Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1935711 - 09/20/03 02:55 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

... yes, alex, the cops.

I see. Looks like we've found the crux of our differences then mush. You believe cops will protect 14 year old girls living in shacks against billion dollar corporations.

I don't.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1935838 - 09/20/03 03:48 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

why not?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936032 - 09/20/03 05:04 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

The problem with mushmaster's argument:

As explored in E. E. Schattshneider's "The Semi-Sovereign People" there is an extreme bias towards the rich in the abillity to organize. This results in having the leisure time as well as the money to influence people (through advertising and other ways of manufacturing consent, see Stuart Ewen's book "PR!") and politicians through campaign donations.
Additionally, corporations are already organized before the worker even fills out the job application. And they are organized between each other as well through organazations such as the National Association of Manufacturers.
Another thing mushmaster is overlooking is that a corporations goal is not to appease its workers. a corporation's (or rather when i speak of a 'corporation' i mean those who make its decisions, meaning its owners) goal is to make money FOR THEMSELVES. not for the entire company. the goal is to pay wokers as low as possible while still retaining them and their input. And the advantage in hiring goes to corporations. there are always people looking for work but how often in history has there just been 'too many openings and not enough people'. thus, since they know they'll find some desperate massichist to fill the position, they'll pay as low as they can get away with.
after all, back in the days before minimum wage what did we have? we had a ruling bourgeoisie who owned the means of production and made insane amounts of money off of paying workers next to nothing.

however, the citizen workers (thankfully) have one method of organization that is readily available to them--voting. thats how eventually minimum wages and other such laws came into being. I think there would be more if we didnt have this crappy two-party system where one-issue voters such as gun-rights advocates and pro-lifers are forced to vote for a party that also supports corporations' rights even though they may disagree with that, but they care too much about the above issues.

the bottom line is that these owners control the means of production and because of that, have a huge advantage over the worker and use this advantage (knowing the worker doesnt have many other options) to pay as little as possible. government and workers' rights have tried to even the playing field a bit, but to little avail.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936059 - 09/20/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

The only solution is RAW's Guns and Dope party.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936077 - 09/20/03 05:27 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

As explored in E. E. Schattshneider's "The Semi-Sovereign People" there is an extreme bias towards the rich in the abillity to organize. This results in having the leisure time as well as the money to influence people (through advertising and other ways of manufacturing consent, see Stuart Ewen's book "PR!") and politicians through campaign donations.

true. where's the problem?

as far as influencing politicians... if government was required to stay out of business, there would be no reason for businesses not to stay out of government.

Additionally, corporations are already organized before the worker even fills out the job application. And they are organized between each other as well through organazations such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

the point here being?

Another thing mushmaster is overlooking is that a corporations goal is not to appease its workers.

of course it isn't. nor is it the worker's goal to appease the corporations. everyone is looking out for their own best interests, and making voluntary actions that they believe they will benefit from.

a corporation's (or rather when i speak of a 'corporation' i mean those who make its decisions, meaning its owners) goal is to make money FOR THEMSELVES. not for the entire company.

the people who own the company profit only from its prosperity. why would they not make decisions in the best interest of the company? and furthermore, if they don't, who cares? they're the ones who will lose if the company falters.

however, the citizen workers (thankfully) have one method of organization that is readily available to them--voting. thats how eventually minimum wages and other such laws came into being.

rather than elect officials to use unjust force on their behalf, a more reasonable method of organization that is also readily available to them would be the labor union.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936109 - 09/20/03 05:44 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

many here seem to harbor an underlying sentiment that something is owed to people just for being here.

you will be paid for your work (or anything else) only as much as it is worth to the person you are providing it for.

already we've got people being forced to pay more than they would voluntarily agree to... what's next, forcing companies to employ people they wouldn't otherwise hire?

a business is not a charity organization

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936131 - 09/20/03 05:54 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

what's next, forcing companies to employ people they wouldn't otherwise hire?




Hiring quotas and AA already do that mushmaster.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: ]
    #1936431 - 09/20/03 09:09 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers, they can collectively drive down wages and the owners keep the profits. since the system inherently favors the corporations it is my opinion that something must be done to level the playing field, so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.
The problem here is that, as with any policy controversy, there are competing public goods. In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice. Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness. The workers' right to pursue happiness is being threatened as corporations collectively drive down wages so that they can pocket more profits. The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage. When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.
Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance. It wants total freedom to do just about anything apart from physical harm. However, in the arena of competing public goods there has to be a balance, one public good cannot always trump the other. Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:

rather than elect officials to use unjust force on their behalf, a more reasonable method of organization that is also readily available to them would be the labor union.




did you not read what i just said? corporations have much more of an advantage in organizing than individual employees or prospective employees. labor laws try to correct that imbalance in the interest of social justice.

personally i just can't see how the right of an owner to increase profit margins even further is more important than to make sure a worker has enough to put food on the table, roof over their heads and pay the bills.

and your example of paying someone to mow your lawn for $4.00 is irrelevant to the discussion. you CAN pay them that because no policeman is really concerned about these small financial dealings where the playing field is about equal, where the employer and employee are about equally organized. the problem lies between corporations and the individual unemployed.

for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut. well the worker knows he couldnt afford to be out of a job for a month or two while looking for another one while the corporation could easily take the hit of the loss of production of one measily employee. So it knows the worker will take the pay cut and the owner will pocket a bit more money. And the corporations will adopt these policies if they can get away with it (though maybe not doing it so directly) because that is a corporation's only telos--to make more profits.



