the Republicans have gone off the deep end to the far-right and thus dragging the Democrats to the center.

Lately however many people have begun to support Third Party candidates such as Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein, both support civil liberties and oppose the interventionist policies of the previous administrations.

There main difference comes from their economic stances and the role of government in the market.

So who should 3rd party voters choose?

You could naturally vote for one or the other, but what is the likelihood of them getting enough votes to oppose the 2 main parties?
I believe that it would be far more effective if the 2 parties were to merge and therefore combine there voting base into one, and perhaps being able to challenge the 2 main parties.

I support a Green-Libertarian Alliance on the platform of Peace, Freedom, and Centrist Economics, unconcerned with ideology but only concerned with what works.

What say you General?

Centrist Economics and Libertarians?

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:31 pm**

Shofercia wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Like many other Americans I have become tired of our rather limited choices when it comes to voting, the Republicans have gone off the deep end to the far-right and thus dragging the Democrats to the center.

Lately however many people have begun to support Third Party candidates such as Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein, both support civil liberties and oppose the interventionist policies of the previous administrations.

There main difference comes from their economic stances and the role of government in the market.

So who should 3rd party voters choose?

You could naturally vote for one or the other, but what is the likelihood of them getting enough votes to oppose the 2 main parties?
I believe that it would be far more effective if the 2 parties were to merge and therefore combine there voting base into one, and perhaps being able to challenge the 2 main parties.

I support a Green-Libertarian Alliance on the platform of Peace, Freedom, and Centrist Economics, unconcerned with ideology but only concerned with what works.

What say you General?

Centrist Economics and Libertarians?

Libertarians and Greens are both anti-war, so you can say there's some liberal economics to it. Greens (wanted) another New Deal though.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:34 pm**

A Green-Libertarian alliance would be my worst nightmare come true - it's my two least favourite ideologies rolled into one.

Personally though I was really impressed by Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party - their platform is one which I could wholeheartedly get behind.

And despite my opposition to many of his political views, Gary Johnson was impressive during the third party debate and I would feel far safer in a world with Gary Johnson as the US President than Mitt Romney.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:47 pm**

A green-libertarian alliance could work.
They agree on Civil Liberties and Foreign Policy, in terms of economic issues they both want to end corporate welfare, and ecologically speaking they both want to remove government programs or government funding to programs that ruin the environment, and (I think) they both oppose obamacare.
Of course the Libertarian party (Which I am supporting this election) is not interested in going full-on "destroy the corporations", and they disagree a lot on matters of Education and Healthcare, but if they can put aside their ideas on Healthcare and Education I am sure they would be able to see Civil Liberty, Non-interventionist foreign policy, removal of corporate welfare and obamacare as progress.

By the way, I would have the Justice party join that alliance.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:15 am**

Liberty of Republic wrote:
PapaJacky wrote:
Oh no, I do have faith in humanity. I just don't have faith in for-profit humans.

"More freedom" isn't good in many cases. The word "Progressive" doesn't imply that we have more freedoms, because in truth, it does cockblock the Capitalist class from exploiting the people and the land, what it does imply, however, is that we are better now than we were before, which is entirely true.

So if someone wants to make a profit and improve their lot, they are bad. Oh yes the logic is there.

#1) the equation of "making a profit" with "improving their lot", is at best, highly questionable. (its not the little green pieces of paper that are unhappy)
#2) when they screw everyone, including, ultimately themselves, doing so, yes, this is not only evil, it is also very very stupid. which would make it funny, if it were easily un-do-able, which sadly, it isn't.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:41 am**

I don't think such an alliance being possible - libertarians are the exact opposite to the greens on what matters the most for the greens : environment protection. Libertarian are market fanatics, and are totally opposite to any environmental regulation. While the greens are for strict environmental regulation, state-driven energy transition, ...

Aside from all the flaws of free market, there are two which are fundamentally incompatible with greens : the fact it just doesn't handle well neither of the long term nor of externalities (like pollution).

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:45 am**

Liberty of Republic wrote:
PapaJacky wrote:
Oh no, I do have faith in humanity. I just don't have faith in for-profit humans.

"More freedom" isn't good in many cases. The word "Progressive" doesn't imply that we have more freedoms, because in truth, it does cockblock the Capitalist class from exploiting the people and the land, what it does imply, however, is that we are better now than we were before, which is entirely true.

So if someone wants to make a profit and improve their lot, they are bad. Oh yes the logic is there.

Studies have shown that people who are making just enough to live comfortably tend to be a LOT happier than the rich.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:18 am**

Liberty of Republic wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:Pleas explain to me how a debt-free capitalistic society works.

Easy. Do not put your purchases on a plastic card if you want to be free of debt. Or in other words, buy what you can afford. In a capitalistic society, there is going to be competition between many businesses to sell a needed product. Thus lowering the price. Not a hard concept to understand.

Holy shit. :palm:

You obviously don't have a basic understanding of rudimentary capitalism, and thus, I can quite confidently say that you have no idea what you're talking about in most of this conversation.

Debt is what pushes capitalism, even more so than competition in a way. You go in debt to get a college education, so you can have more leverage when applying for jobs. You get loans, which is putting you in debt, to buy a house, which you can sell for a higher price if the market is good. You get loans and sell stocks, another form of debt taking, to start a business, which will pay off your debt if it is successful. You put your purchases on a "plastic card" to route it to a bank, where the debt is erased if it is a debit card, or send it to a credit card company so you can save money to pay for it later.

Debt is what makes capitalism work, sweety. Capitalism is based upon the idea that you can spend money to make money. There is no such thing as a capitalistic society free of debt.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:20 am**

Liberty of Republic wrote:Have you looked at our debt lately? And let me remind some of you, its not all military. Big chunk of it is welfare programs and such. 16 trillion dollars. Yeah, if we were truly fiscally responsible, we would not spend more then we have and then print more to devalue the dollar. Does not take brains to figure that one out.

The debt shouldn't be that high, indeed. But it must exist. We take out loans to finance projects, invest in sure-things, invest in risky operations, and to pay back other loans directly in order to keep ourselves afloat. Like I said, (large) nations that are debt free tend to not be successful. It just isn't done.

NationStates

A Green-Libertarian Alliance