• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who benefits the most from the government? Rich or poor?

Who benefits the most?

  • Rich.

    Votes: 29 78.4%

  • Poor.

    Votes: 8 21.6%
  • Total voters
    37
TurtleDude said:
its fun watching socialists pretend that their faux brand of libertarian thought is authentic. it is not. If you support government redistribution of income you are not a libertarian you are a collectivist
Click to expand...

Actually...

"The left-wing French communist Joseph Déjacque coins the political term "Libertarianism" to refer to the belief system of the radical anarchist left. Slowly, over the following century, its political orientation would change—but its anti-authoritarian tone would not."

Libertarian History - History and Timeline of Libertarianism

So in terms of the origin of the term, it was created by left wing collectivist anarchists, and subsequently co-opted by right wing small government fiscal conservatives.
 
 
Aderleth said:
Actually...

"The left-wing French communist Joseph Déjacque coins the political term "Libertarianism" to refer to the belief system of the radical anarchist left. Slowly, over the following century, its political orientation would change—but its anti-authoritarian tone would not."

Libertarian History - History and Timeline of Libertarianism

So in terms of the origin of the term, it was created by left wing collectivist anarchists, and subsequently co-opted by right wing small government fiscal conservatives.
Click to expand...

Just as "liberal" was stolen by reactionary parasitic statists in America
 
TheDemSocialist said:
TurtleDude said:
an opinion of some blogger based on opinion and unsupported facts? LOL complete BS[/QUOTE

Do these work for you?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1424enr.txt.pdf
http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf
Tax Benefits to the Rich and Patient - New York Times
A government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich
The Top 10 Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most

Stimulus, and TARP were some pretty big gov assistance to the "rich"...
Click to expand...

I didnt benefit from either and I pay tons of taxes. anyone paying less in fed inc taxes than their groups share of the income is benefitting more from government than they pay in fed Inc Taxes while we in the top pay far more than our share.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
Just as "liberal" was stolen by reactionary parasitic statists in America
Click to expand...

I actually almost used that analogy, although without the hyperbolic name-calling.
 
Aderleth said:
I actually almost used that analogy, although without the hyperbolic name-calling.
Click to expand...

where is hyperbolic name calling. parasitic reactionary statism is a sound term for those whose solution to everything is more government.
 
TurtleDude said:
TheDemSocialist said:
I didnt benefit from either and I pay tons of taxes. anyone paying less in fed inc taxes than their groups share of the income is benefitting more from government than they pay in fed Inc Taxes while we in the top pay far more than our share.
Click to expand...

Of course you did pay your taxes, cuz apparently a historic low tax rate just isnt low enough for you because the rest of us are "government freeloaders"... But are you saying that the rich did not benefit from thees programs?
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
where is hyperbolic name calling. parasitic reactionary statism is a sound term for those whose solution to everything is more government.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take this sort of thing seriously. It's mindless and provides no value to the debate.
 
Aderleth said:
Actually...

"The left-wing French communist Joseph Déjacque coins the political term "Libertarianism" to refer to the belief system of the radical anarchist left. Slowly, over the following century, its political orientation would change—but its anti-authoritarian tone would not."

Libertarian History - History and Timeline of Libertarianism

So in terms of the origin of the term, it was created by left wing collectivist anarchists, and subsequently co-opted by right wing small government fiscal conservatives.
Click to expand...

Like I said he was a communist. Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I can't remember the exact name for this theory but originally, people thought that in a pluralistic society, the middle class and the poor would align themselves and dominate over the rich.
As it turns out, the middle class dominates over the rich and the poor.
Taxation rates and deductions, along with social benefits tend to flow to the middle class the most.
Click to expand...
So my experience is an exception and you don't mention the value of how the government protects my wealth and the other stuff I mentioned. OK. Maybe you’re thinking of the total dollars benefiting a single class. I'm thinking of the total benefit a single individual gets. Maybe that is the source of the difference. According to the stats there aren’t very many of those in my financial position, something less than 1%.
 
Henrin said:
Like I said he was a communist. Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it.
Click to expand...

You said this:

Henrin said:
There is no Libertarian Socialism, just like there is no Libertarian left or right. Libertarian socialist are really just socialist, while people that say they there is a such thing as a libertarian left are really just communists. You continue to show you are confused on leans. It started with you saying you are anarchist, but you support UHC, and now there is this where you say some load about the existence of a libertarian socialist.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, libertarian socialism was created by left wing anarchists with an interest in direct democracy and collective control of the means of production. The term, and the concept, are very real things. So to claim that "there is no Libertarian Socialism" is flat out false, both historically and philosophically. I haven't studied this in any kind of detail, therefore can't pretend to know precisely what the term meant to them, and so I will restrict myself to pointing out that being interested in collectivism in this sense is not remotely the same thing as promoting state control. See, for example...

Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be clear, I not a communist or an anarchist or a socialist or a libertarian of any stripe, I'm simply pointing out that historically speaking, both you and Turtledude are wrong about what the term means and where it came from.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
You said this:



Historically speaking, libertarian socialism was created by left wing anarchists with an interest in direct democracy and collective control of the means of production. The term, and the concept, are very real things. I haven't studied this in any kind of detail, and so can't pretend to know precisely what it meant to them, and so I will restrict myself to pointing out that being interested in communism in this sense is not remotely the same thing as promoting state control. See, for example...

Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be clear, I not a communist or an anarchist or a socialist or a libertarian of any stripe, I'm simply pointing out that historically speaking, both you and Turtledude are wrong about what the term means and where it came from.
Click to expand...

To be fair communism has always pretended to be a lack of state control, hell its one of the main arguments for it.The problem is that collective controls need to strip freedoms in order to reach the goals of the system, which means they need government in order to manage the idea. So like I said, the man was confused on how you manage the ideas he was putting out.
 
Henrin said:
To be fair communism has always pretended to be a lack of state control, hell its one of the main arguments for it.The problem is that collective controls need to strip freedoms in order to reach the goals of the system, which means they need government in order to manage the idea. So like I said, the man was confused on how you manage the ideas he was putting out.
Click to expand...

There are many different types of communism (e.g. Anarcho-communists, Left communists, Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyites, Maoists, etc). So no, communism has not "always" pretended to be any one thing. It's a range of philosophical concepts with different beliefs. And no, not all of them involve government action. As I've said a couple of times now, anarcho communists explicitly rejected state control. You may disagree that such a thing is possible (as, probably, would I), but that doesn't change what the term meant.
 
Aderleth said:
There are many different types of communism (e.g. Anarcho-communists, Left communists, Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyites, Maoists, etc). So no, communism has not "always" pretended to be any one thing. It's a range of philosophical concepts with different beliefs. And no, not all of them involve government action. As I've said a couple of times now, anarcho communists explicitly rejected state control. You may disagree that such a thing is possible (as, probably, would I), but that doesn't change what the term meant.
Click to expand...

You can reject all kinds of things, but communist calls for no ownership of the means of production of anyone. The problem is you have to restrict people from owning the means of production aka property, and you will still need someone to actually manage the system. You can't strip liberty and pretend you are still for liberty. Its fails to hold up to the fundamental basis of the term.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Like I said he was a communist. Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it.
Click to expand...

Ohh so its another left wing conspiracy theory again!! I gotcha
 
"Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it"

Henrin said:
What now? A left wing conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
 
It depends on who is ultimately in power. Government officials at the top are politicians and are loyal to the people who helped them get their high paying jobs completed with incredible pension plans, health benefits, travel benefits, and other perks. They are not going to risk losing what they have so ultimately they are going to pass laws that help those who helped them. Sorry to bust the bubble but politicians are looking out for numero uno 24/7. They can't afford to lose their job and join the ranks of the unemployed you see.
 
Henrin said:
You can reject all kinds of things, but communist calls for no ownership of the means of production of anyone. The problem is you have to restrict people from owning the means of production aka property, and you will still need someone to actually manage the system. You can't strip liberty and pretend you are still for liberty. Its fails to hold up to the fundamental basis of the term.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against the underlying value or utility of the political philosophy in question. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is that the political philosophy does exist, and was the linguistic basis of the term libertarianism. I frankly couldn't care less about whether or not it's a viable system.
 
TurtleDude said:
an opinion of some blogger based on opinion and unsupported facts? LOL complete BS
Click to expand...

Cop out, disprove anything he said, if you can!!!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
TurtleDude said:
Of course you did pay your taxes, cuz apparently a historic low tax rate just isnt low enough for you because the rest of us are "government freeloaders"... But are you saying that the rich did not benefit from thees programs?
Click to expand...

I didn't and many other of those who pay far more of the taxes than we should did not benefit. But everyone who does not pay federal income taxes still benefits from the government that those taxes fund
Click to expand...
 
Aderleth said:
You'll have to forgive me if I don't take this sort of thing seriously. It's mindless and provides no value to the debate.
Click to expand...

when you become the arbiter of what is valuable I suspect that would matter. Your post is of the same nature as of that which you complained.
 
TurtleDude said:
when you become the arbiter of what is valuable I suspect that would matter. Your post is of the same nature as of that which you complained.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree (except, to the extent, that I probably have a greater appreciation of sarcasm than you do), but, prior to that, I successfully pointed out how you were wrong, and you failed to argue against that. Put another way, I accomplished the goal I intended to accomplish.
 
NGNM85 said:
I can't speak for U.S. Socialist. but I don't think that's what he was suggesting. To my understanding he's an advocate of Libertarian Socialism, (Real Libertarianism.) not some monolithic Soviet-style bureaucracy. So am I, incidentally, although, I am not a Marxist.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much what I meant. I have no use for Stalin style bureaucracy. I used to be what some might call a Trotskyist, but the more I learn about him the more I worry that, while I agree with his criticisms of the USSR, I feel his way could be twisted into a Stalinist type state so I am starting to seriously question the Vanguard. Lately I have read a lot about Council Communism which seems to be a much more democratic an grassroots system.
 
Aderleth said:
I don't disagree (except, to the extent, that I probably have a greater appreciation of sarcasm than you do), but, prior to that, I successfully pointed out how you were wrong, and you failed to argue against that. Put another way, I accomplished the goal I intended to accomplish.
Click to expand...

no you didn't. You used the term "libertarian" differently than it is generally used in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom