Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 107
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    HEY DIPSHIT, THEY PAY TAXES FOR ALL THOSE SERVICES ALREADY THEY DONT NEED TO PAY MORE OR GIVE A CHUNK OF THEIR BUSINESSES TO WORTHLESS LAYABOUTS. You and your boy obama make it sound like if not for the govt they wouldn't be able to get their idea off the ground WRONG.
    Yes. I mean, just where do they suppose govt got the money for all these things? Also, I own a small business and all things being equal, I can unequivocally say I got ahead in-spite of my teachers, not because of them.

    Or perhaps Adolf Maobama thinks some business fairy built everything and some white guy just found it laying on the ground. 'Oh look dude. A box of business, letís take it.'
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,200
    What the magic negro doesn't understand is that it isn't the govt that made the business possible, its the business that made the govt possible i.e. Tax money


    Its just another bullshit attempt to instill the notion of socialism plain and simple...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,444
    meh. Just more of the same from this Communist butthole.

    He doesn't think America is exceptional, she has never been proud of her country and they both hung out with radicals that wish to destroy the country. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Even the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism and capitalism recognized this basic fact. Read my signature quote.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

    This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

    There is absolutely nothing radical about this.
    No, stupidity and ignorance is no longer radical, but mainstream, at least on the left. But it is insanely stupid and ignorant, not to mention a complete misstatement of classical liberal capitalism (aside from a few spot quotes, have you actually read Adam Smith?). It's almost impossible to know where to begin to refute such overarching imbecility, but I must make the attempt.

    Let us begin with the most basic understanding of economics, which is that wealth must be created. Agricultural products must be grown, mechanical products must be made. Government cannot do this, because it lacks the capacity to create wealth. Without the private sector, there would be no public sector to provide the services that you cite. Successful economic activities are a precondition for government, not the other way around. For example, look at the earliest colonies in British North America, which had to organize industry before they had the means to fund government beyond the most basic functions of self-defense and conflict resolution. Government cannot exist without surplus goods to consume, otherwise its cost bankrupts its constituents. This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy. The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs. Finally, the supporting infrastructure that you cite, such as the internet, began with private economic activities. The first computers weren't government constructs, and the network systems that the government produced to allow them to communicate would not have advanced to its current structure without massive private sector investment and innovation. Google, Netscape, Microsoft... Each of them took the embryonic technology and expanded it exponentially. The federal highway program followed the better part of a century of automotive innovation. The current structure of federal aviation came after decades of private aviators did everything to make it viable.

    You keep pretending that government can mandate prosperity, but it cannot. Like Obama, you believe in a Marxist fantasy construct, the figment of the imagination of an embittered, angry man whose life was spent evading creditors and railing against the injustice of having to earn a living. Get over it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    Without starting capital from the owner, nobody's building anything, so Obama can go soak his head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Drive-by Poster ABC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    FL & GA
    Posts
    5,812
    Ody ...

    Am too pooped out to stay, but just had to come back in and highlight what you wrote to our very own lefty prof, Wei. (at least I think that is what he is, anyway!)

    I doubt that he will pay much attention to it, but "hope springs eternal." Ha! ha!

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    >snip<

    This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy. The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs.

    You keep pretending that government can mandate prosperity, but it cannot.

    >snip< Get over it.
    ~ ABC

    American By Choice ~ 1980

    LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ...

    NOT SOCIALISM!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    Ody ...

    Am too pooped out to stay, but just had to come back in and highlight what you wrote to our very own lefty prof, Wei. (at least I think that is what he is, anyway!)

    I doubt that he will pay much attention to it, but "hope springs eternal." Ha! ha!



    ~ ABC
    Oh, I have no doubt that he will abandon the thread, now that his argument has been demolished, but that's how Marxists are. They flit from failure to failure, whether it's a series of totalitarian cesspools, or a string of ill-thought out posts, never right, but seldom in doubt.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Chuck58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Posts
    990
    The Romney people ought to take that speech and run with it. obama just outed himself. He's a statist, along with every other negative ideology he has.

    If they don't use it against him, they're blowing a golden opportunity.
    The poster formerly known as chuck58 on the old board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

    This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

    There is absolutely nothing radical about this.
    You have it backwards Commie. The infrastructure was expanded DUE TO increased commerce. That commerce lead to wealth which paid for the infrastructure. You and your filthy kind need to stop with this crap. Only you and your empty headed leftist drones are susceptible to it. As for the rules etc, blather, blah, blah. Excessive regulation is the number one problem for business now. We could not build a Hoover dam or Golden Gate bridge today because of excess liberal boondoggle.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Let us begin with the most basic understanding of economics, which is that wealth must be created. Agricultural products must be grown, mechanical products must be made. Government cannot do this, because it lacks the capacity to create wealth.
    That's not entirely true. It's just a blanket statement. Governments can and have engaged in productive projects.

    However, let's just go with this assumption for the sake of argument.


    Without the private sector, there would be no public sector to provide the services that you cite. Successful economic activities are a precondition for government, not the other way around.

    For example, look at the earliest colonies in British North America, which had to organize industry before they had the means to fund government beyond the most basic functions of self-defense and conflict resolution. Government cannot exist without surplus goods to consume, otherwise its cost bankrupts its constituents.
    It's not one or the other. This is immature binary thinking.

    The private sector and the government are co-dependant. It's not about which creates the other. In our society, neither the private sector nor the government can exist and function without the other.

    This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy.
    You say "wealth transfers" undermine economic activity. Where is your evidence? Not just some right-wing rhetoric article, but data.

    The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs. Finally, the supporting infrastructure that you cite, such as the internet, began with private economic activities. The first computers weren't government constructs, and the network systems that the government produced to allow them to communicate would not have advanced to its current structure without massive private sector investment and innovation. Google, Netscape, Microsoft... Each of them took the embryonic technology and expanded it exponentially. The federal highway program followed the better part of a century of automotive innovation. The current structure of federal aviation came after decades of private aviators did everything to make it viable.
    You're saying these government projects could not have been as successful as they are without the innovations from the private sector. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying it works both ways. Private sector innovations and business success are also not possible without the government projects.

    Just like the internet wouldn't be what it is today without companies like microsoft and google, companies like microsoft and google wouldn't be what they are today without the government research that led to the internet infrastructure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •