How did this generation grow up to be so repressive?

[youngterrier]

Because I've NEVER argued with libertarians before You're such a sheep.

I'll admit, it's fun to argue with you Jon, because it's so easy.

I used to be a right libertarian, you're going to have a hard time beating me seeing as I probably know whatever perspective you're going to throw at me

You are young. Hopefully, in time, you will grow out of that approach to debate.

"I'm older than you therefore I know better lolz"

[JohnStOnge]

I said that the consumers are MORE DEPENDENT on producers. Producers have things, consumers have money. the only practical utility money has is buying things. Products have more utility than that in their nature.

Yes you did say that. But you clearly suggest a very unbalanced situation.

Also, producers typically have to have money to produce. LIke the lawn business. You don't snap your fingers and make a lawnmower appear. You don't snap your fingers and it's got a full tank of gas. You don't snap your fingers and its fixed when it breaks down. They have to have money to get their things too.

Unless they're an actor or something I guess. Then they have themselves to sell. But even then they have money.

[JohnStOnge]

"I'm older than you therefore I know better lolz"

No. Whatever the reason, and maybe being older and more experienced is part of it, I know that one is better served during a debate if they avoid the ad hominem approach. It implies weakness. It suggests to a third party that you are losing on the merits and are therefore resorting to personal attacks.

[youngterrier]

Say I inherited a very successful lawn-mowing business, hire a manager or something to all the busy work for me, and just chill with the profit that it creates naturally? What work did I do? Yet I'm receiving $15 for every $20 for every lawn mowed, yet the worker gets $5, when in fact the tangible product that's created was by someone else's labor.

If the worker doesn't like getting paid only $5 for every $20 charged to mow lawns the worker can go get his own lawnmower and start his own lawn business.

In a case like that the business owner is fortunate. He did not build the business and apparently he's got enough money to pay a manager and others as necessary so that he just stays hands off. But that is not the typical situation in a business like that. And you have been arguing that under the "original" libertarianism, regardless of the situation, a person should not be allowed to have a lawn care business where they go out and by lawn care equipment (property) that is there own, build up a clientele, and enter into mutually voluntary agreements with others who will operate the equipment in exchange for some portion of what is charged to mow lawns.

I think most here can see that that is absurd. And if any have doubts I refer them to these two links with descriptions of what principles are common to libertarianism:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both are very consistent with the concept of Libertarianism I started this discussion with. The fact that there are different "types" or "factions" of Libertarianism doesn't change that.

And the above is the problem Jon, it's not easy to make it into starting your own business and the libertarian paradise of which you ascribe to has never existed. The natural state of markets is to form monopolies at least gradually over time, and when someone dies their wealth doesn't disappear, it get's past down to someone else, in which case that person didn't earn anything with his labor or work. We have a finite amount of resources, land, and wealth, along with a history of wars, slavery, etc of which there are those who "have" and those who "have not" and seeing as everyone wants to make as much money as they can, the "have nots" are more than a little disadvantaged in negotiations. If they don't comply, they have no job.

This whole concept of "go somewhere else to get a job" or "You don't have a job? You're just lazy" is so disconnected from reality.

[youngterrier]

I said that the consumers are MORE DEPENDENT on producers. Producers have things, consumers have money. the only practical utility money has is buying things. Products have more utility than that in their nature.

Yes you did say that. But you clearly suggest a very unbalanced situation.

Also, producers typically have to have money to produce. LIke the lawn business. You don't snap your fingers and make a lawnmower appear. You don't snap your fingers and it's got a full tank of gas. You don't snap your fingers and its fixed when it breaks down. They have to have money to get their things too.

Unless they're an actor or something I guess. Then they have themselves to sell. But even then they have money.

You clearly overlook the roll inheritance and other factors take when accumulating wealth.

I'm not saying all owners are lazy (that would be another straw man on your part), I'm just saying that the workers, who contribute just as much to the creation of wealth aren't compensated proportionally

[youngterrier]

"I'm older than you therefore I know better lolz"

No. Whatever the reason, and maybe being older and more experienced is part of it, I know that one is better served during a debate if they avoid the ad hominem approach. It implies weakness. It suggests to a third party that you are losing on the merits and are therefore resorting to personal attacks.

too bad I don't care about what the third party thinks about me, as I think my substance speaks for itself, at least for rebutting the oppositions positions. It's not ad hominem as much as it is condescension. 90% of my posts have been on topic, the other 10% have been "elsewhere" and I am of the opinion that if someone can't look past the 10% for the 90%, they aren't worth swaying.

[JohnStOnge]

We have a finite amount of resources, land, and wealth,

Wealth is not finite. Or at least there is no fixed total amount so that one person having more automatically means another person having less over time.

[youngterrier]

We have a finite amount of resources, land, and wealth,

Wealth is not finite. Or at least there is no fixed total amount so that one person having more automatically means another person having less over time.

technically the definition of economics does have something to do will allocating a limited amount of resources.

And, again, I didn't say what you said I said. The problem is in the production and allocation of those resources and value, the owner of the land or the factory of which that resource is made or is located retains more of wealth than the ones who do more work to create it.

[JohnStOnge]

And, again, I didn't say what you said I said.

Now c'mon. I copied and pasted this statement from one of your posts:

We have a finite amount of resources, land, and wealth,

Are you saying you didn't say there is a finite amount of wealth?

I mean, it's one thing to say I said you said something you didn't say when I reasonably interpret a series of statements as taking a certain position you didn't specifically articulate word for word. But it's another thing to say you didn't say something I copied and pasted from one of your posts directly as stated.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I have to go now. Well, I'll look around the site a little before I do. But don't worry I'll be back to respond to whatever you post even if it's 20 hours or something like that. Maybe more. Who knows? Anyway if it's a while it's really not because I'm ignoring you it's because I've got other things to do like get some sleep before I get up at 4:30 am. Then maybe I'll go fishing tomorrow after work. That sort of thing.

[youngterrier]

And, again, I didn't say what you said I said.

Now c'mon. I copied and pasted this statement from one of your posts:

We have a finite amount of resources, land, and wealth,

Are you saying you didn't say there is a finite amount of wealth?

I mean, it's one thing to say I said you said something you didn't say when I reasonably interpret a series of statements as taking a certain position you didn't specifically articulate word for word. But it's another thing to say you didn't say something I copied and pasted from one of your posts directly as stated.

Your second sentence appeared to be a projection a position I held, which I did not hold, if that was not your intent and I misinterpreted it, I apologize.

[youngterrier]

BTW I have to go now. Well, I'll look around the site a little before I do. But don't worry I'll be back to respond to whatever you post even if it's 20 hours or something like that. Maybe more. Who knows? Anyway if it's a while it's really not because I'm ignoring you it's because I've got other things to do like get some sleep before I get up at 4:30 am. Then maybe I'll go fishing tomorrow after work. That sort of thing.

Meh, I'm open to the discussion, I just don't like broad affirmative statements with little research behind them. It's one thing if that is done. It's another if one brings forth an elaborate rebuttal alluding to why said statements are wrong and the OP puts forth no,or at least a very poor, effort in rebutting said statements and then seemingly loiters on the site longer. It puts forth a facade of dodging, or to more extreme measures cowardice in real discussion while propagating a certain viewpoint to the uninformed.

Just my two pennies worth.

[ASUG8]

BTW I have to go now. Well, I'll look around the site a little before I do. But don't worry I'll be back to respond to whatever you post even if it's 20 hours or something like that. Maybe more. Who knows? Anyway if it's a while it's really not because I'm ignoring you it's because I've got other things to do like get some sleep before I get up at 4:30 am. Then maybe I'll go fishing tomorrow after work. That sort of thing.

Meh, I'm open to the discussion, I just don't like broad affirmative statements with little research behind them. It's one thing if that is done. It's another if one brings forth an elaborate rebuttal alluding to why said statements are wrong and the OP puts forth no,or at least a very poor, effort in rebutting said statements and then seemingly loiters on the site longer. It puts forth a facade of dodging, or to more extreme measures cowardice in real discussion while propagating a certain viewpoint to the uninformed.

Just my two pennies worth.

How old are you again, YT? Jeez, you're posting like you're my age or something......

[youngterrier]

Meh, I'm open to the discussion, I just don't like broad affirmative statements with little research behind them. It's one thing if that is done. It's another if one brings forth an elaborate rebuttal alluding to why said statements are wrong and the OP puts forth no,or at least a very poor, effort in rebutting said statements and then seemingly loiters on the site longer. It puts forth a facade of dodging, or to more extreme measures cowardice in real discussion while propagating a certain viewpoint to the uninformed.

Just my two pennies worth.

How old are you again, YT? Jeez, you're posting like you're my age or something......

I'm 18....but older in internet years

[ASUG8]

How old are you again, YT? Jeez, you're posting like you're my age or something......

I'm 18....but older in internet years

Oh yeah, kinda like dog years....carry on......

[JohnStOnge]

I'm 18....but older in internet years

You know YT, I'm going to tell you something now that you're not going to like but if by chance you think of this conversation...say...25 years from now you're going to say "he was right."

When you're 18, you always think you know a lot more than you do. Then when you're older you realize how wrong you were...how little you knew. And at times you will say stuff like, "Man, if only I could somehow put my 43 year old brain into my 18 year old body back then." That's a variation of "If only I knew then what I know now."

Every generation of young people thinks it knows a lot more than it does. They think they have insights that those older than them don't have...as though those older them then haven't basically been through the same process. Then when they look back 25 or 30 years later they realize how ignorant they were.

Not to say that there aren't some things they know more about. But, in general, older people know more about what reality is and how the world works.

You'll see. Even if you don't believe it now. I guarantee you. When you are one of the old people, you'll see.

[youngterrier]

I'm 18....but older in internet years

You know YT, I'm going to tell you something now that you're not going to like but if by chance you think of this conversation...say...25 years from now you're going to say "he was right."

When you're 18, you always think you know a lot more than you do. Then when you're older you realize how wrong you were...how little you knew. And at times you will say stuff like, "Man, if only I could somehow put my 43 year old brain into my 18 year old body back then." That's a variation of "If only I knew then what I know now."

Every generation of young people thinks it knows a lot more than it does. They think they have insights that those older than them don't have...as though those older them then haven't basically been through the same process. Then when they look back 25 or 30 years later they realize how ignorant they were.

Not to say that there aren't some things they know more about. But, in general, older people know more about what reality is and how the world works.

You'll see. Even if you don't believe it now. I guarantee you. When you are one of the old people, you'll see.

I don't doubt my opinions will change......but I doubt they will change in the way you think they will

[ODUsmitty]

When your opinions are shaped by experience vs. being shaped by educational indoctrination, you will see the world differently.

Good luck with your journey.

[Pwns]

At the very least, I think in 5-10 years you will see syndicalism (that seems to be what you advocate) as the absurd fantasy that it is.

[youngterrier]

Funny, I didn't say anything about my own personal beliefs in terms of "what should be done" and syndicalism isn't what I espouse (more democracy in the work force, sure, but I favor said democracy run like a republic as opposed to the dictatorship it is now, or the democracy radicals to the left want. Hierarchy can in a way be more efficient in decision making.)

lolz at my indoctrination.....I've done most of my reading on my own. the educational system isn't competent enough to indoctrinate, let alone in SC, and if anything the indoctrination was in favor of the opposite end of the paradigm.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't doubt my opinions will change......but I doubt they will change in the way you think they will.

Some of your opinions may change but that's not really what I was talking about. My own basic set of philosophical opinions hasn't changed all that much since I was 18. Well...I do remember that I was pulling for Carter to beat Ford in the 1976 Presidential race and I was 18 while that was going on and I've pulled for the Republican in each election since. So maybe there was somewhat of a change between 1976 and 1980. But it's been pretty stable since 1980.

I think mostly you will just know a whole lot more when you are 40 or 50. You'll just have had a lot more experience. And you won't be governed as much by testosterone. I say that in all seriousness. Testosterone affects your emotions. It makes it easier to become angry and aggressive. Plus it can prevent you from thinking clearly when females are around. Or I guess if you're homosexual it may affect you if an attractive man comes around. Don't know. Anyway you're loaded with it right now. There are disadvantages to the levels receding as you grow older but also advantages. At least I think so.