Ron Paul thinks Social Security is Unconstitutional......... but he's on it.

[Roger Bacon]

What does this mean? It didnt show me the graph, pic was broken.

Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18

Sorry, I didn't realize that site was fucked up (it use to be good).  I just took this one: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

[Shockwave]

You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.68, Libertarian: 3.49





On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -0.95


Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -0.25


LOL @ the average score

[Roger Bacon]

You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.68, Libertarian: 3.49





On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -0.95


Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -0.25


LOL @ the average score

Thanks for taking this my brother from another mother!  I guess I'm an extremist.... 

[Shockwave]

Thanks for taking this my brother from another mother!  I guess I'm an extremist.... 

I think I would have been more to the libertarian side, but Im always in favor of kicking someones ass when they fuck with us, so that may have skewed things a bit, lol.

[Skip8282]

they actually aren't......any time people are left to regulate themselves, trouble happens

That right there pretty much sums up the entire liberal agenda and what it's about.

[Shockwave]

That right there pretty much sums up the entire liberal agenda and what it's about.

Sounds like the 1st step towards fascism to me.

[tu_holmes]

You are a center-left social libertarian.
Left: 1.86, Libertarian: 6.56




My Foreign Policy Views  Score: -2.37




My Culture War Stance   Score: -3.19

[avxo]

Well I took the quiz and, apparently, I am a "right social libertarian" (Right: 5.48, Libertarian: 6.26)



Foreign Policy Views Score: -0.69


Culture War Stance Score: -3.5



I'm a bit surprised the test finds me to be this far to the right to be honest - if you asked me to classify myself, I'd say "libertian, leaning center right". I think that some of the questions were poorly chosen, leaving some of us with the proverbial Sophie's choice. For example: "A nation's retirement safety net cannot be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market." How am I to answer that? I don't believe that a nation should have a "retirement safety net", so do I choose "Strongly Disagree"? If so, what am I actually disagreeing with? That the safety net can't be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market; which means I'm implictly agreeing that a nation should have a "retirement safety net".

[outby43]

You are a center-right social libertarian.
Right: 1.74, Libertarian: 5.78

[andreisdaman]

I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general

[Shockwave]

I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general

You post an article by Krugman as your evidence?
Fail bro, fail.

[Roger Bacon]

I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general

Thank you, I read the article.  My uncle and aunt just read Krugmans new book, you and them would get along.  I strongly disagree with his argument here, I don't know the specifics on New Jersey.  

Sandy Springs, Georgia privatized everything.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[tu_holmes]

Thank you, I read the article.  My uncle and aunt just read Krugmans new book, you and them would get along.  I strongly disagree with his argument here, I don't know the specifics on New Jersey.  

Check this out if you want, it really interested me.  Sandy Springs, Georgia privatized everything (around 7:45)

The only issue I have with "privatizing" everything is the fact that for profit companies are out to do that... make a profit.

In government, you are not supposed to make a profit... I worked for government, especially at the state level for quite some time, and the agency was never allowed to make money... Everything was provided "at cost".

When we moved away from that to a public-private partnership, the companies wanted to make money and the citizens had to pay MORE as a result.

Look up "Commonwealth of Virginia" "Virginia Information Technologies Agency" in regards to what private business can do.

[avxo]

When we moved away from that to a public-private partnership, the companies wanted to make money and the citizens had to pay MORE as a result.

First of all, paying more isn't necessarily a bad thing. Attending a state university is pretty cheap since a huge percentage of the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers. The question is where citizens paying the true cost of the service provided before or was the "at cost" figure you mention the amount that legislators said the service would have to cost, or was calculated to cost after government-provided funds covered a percentage of the true cost?

Second, in a free market, competition would limit what any one company could charge - charge enough and competitors will be lured into entering the market to make a profit by charging less and take business away from you. Of course, if you are granted a government-endorsed monopoly, you don't have that problem. Was that, perhaps, an issue in that case?

More generally on privatization. I don't think everything should be privatized. Police and Armed Forces, for example, shouldn't be; plus a few other things here and there. But for the vast majority of government-provided services, privatization just makes more sense. The government should focus on fulfilling the functions of government, not expanding into every nook and cranny of the economy.


[Sidenote: Look up Gibbons v. Ogden if you're interested. The case involved a de jure monopoly granted by New York State to Robert Fulton, which was challenged and went all the way to the Supreme Court which struck the law down.]

[andreisdaman]

You post an article by Krugman as your evidence?
Fail bro, fail.

I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case

[Soul Crusher]

I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case

Krugman is a pathetic shill, a joke, a con man, and an ex enron adviser who cheered on the housing bubble and calls for a fake space alien invasion.     

[andreisdaman]

Krugman is a pathetic shill, a joke, a con man, and an ex enron adviser who cheered on the housing bubble and calls for a fake space alien invasion.     

again this is the problem with America today......people only want to believe their own favorite partisan writers......they won't accept truth from any where else...

[Soul Crusher]

again this is the problem with America today......people only want to believe their own favorite partisan writers......they won't accept truth from any where else...

Krugman has been wrong about everything and you hacks still rely on him why? 

[Shockwave]

I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case

Krugman has been proven wrong on pretty much everything he's ever said. To my knowledge, there is not ONE single idea he's championed, that has worked out. And his excuse is always "Well they didnt it my way enough", and then belittles and mocks anyone who's ideas are different, even though his never work. (He's like a getbig poster - except that he's a professional, and acting like that in the spotlight when his theories always fail makes him look like a bitter moron)

He's a joke man.
At some point, you'd think someone would face the music and admit that maybe, JUST MAYBE, his idea's are just flat out wrong.

