Koch Brothers

[Solitary]

One of the reasons our country is so messed up is because of these two using their money to influence politics. [youtube:3s61yen7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPeUrJF6AM8[/youtube:3s61yen7]    Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Seditious and treasonous fucks...

[josephpalazzo]

The strategy of these rich people has been for a very long time to cut government spending, notably social security, medicaid, and Obamacare - programs that help ordinary folks - while at the same time, be totally against raising taxes, which would affect primarily the rich.

[lumpymunk]

Government programs like Social Security don't help poor folks.

http://mises.org/daily/3469

Raising taxes on the rich won't fix your problems.  --Laffer Curve

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... rich-ones/

[josephpalazzo]

Stop being a shill for the rich.

[Jack89]

Seditious and treasonous fucks...

I know, right?  Bernie Sanders is damn socialist and he doesn't even deny it.  :-D

[lumpymunk]

Stop being a shill for the rich.

Stop being uneducated about who is feeding you your opinions... and even more uneducated about the inability of your "sacrifice the rich" philosophy to actually solve the problems you can't even properly define.

[Solitary]

Government programs like Social Security don't help poor folks.

http://mises.org/daily/3469

Raising taxes on the rich won't fix your problems.  --Laffer Curve

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... rich-ones/

"We are Misesians! The media will typically describe all non-socialists as conservatives, so we are usually lumped in among them, though the actual orientation of the Institute is libertarian."


"My own suggestion would be a universal basic income and the abolition of welfare in its entirety. Because everyone would get that unconditional grant then work would always pay. The tax and benefit systems would not combine, as they currently do, to produce that marginal tax rate of over 100% at certain points along the income spectrum. But that seems even more difficult as a political suggestion."

Obviously this is right wing propaganda. "A rose by any other name smells the same!" Would this universal income include the very rich? Another excuse by the rich to deny having to pay taxes like the rest of us do.  :P  :roll:  Solitary

[EntirelyOfThisWorld]

Seditious and treasonous fucks...

I know, right?  Bernie Sanders is damn socialist and he doesn't even deny it.  :-D

I'm a sociallist.  And before you go and evoke the name of Joe Stalin, last I heard, he was not French, Canadian, or even a very good socialist.

[Solitary]

Stop being a shill for the rich.

Stop being uneducated about who is feeding you your opinions... and even more uneducated about the inability of your "sacrifice the rich" philosophy to actually solve the problems you can't even properly define.

Who's feeding you your opinions is a better question? Your poisoning the well by saying he is uneducated, and is a hasty generalization as well as name tagging, and an ad hominem.  This shows you are using slick maneuvers like a neurotic does to inflate their ego at any cost instead of getting to the truth of the matter at hand. It also shows your reasoning is not very good and don't have a clue what sound reasoning is. So your opinion is not logical and doesn't make any sense.    :roll:  Solitary

[Jack89]

Seditious and treasonous fucks...

I know, right?  Bernie Sanders is damn socialist and he doesn't even deny it.  :-D

I'm a sociallist.  And before you go and evoke the name of Joe Stalin, last I heard, he was not French, Canadian, or even a very good socialist.

Did you see the smiley face?  I was kidding.  Still, not a fan of socialism.

[lumpymunk]

Psycho-analysis: the dead-end along the short road of a train of thought.

The difference between The Mises Institute and Libertarianism:
* Mises Institute is dedicated toward advancing economic philosophy.
* Libertarianism is a political party that encompasses more.

You're not even comparing two things that are of the same type.

[Solitary]

Psycho-analysis: the dead-end along the short road of a train of thought.

The difference between The Mises Institute and Libertarianism:
* Mises Institute is dedicated toward advancing economic philosophy.
* Libertarianism is a political party that encompasses more.

You're not even comparing two things that are of the same type.

Tell that to this guy!

F. A. Hayek
F. A. Hayek, the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economic Sciences, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought.

Editor's Note: This selection is from F.A. Hayek's Individualism and Economic Order, now available as an ebook in the Mises Store. In this selection, Hayek contrasts two types of individualism: one that leads to freedom and spontaneous order, and the other that leads to collectivism and controlled economies.

Before I explain what I mean by true individualism, it may be useful if I give some indication of the intellectual tradition to which it belongs. The true individualism which I shall try to defend began its modern development with John Locke, and particularly with Bernard Mandeville and David Hume, and achieved full stature for the first time in the work of Josiah Tucker, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith and in that of their great contemporary, Edmund Burke — the man whom Smith described as the only person he ever knew who thought on economic subjects exactly as he did without any previous communication having passed between them.

In the nineteenth century I find it represented most perfectly in the work of two of its greatest historians and political philosophers: Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton. These two men seem to me to have more successfully developed what was best in the political philosophy of the Scottish philosophers, Burke, and the English Whigs than any other writers I know; while the classical economists of the nineteenth century, or at least the Benthamites or philosophical radicals among them, came increasingly under the influence of another kind of individualism of different origin.