--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1936559 - 09/20/03 10:17 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

TaoTeChing writes:

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...

You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.

since the system inherently favors the corporations...

Again, something stated as fact which isn't. In this case, the "system" we are discussing is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Such a system (more accurately lack of system) favors neither side.

...it is my opinion that something must be done to level the playing field...

See the recent thread titled "The Level Playing Field Act".

...so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.

Since when is a thing worth anything other than what someone is willing to pay for it?

In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice.

False dichotomy. Why is it just for an employer looking to hire someone to be forced to pay more than he needs to? Are employers second class citizens? Are they to be accorded less justice than others?

Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness.

You have missed the key word in that phrase -- the right to pursue happiness. No one has the right to happiness, just as no one has the right to be paid a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers. One does however have the right to pursue the things that will bring him happiness, and the right to seek an employer willing to pay him a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers.

The workers' right to pursue happiness is being threatened as corporations collectively drive down wages so that they can pocket more profits.

Incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that corporations are acting in concert (an arbitrary statement unsupported by evidence, but let's assume for the moment it is true) to drive down wages, the worker has other options in pursuing happiness. He can start his own business, either by himself or with a group of like-minded individuals. He can seek employment with smaller existing businesses rather than with corporations. He can learn to juggle or perform magic tricks and be a street busker.

The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage.

So sorry, this is incorrect. Corporations factor into their pricing the cost of wages. If the cost of wages go up, prices go up. The corporation's bottom line remains unaffected. What is threatened, however, is the chance of someone seeking a first job. It has been so well-documented that with every bump in the minimum wage there is a corresponding bump in people without jobs that it astonishes me when people try to argue this hoary old chestnut yet again. Minimum wage laws harm the young, the uneducated, the infirm and the unskilled far more than they harm corporations. This is not ivory-tower theory I'm talking here, my philosopher friend, this is easily verifiable fact.

When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.

Priority of what? Priority in choosing against which peaceful individual the initiation of force is to be applied? How can one who professes to be a philosopher justify such a thing?

Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance.

A "balanced" use of force? How does that work?

However, in the arena of competing public goods there has to be a balance, one public good cannot always trump the other.

There is no such thing as a "public" good. The "public" is nothing more than several individuals. If something is bad for an individual, it is bad for the "public" as well.

Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.

No one in a Libertarian society is guaranteed security, health, or happiness. They are however left free to attempt to obtain all three.

did you not read what i just said? corporations have much more of an advantage in organizing than individual employees or prospective employees.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Corporations are not some monolithic entity marching in lockstep. Company A routinely tries to steal workers from company B. This is so common there are literally hundreds of firms out there who make a damn good living doing nothing BUT stealing workers from companies.

personally i just can't see how the right of an owner to increase profit margins even further is more important than to make sure a worker has enough to put food on the table, roof over their heads and pay the bills.

So you are saying a company should pay based not on the work performed, but on the number of dependents a worker has? How is that fair to the healthy single young woman who has chosen to live with three roomies in order to save for her future?

and your example of paying someone to mow your lawn for $4.00 is irrelevant to the discussion.

Incorrect. It is completely relevant. The principle being illustrated is that no one has the right to prevent you from exchanging your labor for a price you are willing (even eager) to accept. This is as true for a ten year contract as it is for a one hour contract.

for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut.

You have never worked a day in your life, have you?

This scenario is far, FAR more common in tiny Mom and Pop businesses than it is in huge corporate environments.

well the worker knows he couldnt afford to be out of a job for a month or two while looking for another one while the corporation could easily take the hit of the loss of production of one measily employee.

If the corporation is in such dire straits that it is risking the loss of experienced employees, it is not in the best of shape, and can't "easily" take any hits. Corporations who produce less profit less.

So it knows the worker will take the pay cut and the owner will pocket a bit more money.

It "knows" no such thing. The employee may just shrug and say, "I quit. I've always wanted to try my hand at something else."

And the corporations will adopt these policies if they can get away with it (though maybe not doing it so directly)...

Arbitrary speculation, unfounded in fact. You are aware of course that Henry Ford, faced with a surfeit of available labor, nonetheless deliberately chose to pay his workers double the going rate of the day in order to assure himself a reliable pool of employees. Ford's goal was to make money... LOTS of money. He did.

...because that is a corporation's only telos--to make more profits.

There are more ways to make profits than to hire the cheapest possible employees -- as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and thousands of other "fat cat CEOs" have proven so amply.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1936751 - 09/20/03 11:49 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing writes:
my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...
You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.
since the system inherently favors the corporations...
Again, something stated as fact which isn't. In this case, the "system" we are discussing is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Such a system (more accurately lack of system) favors neither side.




did you read my last post? go read Schattshneider's Sem-Sovreign People, its an authority on political science theory from the 60's. Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

Quote:

...so that the worker is fairly compensated for the work they contribute.
Since when is a thing worth anything other than what someone is willing to pay for it?




I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency. These are real people we're talking about who have to feed their children (who shouldnt be punished for their father not being paid enough of a wage to live on). This is not determing the value of a personal cassette player or bag of potato chips.

Quote:

In this case it is freedom of financial dealings versus social justice.
False dichotomy. Why is it just for an employer looking to hire someone to be forced to pay more than he needs to? Are employers second class citizens? Are they to be accorded less justice than others?




As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Quote:

Or to put it in Lockean terms, liberty versus the right to pursue happiness.

You have missed the key word in that phrase -- the right to pursue happiness. No one has the right to happiness, just as no one has the right to be paid a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers. One does however have the right to pursue the things that will bring him happiness, and the right to seek an employer willing to pay him a hundred and thirty dollars an hour for flipping burgers.




First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue
happiness. That is what MINIMUM wage is. Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life. The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers" (and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming). Hmm, doesnt have quite the same effect when you use the truth does it?

Definition from infoplease.com of minimum wage:
Quote:

"The goal in establishing minimum wages has been to assure wage earners a standard of living above the lowest permitted by health and decency. The minimum has been set by labor unions through collective bargaining, by arbitration, by board action, and, finally, by legislation."




notice "lowest permitted by health and decency" i.e. NOT $135 an hour. And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

Also it says
Quote:

Since 1989, businesses earning less than $500,000 annually have not been subject to minimum-wage rules.




so it does NOT apply to mowing lawns and it does not apply to tiny companies struggling to make a profit. its about justice that those greed fat cats share some of their profits.

Quote:

The corporation's right to increase profit margins is being threatened by minimum wage.
So sorry, this is incorrect. Corporations factor into their pricing the cost of wages. If the cost of wages go up, prices go up. The corporation's bottom line remains unaffected. What is threatened, however, is the chance of someone seeking a first job. It has been so well-documented that with every bump in the minimum wage there is a corresponding bump in people without jobs that it astonishes me when people try to argue this hoary old chestnut yet again. Minimum wage laws harm the young, the uneducated, the infirm and the unskilled far more than they harm corporations. This is not ivory-tower theory I'm talking here, my philosopher friend, this is easily verifiable fact.




okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed? this is a completely different approach than from earlier. Sorry, but as an unskilled, uneducated (yet), unemployed person looking for a job, im much happier knowing that when I DO get a job i'll be able to support myself with it.

Quote:

When it comes down to it, I think the priority goes to the impoverished worker over the CEO fat cat.
Priority of what? Priority in choosing against which peaceful individual the initiation of force is to be applied? How can one who professes to be a philosopher justify such a thing?




priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage. And stop it with this "peaceful voluntary contract" stuff. we're talking about hiring unskilled workers who HAVE NO OTHER OPTION IF THEY WANT TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. its not like those small buisnesses you talked about are always hiring, trust me, im looking for jobs at the moment, and in order to start a small business you need CAPITAL, which obviously they won't have. and if your only other option is to live as a street performer which is almost like begging for change than thats not really much of an 'option' is it? It's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying "either give me your money or get your brains blown out." then saying he voluntarily chose to give me his money instead of his other available options. These uneducated unskilled workers HAVE NO OTHER OPTION as much as you might like to tell yourself they do.

And since when is a philosopher automatically a libertarian? Jeez, you think Nietzche and St. Thomas of Aquinas can be grouped together holding similar overarching views just because theyre both philosophers?? A 'philosopher' does not determine one to hold one view over another. Get a dictionary.

Quote:

Personally the trouble with libertarianism for me is that it doesnt seem to recognize balance.
A "balanced" use of force? How does that work?




Not forcing the corporation to pay him $135 an hour to flip burgers but not letting them get him try to accept less that that which he could live off demanded by basic health and dignity.
Other "balanced" uses of force? Policemen taking someone in custody while respecting the criminals rights.
Interrogating and imprisoning a suspect but not torturing them.
Warring with an enemy but not violating the Geneva convention.
Is this really that hard an idea to understand or do you need more examples?


Quote:


for example lets say that someone is working at a corporation and is just earning enough to get by. Then his boss comes up to him and tells him that he's going to have to either be fired or else take a small pay cut.
You have never worked a day in your life, have you?



don't be stupid.