[howardroark]

You and I both know that most young people are, in fact, not going to save, so the andre is right.

Why would they save when the government "saves" for them? Why worry about retirement when the government claims it'll take care of you with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole variety of programs intended for the poor? Do you not realize that the very existence of all of these programs promotes irresponsibility? Do you not realize that a system where people are encouraged to be responsible and save for themselves would be far superior to the current all-encompassing "safety net" since savings can be accumulated and passed down through generations while the retirement benefits in a social pension program such as Social Security cannot?

Do you not realize that the 60+ age group is the wealthiest age group today in America and that YOU are proposing a forceful redistribution of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy?

Your argument doesn't take into account that we live in a humane society.

A humane society where people aren't robbed of their income via taxation? A humane society where the individual has the right to do with his life what he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of others? A humane society where 51% of the population cannot deprive the other 49% of life, liberty, or property?

Would you really be willing to let older people starve to death?

Would you really be willing to live in a society where the government regulates, restricts, subsidizes, and taxes every little activity in the name of safety? Would you really be willing to live in a society where individual liberty and personal responsibility are legislated away and everyone becomes dependent on handouts, all in the name of safety?

This is very similar to the health care argument. In the same vein in which you posit, you would also be willing to allow hospitals to refuse emergency medical service to those without insurance.

And you would be willing to force doctors, nurses, and health care administrators to provide a service free of charge? Isn't that the height of tyranny - slavery?

Also by your logic, I should be able to opt out of paying taxes if I don't agree with certain wars.

In addition, since I have no children, I shouldn't have to pay for any education.

This list goes on and on.

The list does go on and on. It is a quite simple matter: taxation is theft. You have to ask yourself: by what right does someone forcefully take your property in order to use it in a way they see fit?

[howardroark]

If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?

What's the point?

Are you seriously claiming that society has no benefits unless there is force involved? That there is no benefit to voluntarily interacting with other individuals? That society is pointless unless someone's rights are being violated?

Jeeeeez... That really does explain a lot about your political philosophy.

[Roger Bacon]

Thank you howardroark, much appreciated!

[avxo]

Are you seriously claiming that society has no benefits unless there is force involved? That there is no benefit to voluntarily interacting with other individuals? That society is pointless unless someone's rights are being violated?

Jeeeeez... That really does explain a lot about your political philosophy.

Spot-on.

[tu_holmes]

First of all, paying more isn't necessarily a bad thing. Attending a state university is pretty cheap since a huge percentage of the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers. The question is where citizens paying the true cost of the service provided before or was the "at cost" figure you mention the amount that legislators said the service would have to cost, or was calculated to cost after government-provided funds covered a percentage of the true cost?

Second, in a free market, competition would limit what any one company could charge - charge enough and competitors will be lured into entering the market to make a profit by charging less and take business away from you. Of course, if you are granted a government-endorsed monopoly, you don't have that problem. Was that, perhaps, an issue in that case?

More generally on privatization. I don't think everything should be privatized. Police and Armed Forces, for example, shouldn't be; plus a few other things here and there. But for the vast majority of government-provided services, privatization just makes more sense. The government should focus on fulfilling the functions of government, not expanding into every nook and cranny of the economy.


[Sidenote: Look up Gibbons v. Ogden if you're interested. The case involved a de jure monopoly granted by New York State to Robert Fulton, which was challenged and went all the way to the Supreme Court which struck the law down.]

You're right. Free market breeds competition and in turn better prices.

The problem with these partnerships is that there is no competition really.

When one company gets the contract, they have effectively been granted a monopoly in that area.

It's very difficult to switch companies when one company has put out a ton of cash for infrastructure. They own that stuff and it can't be easily removed. 

[garebear]

Why would they save when the government "saves" for them? Why worry about retirement when the government claims it'll take care of you with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole variety of programs intended for the poor? Do you not realize that the very existence of all of these programs promotes irresponsibility? Do you not realize that a system where people are encouraged to be responsible and save for themselves would be far superior to the current all-encompassing "safety net" since savings can be accumulated and passed down through generations while the retirement benefits in a social pension program such as Social Security cannot?

Do you not realize that the 60+ age group is the wealthiest age group today in America and that YOU are proposing a forceful redistribution of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy?

A humane society where people aren't robbed of their income via taxation? A humane society where the individual has the right to do with his life what he pleases as long as "he does not violate the rights of others? A humane society where 51% of the population cannot deprive the other 49% of life, liberty, or property?

Would you really be willing to live in a society where the government regulates, restricts, subsidizes, and taxes every little activity in the name of safety? Would you really be willing to live in a society where individual liberty and personal responsibility are legislated away and everyone becomes dependent on handouts, all in the name of safety?

And you would be willing to force doctors, nurses, and health care administrators to provide a service free of charge? Isn't that the height of tyranny - slavery?

The list does go on and on. It is a quite simple matter: taxation is theft. You have to ask yourself: by what right does someone forcefully take your property in order to use it in a way they see fit?

Are you unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan? You are a part of a nation so that people do not exist in  a state of constant war.

This means that certain concessions must be made. In return, you are living in a system that benefits you in many ways. For instance, you have the rule of law to protect your property. How is that enforcement to be paid? If we were to base it on your half-baked rant, it is only because the government is "stealing" your money to pay for it.

Hey, if you are so anti-government, why are you even living in a nation-state as you write this? Why not go off in the woods somewhere, make a fortune(with no one around to do business with) and then you can keep one hundred percent of everything? Of course, that could never happen because you have to be integrated, at least to some extent, with rules and laws and order.

The door's always open and you can leave anytime you like.