This second and altogether different strand of thought, also known as individualism, is represented mainly by French and other Continental writers — a fact due, I believe, to the dominant role which Cartesian rationalism plays in its composition. The outstanding representatives of this tradition are the Encyclopedists, Rousseau, and the physiocrats; and, for reasons we shall presently consider, this rationalistic individualism always tends to develop into the opposite of individualism, namely, socialism or collectivism. It is because only the first kind of individualism is consistent that I claim for it the name of true individualism, while the second kind must probably be regarded as a source of modern socialism as important as the properly collectivist theories.

I can give no better illustration of the prevailing confusion about the meaning of individualism than the fact that the man who to me seems to be one of the greatest representatives of true individualism, Edmund Burke, is commonly (and rightly) represented as the main opponent of the so-called "individualism" of Rousseau, whose theories he feared would rapidly dissolve the commonwealth "into the dust and powder of individuality," and that the term "individualism" itself was first introduced into the English language through the translation of one of the works of another of the great representatives of true individualism, de Tocqueville, who uses it in his Democracy in America to describe an attitude which he deplores and rejects. Yet there can no doubt that both Burke and de Tocqueville stand in all essentials close to Adam Smith, to whom nobody will deny the title of individualist, and that the "individualism" to which they are opposed is something altogether different from that of Smith ...
 
The next step in the individualistic analysis of society, however, is directed against the rationalistic pseudo-individualism which also leads to practical collectivism. It is the contention that, by tracing the combined effects of individual actions, we discover that many of the institutions on which human achievements rest have arisen and are functioning without a designing and directing mind; that, as Adam Ferguson expressed it, "nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action but not the result of human design"; and that the spontaneous collaboration of free men often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend. This is the great theme of Josiah Tucker and Adam Smith, of Adam Ferguson and Edmund Burke ...

The difference between this view, which accounts for most of the order which we find in human affairs as the unforeseen result of individual actions, and the view which traces all discoverable order to deliberate design is the first great contrast between the true individualism of the British thinkers of the eighteenth century and the so-called "individualism" of the Cartesian School. But it is merely one aspect of an even wider difference between a view which in general rates rather low the place which reason plays in human affairs, which contends that man has achieved what he has in spite of the fact that he is only partly guided by reason, and that his individual reason is very limited and imperfect, and a view which assumes that Reason, with a capital R, is always fully and equally available to all humans and that everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.

The antirationalistic approach, which regards man not as a highly rational and intelligent but as a very irrational and fallible being, whose individual errors are corrected only in the course of a social process, and which aims at making the best of a very imperfect
material, is probably the most characteristic feature of English individualism ...

So let me return, in conclusion, to what I said in the beginning: that the fundamental attitude of true individualism is one of humility toward the processes by which mankind has achieved things which have not been designed or understood by any individual and are indeed greater than individual minds. The great question at this moment is whether man's mind will be allowed to continue to grow as part of this process or whether human reason is to place itself in chains of its own making. What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it. If the presumption of the modern mind, which will not respect anything that is not consciously controlled by individual reason, does not learn in time where to stop, we may, as Edmund Burke warned us, "be well assured that everything about us will dwindle by degrees, until at length our concerns are shrunk to the dimensions of our minds."


F.A. Hayek (1899–1992) was a founding board member of the Mises Institute. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." See Friedrich A. Hayek's article archives.
You can subscribe to future articles by Friedrich A. Hayek via this RSS feed.

:roll: Solitary

[lumpymunk]

F. A. Hayek, the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economic Sciences, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought.

Note, not noted for his political campaigns.

Retard.

 :rollin:

[josephpalazzo]

Stop being a shill for the rich.

Stop being uneducated about who is feeding you your opinions... and even more uneducated about the inability of your "sacrifice the rich" philosophy to actually solve the problems you can't even properly define.

Who's feeding you your opinions is a better question? Your poisoning the well by saying he is uneducated, and is a hasty generalization as well as name tagging, and an ad hominem.  This shows you are using slick maneuvers like a neurotic does to inflate their ego at any cost instead of getting to the truth of the matter at hand. It also shows your reasoning is not very good and don't have a clue what sound reasoning is. So your opinion is not logical and doesn't make any sense.    :roll:  Solitary

Lumpy believes in his libertarian ideology like Evangelicals believe in the bible. You can't argue with such ideologues. Facts don't matter. Theory supported by evidence don't matter. Only the true faith matters. Amen. In the meantime he doesn't realize that he is doing the bidding for the Koch brothers, and others of that ilk. Even when you point that out to him, he will deny, vociferate, and ad hominem you.