supersoygrrrl:

stfuconservatives:

anticapitalist:

libertarians-and-stoya:

anticapitalist:

libertarians-and-stoya replied to your post:DAMMIT

blame the minimum wage laws

I agree.

If they were higher, the working class would have more disposable income that they could spend on buying things like guitars. Increased aggregate demand for guitars would cause greater employment at guitar center.

Instead, the shitty minimum wage law allows employers to pay workers stupidly low wages, so that the working class can’t buy any thing fun, and thus guitar center can’t hire very many people.

The problem with your argument is the fact that employers cannot supply those jobs at higher wages artificially.  Wages rise with time - employers do not have means to hire everyone at those higher wages.

They’re too busy paying themselves 375 times more than the average working class citizen. They could reduce their own pay to pay for more workers.

Unless there was some way to instantly grant employers the money to demand those jobs, they won’t be able to.

Employers already have the money, the monopoly on capital, and the support of the state. But they still need MORE before they stop exploiting people?

It’s like saying “Oh if you give a Mafia boss more guns then he’ll stop shooting people”. 

Employers don’t need more money or capital. They need to start paying their workers more, and they need to stop exploiting the shit out of the workers. 

Eliminating minimum wage and allowing employers to create sweatshops will increase employment, but the working class would still be fucked over.

“Wages rise with time”

Too true! CEO wages increased 27% in just ONE YEAR! Average worker pay increase in that time period? 2.1%. Oh. Hmmm. Seems like we’ve granted these people plenty of money to hire people at higher than the minimum wage. Tell me, wise Libertarians: how much do we have to pay CEOs before we can make a living wage?

-Jess

Hahaha. Adjusted for inflation, wages have actually been stagnant since the 1970s. Exactly how much time are we going to give wages to rise until they’re both liveable and poor and middle class people are actually earning more towards the American dream? 

I’m sorry to say this, because people who don’t know much about Libertarian philosophy will think I’m being hyper-partisan or unable to sympathize with another person’s point of view, but anyone who buys Libertarianism whole hog is a fucking idiot.

You know what Libertarianism is, really? When you strip away all of the fluff and talking points? It’s a return to feudalism. Plain and simple. Allow me to explain.

Libertarianism is based upon what they say is the basic human right to own property. According to a Libertarian, all other rights stem from this right. Feudalism is an economic system controlled entirely by those who own land. Anyone who does not own land must work the land they live on for the landowners, in order to remain living on that land. In a Libertarian society, anyone who does not own land (or other real property) will be forced to work for those who do, and without wage laws and other forms of worker protection, will be screwed. The “free market” only works as such for those with economic power, i.e. landowners. In other words, feudalism.

So please, Libertarians, don’t try to tell me this is some new, magic-bullet idea that can save the country. Average people have been fighting this type of system for over 1000 years. You’re all assholes.

apoplecticskeptic: jeffmiller: Earlier, I noted that Mr. Buffett’s secretary only makes $60,000 a year—not a bad living, but pretty meager when compared to her boss’ $50 billion net worth.  As the chart above shows, the average CEO secretary makes more than this; indeed, $60,000 would place Buffett’s secretary around the 25th percentile.  And I think we all know that Buffett is not the average CEO—he’s the richest CEO in the United States.   Isn’t there something fundamentally weird about a man who is willing to use his secretary’s economic situation to make a political point without any embarrassment whatsoever about his responsibility for her income?  Again, she’s been his secretary for two decades; she’s been at the company for 38 years.  Instead of crusading for his own taxes to be higher, maybe Buffett could try to pay his employees a little bit more.   Someone should start a petition. The irony of a Libertarian stating that anyone other than the individual is ultimately responsible for their own income is too rich too pass up. Seriously? She’s a secretary in Omaha who clearly likes her gig enough to remain there for nearly 4 decades. He must be doing something right by his employees. She can walk anytime she wants. Hell, if she played her cards right she could walk into any other high-profile CEO’s office and ask for 5x that salary, probably. Should the pay for a given position be based on, or evaluated in light of, the personal wealth of the person doing the hiring (or even the overall financial health of the company itself)? Or should it be based chiefly on the task for which the employee is being hired and the comparative wages in the workplace for similar positions while being considered alongside the relative value the company places on the tasks it needs performed?

apoplecticskeptic:

jeffmiller:

Earlier, I noted that Mr. Buffett’s secretary only makes $60,000 a year—not a bad living, but pretty meager when compared to her boss’ $50 billion net worth.  As the chart above shows, the average CEO secretary makes more than this; indeed, $60,000 would place Buffett’s secretary around the 25th percentile.  And I think we all know that Buffett is not the average CEO—he’s the richest CEO in the United States.  

Isn’t there something fundamentally weird about a man who is willing to use his secretary’s economic situation to make a political point without any embarrassment whatsoever about his responsibility for her income?  Again, she’s been his secretary for two decades; she’s been at the company for 38 years.  Instead of crusading for his own taxes to be higher, maybe Buffett could try to pay his employees a little bit more.  

Someone should start a petition.

The irony of a Libertarian stating that anyone other than the individual is ultimately responsible for their own income is too rich too pass up. Seriously? She’s a secretary in Omaha who clearly likes her gig enough to remain there for nearly 4 decades. He must be doing something right by his employees. She can walk anytime she wants. Hell, if she played her cards right she could walk into any other high-profile CEO’s office and ask for 5x that salary, probably.

