by "450X_FTW" (mistermic)
Published 03/21/2017 at 12:38
by "450X_FTW" (mistermic)
Published 03/21/2017 at 12:38
No Tags
STARS: 5
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
03/21/2017 at 12:40, STARS: 3
Something from Michigan in the White House? nah
"vondon302" (vondon302)
03/21/2017 at 12:45, STARS: 4
Gerald Ford would like a word with you.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
03/21/2017 at 12:46, STARS: 6
He can talk to me after he wins an election
"My X-type is too a real Jaguar" (TomSlick)
03/21/2017 at 12:51, STARS: 2
He was eaten by Wolves, he was delicious
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
03/21/2017 at 12:54, STARS: 0
I’m pretty sure libertarian socialism can’t actually be a stable configuration (it’s not sociopath-resistant), especially in today’s political environment.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
03/21/2017 at 13:01, STARS: 1
You need authoritarianism to seize the means comrade
"450X_FTW" (mistermic)
03/21/2017 at 13:12, STARS: 1
Actually I’m a libertarian socialist myself. We have the personal freedoms of owning guns, smoking pot, eating fast food, and universal health care so when you get shot stealing that high persons burger, it won’t cost $325,000 to remove the bullet.
"f86sabre" (f86sabre)
03/21/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 0
The way things are going he might just do that.
"interstate366, now In The Industry" (interstate366)
03/21/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 0
It’s a former President, Tom. Are you going to try and tell me he’s not delicious?
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
03/21/2017 at 13:25, STARS: 0
The problem with pure libertarian socialism that I see is that all forms of pure libertarianism fail (at least in the sense of maximizing individual liberty) when exposed to the tragedy of the commons - what’s best for an individual isn’t always what’s best for the society. And, because there’s a power vacuum in libertarianism, there’s always going to be some asshole that decides to take that power to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense - that’s what I mean by it not being sociopath-resistant.
And, then, For Sweden gets to the problem with trying to implement it now - you’d need quite a lot of force to implement a libertarian socialist government at the top of this country (and, for that matter, how would that even work with libertarian socialist ideals? I guess you could simply have someone in office whose goal is to devolve the federal powers to the states...) And, the kinds of people that would use that kind of force... well, they ain’t libertarians.
There’s some worthy ideals in libertarian socialism, but I don’t think it’s stable enough to be the basis of a national government.
"450X_FTW" (mistermic)
03/21/2017 at 13:36, STARS: 0
Point is, you pick and choose the ideas from individual parties to create your own, which is what I realized describes myself after the 2016 election when I could not side with democrats, republicans, liberals, or conservatives
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
03/21/2017 at 13:47, STARS: 0
Nope. It doesn’t cost one person $325,000.00. If the costs are socialized, it’s like it costs everyone $0.10 each.
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
03/21/2017 at 13:51, STARS: 0
Good work there, Tom Brokaw.
"450X_FTW" (mistermic)
03/21/2017 at 13:56, STARS: 1
Exactly, that’s how the rest of the civilized world operates. It’s like they think all lives matter.
I’d rather people get the treatment they need for a disease than have to start a gofundme account every time someone gets seriously sick or ill.
"Frank Grimes" (FrankGrimes)
03/21/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 1
So why don’t we compromise here with a cheaper truck LS and a single turbo?
"just-a-scratch" (just-a-scratch)
03/21/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 0
The edit function doesn’t seem to work for me here. Anyway, assuming about half the individuals in the US population ( assuming convenient but reasonable numbers 325,000,000/2=162,500,000) pay taxes, that’s only $0.002 per taxpayer.