It was an analogy to what happens on the unemployment market, the corporations are more equipped financially to deal with not hiring a worker than a worker is financially equipped to go unemployed another indefinate amount of time. And why is this race to the bottom so hard to understand when it is currently happening globally because of free trade? Lets say there are 200 unskilled, uneducated people looking for jobs. Corporation A hires 50 of them for $7 an hour and Corporation B gives out a notice offering to pay 50 workers $5 an hour for any of those remaining 150 who want to work. Rather than face unemployment, they will be SOME who just want to get a job (there ALWAYS are). Then Corporation A looks over at B and decides the next crop they'll hire they'll offer $5 an hour. After all, who else are they going to go to? Corp B?
Remember the key in these minimum wage scenarios is that there is NO COMPETITION amongst corporations for unskilled workers. There is a sea of them and they're a dime a dozen.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a "public" good. The "public" is nothing more than several individuals. If something is bad for an individual, it is bad for the "public" as well.




A 'public' good is something that is given to all the public such as minimum wage or civil liberties or other forms of security in health, privacy and safety. As for if something is bad for AN individual, it is bad for the public, i dont agree. Now if it is a significant number of individuals then it is a threat to that public good. What is a 'significant number'? thats where policymakers come in and try to make a fair decision.

Quote:

Privacy cannot always trump security and vice-versa. Freedom cannot always trump security either, and i mean security both in health and in the pursuit of happiness.
No one in a Libertarian society is guaranteed security, health, or happiness. They are however left free to attempt to obtain all three.



Exactly, this is where our ideologies diverge. Personally i'd rather be guaranteed enough food to survive should anything happen to me rather than be guaranteed the freedom to attempt to obtain food. But thats an opinion and is why we have different ideologies. What I don't like is when libertarians focus on all these liberties and then pretend that once put in place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits. Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too.

As for what a corporation's purpose is, this is not some wildly fanatical liberal cock and bull. A corporation is a group of people getting together during the day time to help each other make money to spend in their off time. Thats just what it is. Although there might be exceptions when some CEOs are so unimaginably rich that money loses all meaning (such as your examples), for the rest of them, if they can get the same thing out of their workers by paying them less as by paying them more, why wouldnt they pay them less? Not unless the CEO is Jesus or the Dalai Lama or some other altruist. There some rare examples of CEOs doing something besides making a profit, but thats not usually the purpose of a corporation. My point is that its not a monolithic structure hell-bent on planetary doom, its just a sort of support group for people who want to make money, so thats what they try to do.

Blech, thats enough for me, i cant believe i just wrote all that (or that someone might be bothered to read it)


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDrugAgainstWar
Shroom Padawan

Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 5
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1936774 - 09/20/03 11:58 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

I don't really wish to step into this political shit storm, but I have to say that although I was once intrigued with libertarian ideas, I have since decided that I quite strongly disagree with them.

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

In my opinion, it all boils down to the value of human life. Are all humans equal? If not, should they be? If so, what constitutes equality?

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind. What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

Imagine completely privatized schools and health care - components of a libertarian system, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think I would like my children (should I ever have any) to be "educated" by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools. Is the corporation's chief goal to educate my child or make money? Also, I would hope that, should I get terribly ill, I would be treated at a hospital even if I was unable to support my stay financially. Would the refusal of a sick patient be considered an act of force if illness or death could have been easily prevented?

It's as if one is saying, "Sure, you can have an education and health if you can afford them." In my opinion, that's a step in the wrong direction.

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway. It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

Those who disagree with me are probably pleased with the fact that I'm too tired to formulate my response into a PREMISE-PREMISE-PREMISE-CONCLUSION format to keep playing the logic game. Issues such as these are meant to be the topic of disagreement as they are largely based on opinion. Differing opinions will lead to differing interpretations of fact. I'm a little too tired for trolling.


--------------------
Yabba dabba doo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMusicSucks
Illegal Smile
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 35
Re: libertarianism [Re: DrugAgainstWar]
    #1936967 - 09/21/03 01:11 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

A completely libertarian society is rather utopian, but any movements in its direction are all right by me.

In my opinion, it all boils down to the value of human life. Are all humans equal? If not, should they be? If so, what constitutes equality?

All human life is equal in its value, though not everyone is equal. No two people are equal, as, to me, equality would constitute absolute similarity.

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind. What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

There is no equality in a corrupted capitalist system. Again, an aspect of society which is in need of massive overhaul, which is made extremely difficult by people's general apathy towards working for a better society.

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway. It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

This is true. Too many people would jump at the chance to exploit a libertarian economy. Socially, however, I think that we can (and should, and will) gravitate towards more libertarian ideals. Says a lot about society that an economic system is not currently feasable due to the existence of the kind of people that would be all to eager to exploit (and destroy) it for their own personal gains. What makes the human race so great again?


--------------------
There is no dark side of the moon really... Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937039 - 09/21/03 01:47 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Excellent post Tao. You've comprehensively demolished any libertarian arguments put so far.

I must admit I'd find it a little easier believing libertarians alledged concern for the treatment of workers if I'd ever heard anyone who wasn't to the right of Atilla the Hun espousing libertarian values. As it is, it sounds like a good way of giving corporations supreme power and reducing everyone else to slavery. Our forefathers fought and died just to get their children the right to an education and decent working conditions. The corporations didn't give us rights out of the kindness of their heart. Poor people had to fight and die for them.

I see no equality in a capitalist system, and I have grown to find that libertarianism encourages capitalism of the worst kind.

Amen  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: libertarianism [Re: Phred]
    #1937203 - 09/21/03 03:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

my point is that since corporations are more organized than individual unempoyed workers...

You state this as if it is fact. It isn't. Besides, no matter how organized a business may be, its organization means exactly squat if it can't persuade people to accept employment with it.




Can you give me one example of a coroporation that is not more organised than individual unemployed workers??


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1937208 - 09/21/03 03:37 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Thanks, glad to know it was appreciated.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937706 - 09/21/03 11:18 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

TaoTeChing writes:

Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

An individual corporation is "organized" only in the sense that the various people who work for it do their various jobs in an efficient and logical manner. This is self-evident -- if tasks were done at random the corporation wouldn't last long. You have failed to show how this internal organization of individual corportions allows them to "collectively" drive down wages.

I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency.

You dodged the question. I repeat -- since when is a thing worth other than what someone is willing to pay for it?

These are real people we're talking about who have to feed their children...

I ask again... if the money paid for labor is to be based on the number of dependents of the one supplying the labor, are you in favor of paying a single mother with six kids more than a single teenager fresh out of high school with no kids? If not, why not?

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

Neither I nor any other Libertarian I have ever met is against you or anyone else helping the needy -- with your own money. We want the freedom to be allowed to choose the recipients of our charity.

First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue happiness.

It may surprise you to hear that I have read Bentham. Not everything he theorized was correct. However, to address this specific premise of his -- he is incorrect. Human happiness comes and goes. Many people with little to no basic security are capable of great happiness while others with rock solid security are incapable of happiness. However, let's temporarily presume for the sake of argument that his premise is correct. How does this justify seizing by force the products of the effort of others? How does this justify preventing by force someone from agreeing to trade his effort for goods or currency at a mutually agreed-upon rate?

Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life.

And who decides what this minimum is to be? Those who have six dependents or those who have none? Some politician in a thousand dollar suit who has never flipped a burger in his life? If someone calculates that he needs just $4 an hour to lead his basic very humble life, why must he be prevented by force from obtaining this $4 an hour?

The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers"...

But that is the case. No one has the right to be paid $5 an hour. Or $6 or $7 or $70 or $700. One does however have the right to try to persuade a potential employer that one's effort is worth to them $5 or $7 or $70. Similarly, no one has the right to receive $5 or $7 or $70 for each hamburger one offers for sale. One does however have the right to try to persuade one's potential customers that one's hamburger is worth $5 or $7 or $70.

...(and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming).

I think no such thing. I worked in a bar for many years. Ten hour shifts with NO breaks -- not even to go to the bathroom. Stretches of three or four hours with literally not enough time to light a cigarette. When I was working in the computer sales world, my three best salesmen, switchboard operator, inventory control guy, service department head, and secretary all had worked at MacDonalds. They were some of the best people I have ever had the privilege to work with. The company I worked for paid all of them far, FAR higher than minimum wage, despite the fact the company was not unionized. So much for "the race to the bottom".

notice "lowest permitted by health and decency" i.e. NOT $135 an hour. And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

Why do you believe labor unions are forbidden by Laissez-faire Capitalism? They are not. Obviously, just as an employer has the right to decline to hire an employee for more than he is willing to pay, a union member (and even a non-union member) has the right to decline an offer of employment for less than he is willing to work for.

so it does NOT apply to mowing lawns and it does not apply to tiny companies struggling to make a profit.

News flash -- it is quite possible to be very profitable on revenues of less than $500,000 a year.

its about justice that those greed fat cats share some of their profits.

News flash -- many businesses pay part of their compensation through profit-sharing. What do you think bonuses, commissions, stock options, etc. are? Notice that they are not required by law to do so, yet they do so anyway. So much for the "race to the bottom".

You speak of profits as if they were assured. They are not. Note that the employees get paid their wages whether a company makes any profits at all, even if a company loses money several years running. I know of many, MANY companies who would gladly pay their employees a percentage of the company profit, if the employees would absorb the same percentage of the losses. Surprisingly, there are astonishingly few candidates willing to accept this deal.

okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed? this is a completely different approach than from earlier.

There are often several arguments against bad ideas. Apart from the fact that minimum wage laws violate individual rights, they are bad economically as well. And I am not "saying" that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed, I am reporting it. It is well-documented fact that raising the minimum wage slows the economy and increases unemployment. This has been demonsrated over and over again. It is also fact that those hardest hit are those with the least job experience and the least job skills.

Sorry, but as an unskilled, uneducated (yet), unemployed person looking for a job, im much happier knowing that when I DO get a job i'll be able to support myself with it.

