Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[Mare Tranquillity]

I could write a book in answer to your question PLC1. If I had to reduce progressivism to it's core principle however, I would say this. Progressivism argues that it is the role of government to change the score after the game is played. They talk of an "even playing field" but what they really demand is an equal outcome regardless of the blood, sweat and tears that some have shed to achieve their success.

It's really hard for me to stop right there, but I am trying hard to simplify what it is that I stand against. From that root philosophy all the many tentacles of progressivism spread out. In the end Progressives believe in force to achieve these aims. Many do not realize it or are unwilling to admit this, but in the end it comes down to force, because without force nobody who can achieve on their own would submit to the chains of progressivism.

Are you really arguing that Regressives have not been using force (money, influence, etc.) to force the system to enrich them at the expense of the rest of us? Is that the "hard work" that you are lauding? The bankers who got vast bailouts worked for that money? They deserve those bonuses?

Your idea that Progressives want to change the score after the game is played is obviously wrong, the game never ends. For centuries this sempiternal war of greed has gone on. The Regressives want to consolidate the gains they've made at the expense of others by claiming that now with about 10% of the population owning 90% of the wealth that we have a level playing field. There is probably going to be another bailout later this spring, will that make the field more level?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Did I ever tell you the story of the full tea cup?

I saw it posted earlier. Like I said though, I'm not here to have my teacup filled. Therefore showing me that you cant fill it because it's already full is not relevant to what I was saying.

This is one place that you and I differ. I'm not here to teach at all. I'm here to share a few thoughts. Whether you or I learn anything is just a bonus, and totally out of my control.

You are to hung up on the word "teach". It doesn't mean that I see myself as a school master among pupils. I am only trying to convey that I already know that what I know is correct. I am not here to question it. I am here to explain in the best way I know how why progressivism can only lead to misery and economic stagnation followed eventually by collapse. I also intend to do my best to show the inherent fairness and ultimate superiority of the free market and limited self government over what I like to call the "fair market" backed up by the tyranny of need.

I don't mind having flaws pointed out. I do mind, however, when you invent another person's thoughts. Both you and GenSen seem to make a habit of it. It's not very sporting.

I've found that liberals like to manipulate language and obscure historical truth. Whenever possible they attempt to cast doubt on the known, and claim that the obviously untrue is in fact obviously true, if you were only smart enough to see it. In the face of these arguments I tend to reduce them to the primary points within. I strip away the platitudes, and I cut out the justifications. If you believe that you are empowered because you exist to take from others against their will the sustenance that you need and are unable or unwilling to provide for yourself. You are in fact no better than the thief in the liquor store with a stolen handgun. This is what makes liberals mad. They want to talk about the need, and little else. They gloss over the method. They refuse to see themselves as thieves. But when you take by force that which does not belong to you, what are you but a thief? The responses I will get to this will of course be strawmen about how I'm advocating that nobody should have to pay taxes. Clearly I have not said this anywhere in my post. The government IS empowered to collect taxes to provide services for all. A system of highways that provides commerce to all Americans is a good example of this. A military strong enough to protect us against anything in the world that could ever dream of threatening our constitutional republic is another good example. Taking taxes from some to provide services specifically for others is different, and the federal government is not empowered anywhere in our constitution to do this. This is thievery by those who vote to confiscate that which does not belong to them.

If a liberal's mind is as easy to defeat as you imagine, then you shouldn't have to rush in with your concocted views of what anybody believes. Just ask them and (if you're right) they'll give you plenty of rope to hang them. By rushing in and inventing their thoughts you're denying your ability to defeat them with logic, wisdom and reason alone.

I never said it was easy. Progressivism is seductive. It promises all things to all people. Who can be against a tax to raise money for sick children? It is hard to explain to people why this is wrong. If you think the sick children need help, then give (I do). There are charities for this purpose. It is hard to get people to understand that no matter the cause, no matter how great the need, taking what is not yours is wrong, and should never be sanctioned by those whom we have entrusted with the reins of leadership. You only have a right to that which you have earned for yourself. All else is charity. If charity is forced, it is not charity, it is thievery.