Should the pay for a given position be based on, or evaluated in light of, the personal wealth of the person doing the hiring (or even the overall financial health of the company itself)? Or should it be based chiefly on the task for which the employee is being hired and the comparative wages in the workplace for similar positions while being considered alongside the relative value the company places on the tasks it needs performed?

[P]olitical libertarianism is not much of a guide to real-world politics. Modern history has shown that activist democratic governments, ones that provide public goods and help for the poor, do not really threaten liberty. In Scandinavia, for example, where the governments are much more activist than in the United States, democracy is very vibrant and far less corrupt than in the U.S. In fact, by keeping mega-income under control, the Scandinavian countries have avoided the kind of plutocracy — government by the rich — that has engulfed Washington.

Source:

Jeffrey Sachs (via letterstomycountry)

I would take this idea even one step further, and state that the only true democracy is a socialist one. Capitalism is by it’s very nature non-democratic (as it’s based upon inequality), whereas socialism (where everyone is truly equal) is quite possibly the purest form of democracy.

Democracy means the rule of the people. Hence the rule of the people is not established until they get equal political, social and economic rights. (via)

mohandasgandhi:

manilaryce:

Here are a few Scumbag Paul memes I’ve made since the internet seems to have an irony boner for capitalists who want unrestrained private control over everything. There’s still plenty that can be said about Ron Paul being anti-environment, anti-education, pro-life, etc so here’s the template if you’d like to make your own.

This is some sound money.

See, Tumblr. Wishes do come true. I asked for someone to add the hat to this pic, and it was done! Yay!

Ron Paul Supporter Drinking Game!

supersoygrrrl:

greenstate:

feistyfeminist:

droppingthefbomb:

  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter uses states rights as an excuse for any oppressive policy, take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter uses youtube as a source, take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter rambles about the gold standard, take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter accuses you of being one of the following, without actually being able to explain what the term actually means: A socialist, a statist, a communist, an authoritarian, a collectivist. Take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter tells you they are against the drug war, take a shot
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter claims the free market will remove all forms of privilege, take a shot.

Me this week:

lightning round:

  • every time a ron paul supporter tells you that no one is using a truly free market as an excuse for why healthcare has failed in america, take a shot.
  • every time a ron paul supporter assumes you support the democratic party or obama’s policies blindly, take a shot.
  • every time a ron paul supporter refers to ron paul as ‘dr. paul’ take a shot.
  • every time a ron paul supporter says ‘free markets are the best markets,’ take a shot.
  • every time a ron paul supporter excuses ron paul’s racist or homophobic remarks, take a shot.
  • every time a ron paul supporter compares universal healthcare to slavery or coercion, take 5 shots, drop the mic and get outta that bitch.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter says IT’S ABOUT THE ISSUES, WHATEVER YOU’RE SAYING DOESN’T MATTER, take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter says, “Hes not a racist. Hes just against affirmative action. Which….kinda IS racist ANYWAY….”, take a shot.
  • Every time a Ron Paul supporter says, “Hes totally not racist…OBAMA IS,” take a shot.

Then get thee to a hospital, you have alcohol poisoning. 

(Source: facebook.com)

Ron Paul, A Bad Lip Reading SoundBite.

The funny thing about this is, it doesn’t sound much different from what he normally says.

If you have questions about my stance on Libertarianism

You can of course ask me, if you have a specific question. You can also check out the following tags on my blog:

libertarians

libertarianism

conservatives

economics

and of course, the catch-all:

politics

Libertarianism and the Constitution

I recently got into a discussion in the comments thread of a post by Ari Kohen on Google+, which has since moved over into email. Here is what was said in those emails by the Libertarian, and my response.

Read More

Union Workers Replaced With Prison Labor Under Scott Walker’s Collective Bargaining Law

jonathan-cunningham:

While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) law dismantling collective bargaining rights has harmed teachers, nurses, and other civil servants, it’s helping a different group in Wisconsinites — inmates. Prisoners are now taking up jobs that used to be held by unionized workers in some parts of the state.

We make up indefensible laws to incarcerate citizens (for video taping police officers, sending their children to good schools or smoking marijuana), then enslave those citizens for cheap labor. It’s very similar to indentured servitude, but without consent (and thus less morally defensible). Will we continue to allow the upper class to make serfs out of us?

I really like the usage of the term “serfs” here, as that is exactly what is going on here: an attempt to return us to a feudal society. I have made this point here before, usually as a critique of libertarianism.

The signs are everywhere, and this is just one of the more blatant ones. We also have prominent right wing politicians and pundits openly stating that those who are not landowners shouldn’t have the same rights as those who are, in an attempt to disenfranchise the vast majority of Americans.

Their plan as I see it is a simple one. Remove voting rights for those who do not own any property (or at least make it very difficult for them to vote), pass ridiculous laws (as Jonathan said) allowing them to lock up people for victimless crimes, and then force people who are in prison to work for free. Using this free prison labor, they can now fire every employee who is a member of a union (or just fire them all anyway, free labor is good for business). Next thing you know, you have a class of landowners (nobility) and an underclass of slaves or serfs.

Humanity has fought for literally thousands of years to stop this sort of society from exploiting people. We cannot allow this type of oppression to return at any costs.

(Source: azspot)