I'm happy to hear that. As long as you don't mind looking a lot longer for that job than you would have to if the minimum wage was lower, more power to you.

priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage.

So your personal philosophy states that it is not only allowed, but mandatory, that a bunch of fat cat, highly-paid politicians forcibly prevent a job seeker from accepting work at the rate he is willing (perhaps even eager) to accept?

And stop it with this "peaceful voluntary contract" stuff.

Someone is forcing the job seeker to sign a contract? Who?

we're talking about hiring unskilled workers who HAVE NO OTHER OPTION IF THEY WANT TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

I listed a few other options. You chose to dismiss them out of hand.

its not like those small buisnesses you talked about are always hiring, trust me, im looking for jobs at the moment, and in order to start a small business you need CAPITAL, which obviously they won't have. and if your only other option is to live as a street performer which is almost like begging for change than thats not really much of an 'option' is it?

Here's a question for you -- what is our theoretical job seeker to do in a small town? One where the only businesses are small businesses? You seem to be of the opinion that it is the obligation of corporations to set up shop wherever there are people looking for work.

It's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying "either give me your money or get your brains blown out." then saying he voluntarily chose to give me his money instead of his other available options.

So sorry, but the two situations are fundamental opposites. One involves coercion, the other does not.

These uneducated unskilled workers HAVE NO OTHER OPTION as much as you might like to tell yourself they do.

If you mean there is no other option for man to further his existence than expending productive effort, we are in agreement. If you mean the existence of unemployed means that others have the obligation to not only employ them, but employ them at a rate they are unwilling to pay, we are in disagreement. To paraphrase mushmaster, the fact that you happen to be here doesn't mean others have an obligation to do your bidding.

And since when is a philosopher automatically a libertarian? Jeez, you think Nietzche and St. Thomas of Aquinas can be grouped together holding similar overarching views just because theyre both philosophers??

A philosopher who uses emotions as tools of cognition rather than applying logic to observable reality is a piss poor "philosopher".

Not forcing the corporation to pay him $135 an hour to flip burgers...

Try to think in basic principles for a moment. It's like an algebraic equation. The number doesn't have to be $135 or $13.50 or even a buck thirty-five. It could be ANY number. The principle being illustrated here is that no man or group of men has the right to forcibly prevent another man from accepting employment at a wage he agrees to.

...but not letting them get him try to accept less that that which he could live off demanded by basic health and dignity.

If he wants to accept less than what you believe he can live off, why do others have the right to prevent him from doing so? What if he has a second job? What if he does baby-sitting or dog-walking on the side? What if he has a gig at the local pub on weekends in addition to his day job? What if his wife is also working? What if his hobby (selling the gourmet mushrooms he grows or the tropical fish he raises) brings him additional income? What if he lives rent free with his parents?

The fact of the matter is you have no idea how much he "needs" in order to maintain his life. As for "dignity", what has that to do with anything?

Other "balanced" uses of force? Policemen taking someone in custody while respecting the criminals rights.
Interrogating and imprisoning a suspect but not torturing them.
Warring with an enemy but not violating the Geneva convention.

Is this really that hard an idea to understand or do you need more examples?


The examples you provide are consistent with Libertarian principles.

don't be stupid.

So you have never worked a day in your life?

It was an analogy to what happens on the unemployment market, the corporations are more equipped financially to deal with not hiring a worker than a worker is financially equipped to go unemployed another indefinate amount of time.

An unproven arbitrary assumption. Depending on the employee in question, corporations have been known to fail over the loss of a single employee. This is why insurance companies sell "key man" insurance, and why many corporations buy it.

And why is this race to the bottom so hard to understand when it is currently happening globally because of free trade?

Please give us an example of a Libertarian country in which this is happening. Thank you.

Lets say there are 200 unskilled, uneducated people looking for jobs. Corporation A hires 50 of them for $7 an hour and Corporation B gives out a notice offering to pay 50 workers $5 an hour for any of those remaining 150 who want to work. Rather than face unemployment, they will be SOME who just want to get a job (there ALWAYS are). Then Corporation A looks over at B and decides the next crop they'll hire they'll offer $5 an hour. After all, who else are they going to go to? Corp B?

What's your point? That Corporation A overpaid their employees? So what? Happens all the time.

Let's say that corporation A and corporation B each made 100 electric cars for a total of 200. Corporation A sells 50 of them at $70,000 each. Corporation B gives out a notice offering to sell their cars at $50,000 for anyone who wants to buy one. Rather than face a stack of unsold cars, there will be SOME on the board of corporation A who just want to sell them off and move on (there ALWAYS are). Those remaining 150 cars, if they are to be sold at all, must be sold at $50,000 each. Presuming of course that either corporation can find enough people willing to buy them at even that price.

Remember the key in these minimum wage scenarios is that there is NO COMPETITION amongst corporations for unskilled workers. There is a sea of them and they're a dime a dozen.

I suggest you read a bit about the law of supply and demand.

A 'public' good is something that is given to all the public...

Given by whom? Obtained by what methods from which individuals?

... such as minimum wage or civil liberties or other forms of security in health, privacy and safety.

In other words, you advocate the use of force against those who have initiated none.

-- minimum wage: the use of force to prevent people from trading their productive effort for currency.
-- civil liberties: these cannot be "given" by anyone to anyone. They can only be recognized.
-- health: you cannot "give" anyone health. All you can do is seize by force the property of one individual to pay another individual to attempt to improve the health of a third individual.
-- privacy: How is it possible to "give" someone privacy? All one can do is not to intrude upon it -- for example the private transactions between buyer and seller.
-- safety: how is it possible to "give" someone safety?

As for if something is bad for AN individual, it is bad for the public, i dont agree. Now if it is a significant number of individuals then it is a threat to that public good. What is a 'significant number'? thats where policymakers come in and try to make a fair decision.

Again, you advocate the initiation of force -- just so long as you don't initiate it against "too many" people.

Personally i'd rather be guaranteed enough food to survive should anything happen to me rather than be guaranteed the freedom to attempt to obtain food. But thats an opinion and is why we have different ideologies.

Indeed it is. Your personal philosophy holds that it is acceptable to force others to provide food for you. Mine does not.

What I don't like is when libertarians focus on all these liberties and then pretend that once put in place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits. Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You pretend that once your system of institutionalized force is fine-tuned enough to put into place, the public will receive even more money and other benefits (from whom, by the way?). Like some magic cake that you can have and eat it too. Does the term "socialism" ring a bell?

A corporation is a group of people getting together during the day time to help each other make money to spend in their off time.

And this differs from a labor union in which way?

...if they can get the same thing out of their workers by paying them less as by paying them more, why wouldnt they pay them less?

News flash, philosopher king. For whatever reason, they do pay them more than minimum wage, even those with no unions. Every single person who worked for the computer company I mentioned earlier was paid more than minimum wage, even the janitors. The same was true of all the companies who directly competed with us. No exceptions.

There some rare examples of CEOs doing something besides making a profit, but thats not usually the purpose of a corporation.

I suggest you read some corporate annual reports and then get back to me. Or talk to the head of the personnel departments of some corporations chosen at random. It will be instructive to see how few employees are paid minimum wage, and of those who are, how few STAY at the minimum wage level for more than a year or two.

My point is that its not a monolithic structure hell-bent on planetary doom, its just a sort of support group for people who want to make money, so thats what they try to do.

And this differs from unions exactly how?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937714 - 09/21/03 11:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

did you read my last post? go read Schattshneider's Sem-Sovreign People, its an authority on political science theory from the 60's. Yes of COURSE theyre more able to organized if they have more money and are organized to begin with. Even Mush doesnt disagree with that one.

of course a large corporation is more organized than a single individual. this is irrelevant to the discussion. i could point out many differences between a corporation and a single laborer, few of which have any bearing here. so what?

I am of the opinion that if you do someone's bidding for 40 hrs a week youre entitled to adequate compensation, that being at least the lowest permitted by basic health and decency.

you're not "entitled" to any more than your work is worth.

As soon as I see middle-aged CEOs on the side of highway on-ramps begging for help to feed them and their children, i'll support helping them out too. Its called need-based aid.

you missed the point. why should someone who wants to hire someone else be forced to pay them more than they would voluntarily agree to?

First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue First of all, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote (the scottish enlightenment being where so many of the American Consititution's ideas came from), one must have basic security before one can possibly hope to pursue happiness. That is what MINIMUM wage is. Its supposed to be the MINIMUM one can reasonably hope to earn to lead a basic, very humble life. The fact that you had to fabricate such a ridiculous number as $135 an hour proves how unjust your point is. lets put it in the way the world ACTUALLY is: "Noone has the right to be paid $5.00 an hour for flipping burgers" (and incidentally, if you think working fast food is some slow-paced cush job, good god youve got another thing coming). Hmm, doesnt have quite the same effect when you use the truth does it?

thank you for the history lesson, definition of minimum wage, and reassurance that fast food is hard work.

again, no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And notice, Mush that labor unions DO come into it.

which i have no problem with. the part where it says, "legislation" is where the problem is. when you legislate, people are forced against their will. when you negotiate, people are persuaded to act voluntarily.

okay, so now you're saying that minimum wage laws are unfair to the unemployed?

absolutely true. let's say i want to work but can't find employment. if i'm willing to work for less than the other guy (who gets $5.15\hour), shouldn't i be able to use that to my advantage when seeking employment?

priority of the workers right to feed his family by receiving a minimum wage versus a ceo's right to get him to accept a lower wage.

you've got a rather loose definition of the word "right". you've got no "right" to have food just put on your table for you. you've got to go out and earn it. if you cannot earn it without stealing, you're out of luck.

alright... it's getting downright tedious to wade through your arguments... i'm too lazy right now to keep going.

i will say this...