 

[PLC1]

I could write a book in answer to your question PLC1. If I had to reduce progressivism to it's core principle however, I would say this. Progressivism argues that it is the role of government to change the score after the game is played. They talk of an "even playing field" but what they really demand is an equal outcome regardless of the blood, sweat and tears that some have shed to achieve their success.

It's really hard for me to stop right there, but I am trying hard to simplify what it is that I stand against. From that root philosophy all the many tentacles of progressivism spread out. In the end Progressives believe in force to achieve these aims. Many do not realize it or are unwilling to admit this, but in the end it comes down to force, because without force nobody who can achieve on their own would submit to the chains of progressivism.

So, what you call "liberalism" or "progressivism" is a philosophy that everyone should be equal, not just have equal opportunities, but have equal outcomes, and that equality should be imposed by force?

It sounds like you're arguing against some kind of Marxist utopian nonsense that no one really buys into any more. Maybe there is more to it than that.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think the war should end with all the gains on one side.

So your plan is what?

I don't think that thieves should be able to keep their spoils.

Does this mean all the poor who received wealth that was forcibly redistributed should have to give that wealth back?

Your idea appears to be that a level playing field is when on side has most of the assets.

And you believe that wealth is a zero sum game? That the wealth that exists is all that will ever exist and everyone without it is helpless to create their own wealth?

No, you asked before and I answered before, no, no, no, the rich should not be run out of the country. Do I need to say that again?

But you also said you wanted to follow the path of Gandhi and that is what he did.

But the ones who have used their wealth to gain unethical advantage by suborning the law should be prosecuted and their assets distributed to those in need.

The poor too? They used the law to forcibly redistribute wealth of the evil rich people.

Nowhere have you addressed the plight of those in need.

What do you expect me to say? That because people have needs, we should continue to violate the rights of other people until everyone's needs have been met?

All you have done is argue for the rights of the rich.

Individual rights belong to every individual, rich, poor, and everyone in between. Our individual rights should be equally protected. If you are under the impression that I have been arguing only for the rights of the rich, it's because you have been arguing in favor of only violating the rights of the rich.

You said earlier that, "People are more important than money", exactly what do you think money is, or represents, if anything?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Are you really arguing that Regressives have not been using force (money, influence, etc.) to force the system to enrich them at the expense of the rest of us? Is that the "hard work" that you are lauding?

Regressives, I like that. As I said before, it's about word games with liberals. They actually think that because they believe in progressive politics, that they stand for progress. So if you are against it, you must be a REgressive. Tell ya what Mare, I'll start a new party. I'll call it the super awesome crazy kickassalicious everybody can have whatever they want and there will never again be any unhappiness or discomfort of any kind party. Can I count on your vote?

Anyways, in response to your question, they are the people of America just like you and I are Mare. You assume that all wealth was gained by swindle and exploitation. You assume that success of some must come at the expense of others. You are wrong on both counts. Are there swindlers? Sure. But you must realize that they are playing the game by the rules that you are setting up. You just didn't intend for those rules to apply to all Americans.

The bankers who got vast bailouts worked for that money? They deserve those bonuses?

I was against all the bailouts, and so were most conservatives. I always get a kick out of this particular argument, because I've found that most liberals think the bailouts were necessary even though they hated them. They want to be able to say that the free market could not have been allowed to run its course, and then try to bash conservatives over the head with the policy that was grudgingly supported primarily by them. I don't think it would have been entirely fair to the banks to let them fail, because in truth it was the government who inflated the bubble with bogus assets that the banks were pressured to create. But in the end, that's what they get for dealing with the devil. They were suckered in by the government's promises to back up loans that never should have been made. Along with the governments carrot, there was a stick as well, but again they let it happen to themselves. The banks that took the money have all paid it back. It is therefore none of your business how they choose to spend their profit, be it bonuses or turning another mountainside into a 2nd version of mount Rushmore with the faces of all the CEOs. The reality is that it is progressive policies that hold back new businesses, deterring their creation and expansion. It is progressive policies that prop up big businesses arguing that they are "to big to fail" and that to many people would be hurt by such a collapse. There was a time when Montgomery Ward was "to big to fail" and yet fail it did, and the world kept spinning. The free market is chaotic, uncontrollable and mercilessly fair. That is what progressives hate most about it, not that it isn't fair, but that it is.

Your idea that Progressives want to change the score after the game is played is obviously wrong, the game never ends. For centuries this sempiternal war of greed has gone on. The Regressives want to consolidate the gains they've made at the expense of others by claiming that now with about 10% of the population owning 90% of the wealth that we have a level playing field. There is probably going to be another bailout later this spring, will that make the field more level?

True, the game goes on forever. Progressives believe it is the job of the refs to make sure nobody is running faster, playing better, or scoring more points than anybody else.

You keep arguing that inequality of outcome is proof that there wasn't an even playing field. On an even playing field there are winners and losers. You think that you can create equality of outcome by altering the rules for some at the expense of others. What you fail to see is that there will always be powerful people who play by different rules. Your philosophy just changes the currency of power from wealth to influence. Friends of the party, and people close to government will be the ones not living by the same rules. You cannot perfect the world with government Mare. Some simply choose to succeed and have the talent to do so, others choose not to. Hard to believe that it can as simple as that, but it is. If you want what I have, then do what I've done.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

So, what you call "liberalism" or "progressivism" is a philosophy that everyone should be equal, not just have equal opportunities, but have equal outcomes, and that equality should be imposed by force?

It sounds like you're arguing against some kind of Marxist utopian nonsense that no one really buys into any more. Maybe there is more to it than that.

I think that people do buy into it PLC1. It is just hard for some to see the gun because it is covered with a silk handkerchief with hearts on it... for now.... They imagine that they are flirting at the edges of this ideology, and that just a little "compassion" can't be a bad thing. The reality is that they are waist deep in Marxism. To many people get hung up on the labels, and not the can of soup that the label identifies. Progressives of today can't accept that their ideas are not new, and that in fact they have been tried in the past only to fail spectacularly. They have been told that the Soviet Union was evil, and that since they don't feel evil that they must not be espousing the same philosophies. The Soviet Union wasn't FOUNDED in evil. It was founded on ideals of universal brotherhood. It was founded on the idea that with all people working together towards the same goal there can be universal prosperity, happiness and national greatness. It was founded with the best of intentions by people who wanted to do great good. What it became was inevitable. We are talking about a matter of degree here. Once you accept that some of it is ok, the rest WILL follow. Once we decide that the constitution doesn't really protect private property rights, and that it is ok to take from some to give to others just as long as the cause is righteous enough, the spiral downward is preordained.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

What do you expect me to say? That because people have needs, we should continue to violate the rights of other people until everyone's needs have been met?

She would argue that you are over simplifying, but yes, that is exactly what progressives believe.

 

[PLC1]

I think that people do buy into it PLC1. It is just hard for some to see the gun because it is covered with a silk handkerchief with hearts on it... for now.... They imagine that they are flirting at the edges of this ideology, and that just a little "compassion" can't be a bad thing. The reality is that they are waist deep in Marxism. To many people get hung up on the labels, and not the can of soup that the label identifies. Progressives of today can't accept that their ideas are not new, and that in fact they have been tried in the past only to fail spectacularly. They have been told that the Soviet Union was evil, and that since they don't feel evil that they must not be espousing the same philosophies. The Soviet Union wasn't FOUNDED in evil. It was founded on ideals of universal brotherhood. It was founded on the idea that with all people working together towards the same goal there can be universal prosperity, happiness and national greatness. It was founded with the best of intentions by people who wanted to do great good. What it became was inevitable. We are talking about a matter of degree here. Once you accept that some of it is ok, the rest WILL follow. Once we decide that the constitution doesn't really protect private property rights, and that it is ok to take from some to give to others just as long as the cause is righteous enough, the spiral downward is preordained.

So, the welfare state is progressive, bailing out the banks was progressive, keeping GM from bankruptcy was also. You should be able to make a good argument against those three.

So far, you sound a lot like GenSeneca.

Is progressivism solely economic, or are the so called "social conservative" issues also progressive? How do you feel about gay marriage and abortion?

In short, are libertarians conservative?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Regressives, I like that. As I said before, it's about word games with liberals. They actually think that because they believe in progressive politics, that they stand for progress. So if you are against it, you must be a REgressive. Tell ya what Mare, I'll start a new party. I'll call it the super awesome crazy kickassalicious everybody can have whatever they want and there will never again be any unhappiness or discomfort of any kind party. Can I count on your vote?

Anyways, in response to your question, they are the people of America just like you and I are Mare. You assume that all wealth was gained by swindle and exploitation. You assume that success of some must come at the expense of others. You are wrong on both counts. Are there swindlers? Sure. But you must realize that they are playing the game by the rules that you are setting up. You just didn't intend for those rules to apply to all Americans.

I was against all the bailouts, and so were most conservatives. I always get a kick out of this particular argument, because I've found that most liberals think the bailouts were necessary even though they hated them. They want to be able to say that the free market could not have been allowed to run its course, and then try to bash conservatives over the head with the policy that was grudgingly supported primarily by them. I don't think it would have been entirely fair to the banks to let them fail, because in truth it was the government who inflated the bubble with bogus assets that the banks were pressured to create. But in the end, that's what they get for dealing with the devil. They were suckered in by the government's promises to back up loans that never should have been made. Along with the governments carrot, there was a stick as well, but again they let it happen to themselves. The reality is that it is progressive policies that hold back new businesses, deterring their creation and expansion. It is progressive policies that prop up big businesses arguing that they are "to big to fail" and that to many people would be hurt by such a collapse. There was a time when Montgomery Ward was "to big to fail" and yet fail it did, and the world kept spinning. The free market is chaotic, uncontrollable and mercilessly fair. That is what progressives hate most about it, not that it isn't fair, but that it is.

True, the game goes on forever. Progressives believe it is the job of the refs to make sure nobody is running faster, playing better, or scoring more points than anybody else.

You keep arguing that inequality of outcome is proof that there wasn't an even playing field. On an even playing field there are winners and losers. You think that you can create equality of outcome by altering the rules for some at the expense of others. What you fail to see is that there will always be powerful people who play by different rules. Your philosophy just changes the currency of power from wealth to influence. Friends of the party, and people close to government will be the ones not living by the same rules. You cannot perfect the world with government Mare. Some simply choose to succeed and have the talent to do so, others choose not to. Hard to believe that it can as simple as that, but it is. If you want what I have, then do what I've done.

It's strange, first you say I'm the one assuming that it's a zero sum game (the bolded quote about gains don't have to be at the expense of others), then you tell me that there have to winners and losers.

On the Trobiand Islands the population loves British football, it's the national sport and every village has a team. The one change they made in the game is that every game is played to a tie so that no one has to lose. They understand that the game is what's important and not the beating of others.

I don't buy any of the capitalist or communist or fascist or whatever zero sum game theory. We have enough for everyone as long as the more powerful don't crush less powerful. Yeah, yeah, I know that's really stupid but don't blame me, that idiot Jesus advocated it too. In the end I don't suppose there is any common ground between the people who want to live rapaciously and those who do not. I've been discussing with GenSeca for pages and pages, but we are still exactly where we started. The rapacious people use every force available to them and we'll never mount a countervailing force without some kind of force. They have the money, we have the numbers. I didn't set up the system, I just try to live in it.

 

[GenSeneca]

It's strange, first you say I'm the one assuming that it's a zero sum game (the bolded quote about gains don't have to be at the expense of others), then you tell me that there have to winners and losers.

I am the one who asked if you believed it was a zero sum game, CP is the one who mentioned there are winners and losers.

We have enough for everyone as long as the more powerful don't crush less powerful.

Who has more power?

They have the money, we have the numbers.

You have the numbers, that makes you more powerful at the voting booth and therefore in government.

In the end I don't suppose there is any common ground between the people who want to live rapaciously and those who do not.

I want everyone's rights to be respected and protected.... That is not the position of one who wishes to live rapaciously but peacefully.

You are the ones who want to live rapaciously, free to violate the rights of any individual that has something you want because you don't believe they have earned or deserve to have it.... After all, there are people with unmet needs and for you, that justifies any and all violation of rights.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am the one who asked if you believed it was a zero sum game, CP is the one who mentioned there are winners and losers.

I was responding to Cap Pig.

Who has more power?

Look at who is living in luxury and who is living under the bridges, look at who got the bailouts and who is being foreclosed upon. It's not hard to see if one looks.

You have the numbers, that makes you more powerful at the voting booth and therefore in government.

Now there's a myth if I ever heard one. No one I know voted to give the rich big bailouts and bonuses, everybody I know voted for a change from the self-serving days of Bush, but what we got was a man who had been purchased by the rich and powerful. Either candidate would have done basically the same things, McCain promised that he would and Obie promised that he wouldn't, the ballot box has no power when the wealthy run the system. Most people want a single payer health plan, but our elected representatives were bought by the Insurance companies and the wealthy so what we got was an abortion instead of a real medical plan. Everywhere you look you can see that the ballot box has become largely irrelevant--especially at the Federal level. At the State level a few things get done, but the big companies simply shop for a cheaper place to be, outsource the work to sweatshops in foreign countries, and make sweetheart deals with government for breaks on taxes.

I want everyone's rights to be respected and protected.... That is not the position of one who wishes to live rapaciously but peacefully.

You are the ones who want to live rapaciously, free to violate the rights of any individual that has something you want because you don't believe they have earned or deserve to have it.... After all, there are people with unmet needs and for you, that justifies any and all violation of rights.

One cannot protect everyone's rights when the vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority IS a violation of the rights of the many. Without some measure of equality there can be no level playing field. How many people's lives are you willing to expend for someone's right to have billions of dollars in a private hoard?

I think your talk of protecting rights is disingenous when you begin by advocating the rights of the rich to be rich in the face of national poverty. That's rapacious, that's GenSeca saying that those bailouts were EARNED by the rich and the people who are being thrown out of their homes deserved to to lose them for the benefit of the banks.

If you want peace, work for justice. A feudal system with a minority of vastly rich owners and a population of serfs is NOT justice.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

So, the welfare state is progressive, bailing out the banks was progressive, keeping GM from bankruptcy was also. You should be able to make a good argument against those three.

So far, you sound a lot like GenSeneca.

Is progressivism solely economic, or are the so called "social conservative" issues also progressive? How do you feel about gay marriage and abortion?

In short, are libertarians conservative?

I am speaking primarily of economic progressivism.

There are certain things that social progressives and I agree upon, although for different reasons. Gay marriage for example. I would say that nobody should have to go and request the government's permission to be married. I would also say that if some pastor refuses to do the deed, that he should be in no danger of lawsuit. He has the right to refuse service to anyone. I believe that the power of the federal government does not include final authority on something like marriage. I also don't believe in the progressive income tax however, so I don't think there should be tax benefits for such an arrangement, no matter what the gender of the participants. The social progressive would argue that it is the government's role to authenticate marriages. In the mind of the progressive, there really isn't a whole lot that is outside the scope of the government's authority. The progressive would argue that yes, the government must process marriages, however they cannot discriminate based on any traditional interpretation of what marriage is. So you see, the social progressives and I agree on the subject of gay marriage, but we fundamentally disagree on exactly how. That disagreement is the wall between us on nearly every single issue. I say that the government (in our constitutional republic) is not given authority beyond the enumerated powers. Progressives believe that the authority of government almost unlimited so long as it's will is also the will of 50.1% of the population.

My thoughts on abortion are essentially that no person has the power over life and death of another. The exception to this of course would be when a person gives up their right to life through the taking of life. An innocent helpless infant is not the same thing as a murderer convicted by a jury of his peers. There is also a lot of gray area as to when exactly during a pregnancy a mass of multiplying cells becomes a human life. I'm willing to have that discussion at another time in another thread on the subject. But once it is established that we are talking about a living unborn human child, then I do not believe abortion is acceptable except when the health of the mother is at risk. Mental health is not an acceptable standard for this either. I'm talking about things like permanent blindness, or in extreme cases, the life of the mother. No being has the right to exist at the expense of another. Not even an infant who has no choice about it. In such a situation, the mother should make all the decisions.

As for your last question, it depends on whether or not we are talking about libertarian philosophy, or libertarians as in actual members of the libertarian party of America. I consider myself a libertarian, but I've found that many other people who also consider themselves libertarians are really just pot head liberals who heard that the legalization of marijuana is on the libertarian party's platform. To be fair to them, I don't have a problem with that either, I just think it's small potatoes to compared with the doom hanging over our nation. If I had to actually answer you though... I'd say that conservatives have a lot more in common with libertarian philosophy than does liberalism.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

It's strange, first you say I'm the one assuming that it's a zero sum game (the bolded quote about gains don't have to be at the expense of others), then you tell me that there have to winners and losers.

Two guys, lets call em Bob and Bill, each start businesses in their home town. Bob's business takes off, he becomes wildly successful, and starts franchising. Bob retires at 45 a multimillionaire. Bill on the other hand doesn't do so hot. His business plan was flawed, and the demand for his product never materialized in the way he imagined it would. Is Bill's failure a result of Bob's success? No. Does Bob's success prevent a wizened Bill from making a another attempt at opening a business in the future, with his lessons learned in his back pocket? No. In the free market system, some will win, and others will lose. This does not mean that one is the result of the other. If you imagine that it is a sporting event between two competing teams, you are reading way to much into the winner loser dynamic. Also, not everybody has the creativity and determination to be successful business owners. Does this mean that they cannot be successful in the free market system? Again, no.

On the Trobiand Islands the population loves British football, it's the national sport and every village has a team. The one change they made in the game is that every game is played to a tie so that no one has to lose. They understand that the game is what's important and not the beating of others.

lol, your naivety is jaw dropping. Am I to understand that you believe this should be the guiding ideal behind US economic policy?

I don't buy any of the capitalist or communist or fascist or whatever zero sum game theory. We have enough for everyone as long as the more powerful don't crush less powerful. Yeah, yeah, I know that's really stupid but don't blame me, that idiot Jesus advocated it too.

I'm not in the business of caring what Jesus advocates. (Although I have read the bible, and I think you are deliberately misinterpreting his message) I don't think it is relevant. Even if you had Jesus' position on free market economics pegged on the nose, it would make no difference to me.

In the end I don't suppose there is any common ground between the people who want to live rapaciously and those who do not. I've been discussing with GenSeca for pages and pages, but we are still exactly where we started. The rapacious people use every force available to them and we'll never mount a countervailing force without some kind of force. They have the money, we have the numbers. I didn't set up the system, I just try to live in it.

Business owners use whatever means are at their disposal to protect what is theirs from looters like you who believe that private property rights are irrelevant in the face of need. Again and again you attempt to justify your belief that you should be able to violate the rights of some to the benefit of others with the same strawman argument. The vast majority of wealth is earned, not swindled away from the have nots by the haves.

We've already established that conservatives did not support the bailouts, while liberals did so overwhelmingly, so your repeated attempts to bash us over the head with it is hollow and worthless. This stuff all went through a congress which was then and remains today controlled by Democrats. They CAN NOT excuse themselves from the responsibility for their votes. You hate the bailouts, and I hate the bailouts. This is common ground we have Mare, so stop bringing it up as if you are scoring points with it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Two guys, lets call em Bob and Bill, each start businesses in their home town. Bob's business takes off, he becomes wildly successful, and starts franchising. Bob retires at 45 a multimillionaire. Bill on the other hand doesn't do so hot. His business plan was flawed, and the demand for his product never materialized in the way he imagined it would. Is Bill's failure a result of Bob's success? No. Does Bob's success prevent a wizened Bill from making a another attempt at opening a business in the future, with his lessons learned in his back pocket? No. In the free market system, some will win, and others will lose. This does not mean that one is the result of the other. If you imagine that it is a sporting event between two competing teams, you are reading way to much into the winner loser dynamic. Also, not everybody has the creativity and determination to be successful business owners. Does this mean that they cannot be successful in the free market system? Again, no.

There are different ways of being successful, the Scott Bader company is one example and Walmart is another. Walmart got fantastically rich by brute force, low wages, mostly parttime workers so that they didn't have to pay benefits, destroying smaller companies, and by using their enormous financial power to force suppliers to use sweatshop sources to meet cost restrictions. One can do business honestly and with some sense of ethics or they can do it with nothing to guide them but greed.

lol, your naivety is jaw dropping. Am I to understand that you believe this should be the guiding ideal behind US economic policy?

No, what I was doing was pointing out that not all cultures are rapacious like ours is and yet the people live happy, healthy lives despite that.

I'm not in the business of caring what Jesus advocates. (Although I have read the bible, and I think you are deliberately misinterpreting his message) I don't think it is relevant. Even if you had Jesus' position on free market economics pegged on the nose, it would make no difference to me.

Ok, fair enough, you don't care. Money is the ideal and you'll do what you need to do to get it. The problem with that is that there is always someone who will be willing to go one step further than you are and if you're going to compete with them, then you will have to go the same route. That's why the Mafia is so successful despite the full weight of the law being against them all the time.

Business owners use whatever means are at their disposal to protect what is theirs from looters like you who believe that private property rights are irrelevant in the face of need. Again and again you attempt to justify your belief that you should be able to violate the rights of some to the benefit of others with the same strawman argument. The vast majority of wealth is earned, not swindled away from the have nots by the haves.

No, not all of them, some people run businesses with integrity, pay fair wages, and treat their fellows with some respect--but you're not in the respect business, are you. Neither was Enron.

We've already established that conservatives did not support the bailouts, while liberals did so overwhelmingly, so your repeated attempts to bash us over the head with it is hollow and worthless. This stuff all went through a congress which was then and remains today controlled by Democrats. They CAN NOT excuse themselves from the responsibility for their votes. You hate the bailouts, and I hate the bailouts. This is common ground we have Mare, so stop bringing it up as if you are scoring points with it.

People say I'm a liberal, I was against the bailouts. I don't know anyone who was FOR the bailouts except the people in power. It was the same people running the economy for the Bush administration as for the Obie admin. I think you are the first person who ever intimated that Bush was a Progressive.

In the end, I don't think the labels matter all that much, some people are willing to live with care for their fellows and some are not. You don't want to be me, and I certainly wouldn't want to be you. So we have that in common as well. Just as a matter of curiousity, what ethical/moral standards do you embrace? When you have a chance to make a bunch of money on a deal, what do you look at before you decide yea or nea?

 

[PLC1]

Now, this has become an interesting exchange Capitalist Pig is doing an excellent job of explaining and supporting libertarian philosophy. At first, I thought he was going to be just another authoritarian right winger, but that doesn't seem to be the case. On the other, we have Mare, who has, for obvious reasons, a lot of sympathy for the downtrodden. Yet, both of them are agreeing that having bailed out the big corporations was a mistake.

Just to add a little more thought to the interchange, I have to wonder: Was the redistribution of wealth from ordinary taxpayers to the wealthy (or formerly wealthy anyway) failing big businesses really different from redistribution of wealth from ordinary taxpayers to financially failing individuals?

Is the one redistribution favored by the "right wing", while the other is championed by the left?

Does a redistribution of wealth, whether it is for the poor or for the wealthy, do anything to create more wealth?

What, if anything, should the government do about the homeless people living under bridges or corporations too big to fail?