2. Peter predicted the housing bubble in 2005, Ron paul predicted it in the 1980's, really reiterated it in 2003 I think it was, and bam it happened. Trust me you this man knows what he is talking about.
Ok alot of people predicted it. Have you seen the documentary Inside Job? Why should I trust you lol, so far in this thread was nothing I would have taken face value information from you lol.
I have not seen inside job (I cant see every movie on this planet after all). But I have a hard time believing anyone predicted it better than Ron Paul:
4. Damn right im against socialism, so are alot of people at OWS who are libertarians
Ok. You do realize both are feasible right? its the whole expansionist vs redistribution argument? Again been discussed on this thread already and I keep stating that history has shown to this day that expansionism has done horrible things and created flawed systems. So why not go for socialism where other countries it works for them? oh wait no you don't think so.
Economically (Macro) its an argument between Austrian vs Kenseyen economics. We just disagree between the two.
As far as expansionism, and US military aggression: again check out Ron Paul! That is a man who does not believe in bullshit wars.
Redistributing wealth is a terrible idea.
5. wtf is corporate libertarianism? Last I checked libertarians do not believe in companies having human rights and qualities.
Well you should have asked that a while ago cause I kept mentioning it lol. You do realize that our "freedom" as any western politician says it includes economic freedom and competition. Meaning they have individual rights, most easily identified internationally with the Bretton woods institutes. But ok if you say that liberals are against that then I learned something today. Again though none will ever be elected in the US as they operate within a corporate libertarian framework. The closest thing we will see are incremental changes, if that (doubt it cause of precedents set).
First and foremost liberals =/= classical liberals.
I was inferring that corporate libertarianism as a term does not make much sense. Unless I suppose you are saying that your against corporations having free will? Ie. Perfect competition, capitalist, no bailouts, no government bubbles, no government intervention, letting the market increase quality and decrease price. Which in that case sounds great. However, I think you have a demonizing definition, a definition that involves crony capitalism (in a libertarian remember there is no room for crony capitalism) and thus is our disconnect.
6. Those federal branches are a bunch of bureaucrats
What an intelligent sentence ey.
As far as each individual branch, go to youtube and search said branch (fda, epa, etc) + ron paul
Before you fully understand my view point on politics, economics, and social structures, we will continue to have a disconnect in our debates.
7. The current system is what is called Crony capitalism, it is what happens with more government look it up, it is the cause of all these problems.
Uh huh. Crony capitalism no shit sherlock, doesn't classify more government being bad/corrupt, it just means the current one is lol. Yes it is the cause. Established that loooong ago in this thread. But since you say "wtf is corporate libertarianism" I am assuming you did not look it up. Further I am still waiting to how that memo you said to look and which I did and analyzed supported your side and not mine which it actually reinforced, Grand area doctrine and all that. Trade restrictions eliminated through Breton woods for an American economic hegemony....I still have no either explained how "7% of the population owning 50% of the worlds wealth means"....It mentioned that in the memo but it didn't reinforce any argument other than my own.
Without big government you can not have crony capitalism.
As stated earlier, the memo was in relation to explaining why and how the US government had so much government, it is because with that much of the worlds wealth, they were responsible for the rest of the world.
8. Don't misrepresent people at OWS, not all (wouldnt even say the majority) believe in socialism, alot of people want change but in a libertarian approach, they want "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" something you will NOT get with more government
That video disagrees with you buddy, hence why I said its piss poor for your side. Life and liberty and property you can get with more government, participatory democracy is still democracy.
You must not have watched the whole video.
More government with liberty is an oxymoron.
9. You will notice Ron Paul is a libertarian, while the rest of the GOP politicians believe stripping your human rights internationally (war), and domestically (patriot act).
Ok good for Ron Paul, lets have his slogan as "change" and have him elected. See what happens. I mean what does it matter what he is.
10. Countries (especially nordic countries) have been becoming less socialist in recent years. Parties in power in sweden: the alliance Finland: national coalition party and norway: progress party added with the conservative party hold more seats then the socialist party.
First off you do realize that a conservative, for example, from Canada would be classified a democrat in the US? all relative. BTW I love how you ignore South America that I also mentioned, which also recently created a new regional bloc excluding the US and Canada and including Cuba. Also poverty levels have been the lowest since 20 years in Latin America. Same time that majoritive democracies and socialist governments have arisen democratically into power. Good documentary for that would be South of the Border I found last week.
Most of South America are the champions of crony capitalism, dont stoop down to that level, keep it oranges to oranges. Classic liberals (conservatives) are the same as classic liberals anywhere else thats why they have international affiliations. I do agree however that there is much work to be done on the current legislator to lean more right in Canada versus the USA. The end goal is the same.
11. Look at left leaning countries and compare GDP per capita to GDPppp
For a guy who just finished argue in this thread that all statistics and charts can be manipulated, you sure you know what to say "look at this and that statistic". Bit of a hypocrite. But fine here it is for everyone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29
. What I notice is that there are developed countries and not so developed countries that splits the list. As I mentioned in number 10 "poverty levels have been the lowest since 20 years in Latin America". Think its due to development only? or redistribution of wealth?
what the hell does visually represented transformed graphs have to do with GDP (which can be self recreated)? You are so confused about statistics I dont even know where to start or end with you.
I suggest 1. You fully understand what affects GDPppp 2. Learn to compare the difference in that countries GDPppp to their GDP per capita, to understand where they are making loses (or gains).
12. In the past 5-6 years socialism has been DECIMATED, as people realize that crony capitalism has caused all of this to happen, and there is no place for it in a capitalist society.
right if 500 million people in LA becoming socialist and leftist is being decimated sure. The EU is more leftist today than it was 30 years ago. Healthcare, education all that good stuff countries like France and Britain developed through government.
If you think public healthcare and education provides better service then private industry, then ill just completely and utterly disagree there. In your response don't get caught up and misunderstood with affordability (I am not talking about crony industry, that includes insurance backed systems).
13. If you think Canada, USA, or any of the European countries will drop capitalism all together in favor for full blown socialism, you are delusional.
Hmm I wonder where I said that. Hmmm. No I specifically mentioned that its possible we can drop financial capitalism and move back to production capitalism. financial corporations vs. productive corporations. Its in this thread. BTW here is the definition "characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs". Sounds so evil huh for me to want it in the west.
Look above for why socialism is not the answer, and how it will perpetuate the problem.
14. Question for you: would you rather have lived on the west or east side of Berlin(1961–1989)?
So much of your numbered list has little to do with what I said to your video. You keep going back to issues already discussed like I forgot or something, who are you trying to fool here or are you just....like....that....kind....of....person?
As for the question, the west side. Soviet Union by that linked definition just two inches above me was not socialist. Stalin corrupted Lenin's vanguard for a Marxist revolution. However I would have lived in Cuba, number of different reasons. Since I answered an obvious personal question mind if I ask what university and what professors are teaching what you are learning?
The question was rhetorical. I will continue to refrain from tainting this debate with irrelevant information. My studies and professors have given me the tools to enable me to think for myself, it is not a representation of any of their belief or disbelief. I think I have made it pretty clear who I can relate and agree with most often (Ron Paul).