[Simulcast]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

Hyperbole. As if capitalism doesn't have severe limits on how to live based off of financial ability. Of course if you're at or near the top everything can seem just peachy.

Limits will exist no matter what economic course you take, by the simple fact that human desire is infinite while resources on this Earth are scarce. One approach recognizes and embraces this, while the other denies it and acts in spite of it.

[agl]

i support this guy 100%. He wants to stop policing the world in the name of US democracy, cut back ridiculous and unnecessary portions of the federal government, and advocates the end of the police state we've seen our country become (with so much attention and resources being alloted for the punishment and incarceration of non-violent crimes and offenders)

[perceptrons]

Ridiculous, just like Ron Paul.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Simulcast

Limits will exist no matter what economic course you take, by the simple fact that human desire is infinite while resources on this Earth are scarce. One approach recognizes and embraces this, while the other denies it and acts in spite of it.

Wouldn't the approach that limits that infinite desire the one that embraces it?

[Zeran]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

Federal raids speak a little louder than inner favoritism. The defenses of Obama are laughable sometimes.

speaking of ridiculous defenses of obama, check this out

Originally Posted by David87

"No federal funding for Stem cell research" blech

And disasgree with at least 85% of this..


"eliminate corporate income tax" no

No to all of this..



Bunch of other stuff I don't agree with. Some I do agree with though

libertarians social views are fine, since they tend to be socially liberal. but their economic policies, which is really what they care about, are pretty terrible imo and only seem to reinforce and entrench the side of privilege and power in just about every case.

Originally Posted by Broken Parachute

I would love to read up on libertarian economic policy. What is bringing back the gold standard supposed to do? I don't get it.

i don't either. probably to make rich people richer.

[boggle]

Just look at Johnson's record as Governor of New Mexico. That should say all you need to know about their economy under his policies. I mean, the guy got elected with a 2-1 Democratic state, beating out a Democratic incumbent. That's the ability to unify beyond party borders - which is a great characteristic for any presidential hopeful. He once mentioned he vetoed a bill with this message: “I’m vetoing this piece of legislation because it’s just way too long and we don’t understand what it says."

He's an anti-politician, so to speak, and some people seem to like that.

That said, still not convinced on him.

[David87]

Love the anti-politician stuff...just can't get behind anybody who thinks government shouldn't have a role in social issues and in the economy

[Simulcast]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Wouldn't the approach that limits that infinite desire the one that embraces it?

I mean to respond to this but I feel like you left a word or two out. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. Can you clarify?

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Simulcast

I mean to respond to this but I feel like you left a word or two out. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. Can you clarify?

You said resources are finite and desire infinite, but hinted that the worldview that embraces the infinite desire is the better course of action - I was trying to say that the worldview that embraces the finite resources (and therefore limits them due to the infinite desire) is the better one.

Been a few days since that post, sorry if the reply is off/not what you were looking for.

[Simulcast]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

You said resources are finite and desire infinite, but hinted that the worldview that embraces te infinite desire is the better course of action - I was trying to say that the worldview that embraces the finite resources (and therefore limits them due to the infinite desire) is the better one.

Been a few days since that post, sorry if the reply is off/not what you were looking for.

No, it's great.

You don't need a system to place limits on resources, because at that point you are dictation to people what they desire. This is both wrong and dangerous. It is impossible to determine what the wants and desires of millions of people are at any given time and so any attempt to do that is going to fail. You will either greatly over-estimate or under-estimate the wants of the people, and neither is ideal.

In a free market, there is no need to guess what people want. They vote on that with their money, and producers are then able to act accordingly without having to take a wild guess at what people want. There is also an incentive to follow the market for that good to ensure that the amount supplied matches the demand as closely as possible. If they undershoot, someone else can take advantage and take away their business; if they overshoot, they go out of business. This is done by every producer, again, without the need for the impossible task of pretending to know (or set) the desires of the people.

I hope that makes sense.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Simulcast

I hope that makes sense.

I'm leaving work in a few minutes and want to re-read that conversation from before so I don't talk out of my ass about something you guys weren't talking about. Will respond to this, though ;)

[Dan1234]

Originally Posted by agl

i support this guy 100%. He wants to stop policing the world in the name of US democracy, cut back ridiculous and unnecessary portions of the federal government, and advocates the end of the police state we've seen our country become (with so much attention and resources being alloted for the punishment and incarceration of non-violent crimes and offenders)

and he wants to legalize pot and hookers and give me tax cuts so i can afford even more pot and hookers. Goddamnit lets get this mother fucker in

[Broken Parachute]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gary...se-of-campaign

[rawspinner]

It'll be awesome to have a varied dialogue. Unless of course he's insane. But he's the first major third party candidate to be included in the debates since Perot right?

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by rawspinner

It'll be awesome to have a varied dialogue. Unless of course he's insane. But he's the first major third party candidate to be included in the debates since Perot right?

Yep.