your arguments are not very concise. you've written alot of volume, and not much of it is relevent.

you seem to harbor several false notions.

one is that businesses are charities.

another is that people are owed something economically from others simply because they exist.

a third is that economic equality is normal and natural.

you also do not seem to understand the philosophy of the opposing argument, and when offering rebuttals, do not really address the argument you're refuting. in most cases, it seems like you don't understand it.

when you talk about using force to acheive economic ends, you are talking about theft.

if you think that theft is rightous as a means for creating economic equality (and it seems you do) then we've gotten to the fundamental difference between socialists and capitalists...

and there's really nowhere to go from there. you and your fellow socialists think it's ok to steal; i think it's not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: libertarianism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1937754 - 09/21/03 11:43 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Excellent post Tao. You've comprehensively demolished any libertarian arguments put so far.

hahaha. oh man alex... i seriously laughed out loud when i read that. keep it up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: libertarianism [Re: DrugAgainstWar]
    #1937759 - 09/21/03 11:48 AM (20 years, 5 months ago)

DrugAgainstWar writes:

I don't really wish to step into this political shit storm...

But as long as you're here...

Complete deregulation and privatization of our society just doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, it seems as if this would do nothing but create an even bigger polarization of wealth.

Assuming it is inherently evil for one individual to earn more stuff than another individual (which it isn't), by what process do you believe that free people will be allowed to accumulate wealth more quickly than enslaved people? Which factors permit some free people to prevent other free people from accumulating as much as they are able?

Are all humans equal?

In terms of individual rights? Yes. In terms of individual abilities? No.

If not, should they be?

In terms of individual rights? Yes.

If so, what constitutes equality?

A situation wherein all individuals are equally free to expend their efforts in anything other than the initiation of force against others.

I see no equality in a capitalist system...

Perhaps because your idea of "equality" doesn't allow you to.

What makes a CEO worth more than the worker on the assembly line who makes the products?

The fact that any CEO can bolt a fender to a car, but few assembly line workers can successfully run a giant corporation. Supply and demand.

Imagine completely privatized schools and health care - components of a libertarian system, if I'm not mistaken.

Private schools have always existed, and exist today. Private medicine has always existed -- it was socialized even in Canada less than fifty years ago. It is not necessary to imagine it, merely to examine it.

I don't think I would like my children (should I ever have any) to be "educated"... by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools.

But you have no objection to them being indoctrinated by the monopolistic government schools.

...by whatever corporation has a monopoly over schools.

Why do you believe a single corporation would obtain such a monopoly?

Is the corporation's chief goal to educate my child or make money?

They make their money by educating your children. If they do a poor job at it, surely you would enroll them in a different school, no?

Also, I would hope that, should I get terribly ill, I would be treated at a hospital even if I was unable to support my stay financially. Would the refusal of a sick patient be considered an act of force if illness or death could have been easily prevented?

Is the refusal to assist someone being attacked by a mugger an act of force?

It's as if one is saying, "Sure, you can have an education and health if you can afford them."

That is what is being said. Similarly, you can have food, shelter, a bicycle, clothes... if you can afford them.

In my opinion, that's a step in the wrong direction.

But in your opinion, forcibly seizing the products of the efforts of others is a step in the right direction?

Our government is pretty much run by the big corporations anyway.

If true, what more compelling argument is there to be made for not allowing government any say in economic matters?

It just seems that libertarianism would make this worse by effectively recognizing these corporations as having more power than the government. Where is protection then?

Libertarianism recognizes no such thing. Corporations have no cops, no courts, no military. All corporations do is buy stuff, make stuff, and sell stuff.

Those who disagree with me are probably pleased with the fact that I'm too tired to formulate my response into a PREMISE-PREMISE-PREMISE-CONCLUSION format to keep playing the logic game.

Some believe the initiation of force against others should be decided by emotions and/or the whim of the majority. Others believe logic and principle must enter into the equation. Diversity makes the world go round, I guess.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: libertarianism [Re: Tao]
    #1937784 - 09/21/03 12:00 PM (20 years, 5 months ago)

Well Tao, I'm not as nice as some of the others so I'll just sum up your arguments thusly.....

You have no skills,
you have no talents,
you have no clue how business functions....
yet they should pay you a shit-load of money anyway.

Good luck with that. If you're not too weak from hunger let us know how that works out for you.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* roll call... do libertarians support child labor?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 8,497 126 08/27/04 10:11 AM
by silversoul7
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 10,795 76 12/25/01 11:30 PM
by Phred
* Questions about libertarians DigitalDuality 1,719 13 09/18/04 05:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Libertarians?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Libertine 14,597 156 08/17/08 05:28 PM
by ScavengerType
* Libertarian position on imprisonment? Aldous 697 7 09/27/04 08:56 PM
by hound
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,491 3 04/10/04 05:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* greens, libertarians debate: monday, 1 pm on C-SPAN
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 1,845 21 09/09/04 12:59 AM
by DigitalDuality

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
11,631 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.