73% of tuition recipients will spend to travel and dine

@metal-brain said
It was the Libertarian Party policy on foreign military intervention that I found appealing about them back then. That and the end of the war on drugs which is just to make them more profitable to deal them.

It is only the economic policies that are stupid about the libertarians. The social policies are sensible for the most part. The dumbest economic policy they have ...[text shortened]... . That is what the Koch brothers love about that. They are not libertarians for the social policies.

You should stick with the biggest baddest monopoly of all, the goobermint, your true home.

It's better to have a few people that understand the ideals than people like you who never did.

@wajoma said
You should stick with the biggest baddest monopoly of all, the goobermint, your true home.

It's better to have a few people that understand the ideals than people like you who never did.

Wealth inequality is why super wealthy people control government. Libertarians want to make that worse. Not all of their social stances are good either. They want open borders more than democrats. They would like to eliminate social security to end the income tax, but that is not even possible since the national debt is too high.

Few people care about the national debt and most people love social programs to help the poor. When people care about reducing the national debt I might vote Libertarian again, but until that changes it is pointless to vote for them. If we are going to keep going in debt we might as well pick what we want to spend money we don't have on. I want it to be spent on medicare for all and education for all paid by government.

What do you want it spent on?

edit: Oh yeah, and libertarians want to lift the ban on DDT and other pesticides that are harmful to the environment. Malaria is the reason. They argue it will save lives killing mosquitos that carry malaria. The environment is not their concern.

@averagejoe1 said
I hope you all will enjoy this, Marauder's mind will answer it!!!!!

Three men checked into a hotel room and were charged $30 for which they paid $10 each. The next day, the manager realized that the men had been overcharged since the real price is $25 for the room. The manager gave the bellhop $5 to return to the three men. On the way to their room the bellhop decided ...[text shortened]... , plus the $2 the bellhop kept for himself, makes a total of $29. What happened to the other dollar?

Eureka! There is no missing dollar.
The cost of the room is 25 dollars.
The mistake in calculation was adding (instead of subtracting) the bellhops 2 dollars.
27 - 2 = 25

@wajoma said
You should stick with the biggest baddest monopoly of all, the goobermint, your true home.

It's better to have a few people that understand the ideals than people like you who never did.

The government is the entity that created the largest impediment to personal freedom in the first place i.e. the institution of private property.

Laissez faire libertarians who endorse capitalism are intellectually incoherent.

@kilroy70 said
Eureka! There is no missing dollar.
The cost of the room is 25 dollars.
The mistake in calculation was adding (instead of subtracting) the bellhops 2 dollars.
27 - 2 = 25

Dissect your formula, please. I don’t follow subtract from the 27? To what end? Really you do not close your response. At least say where the dollar is…….

@no1marauder said
The government is the entity that created the largest impediment to personal freedom in the first place i.e. the institution of private property.

Laissez faire libertarians who endorse capitalism are intellectually incoherent.

PLEASE present a thread to us all, the negatives of private property ownership. I would not even know how to phrase the concept for it to be understood.

@averagejoe1 said
PLEASE present a thread to us all, the negatives of private property ownership. I would not even know how to phrase the concept for it to be understood.

I'm sure you wouldn't. Here's some help from an anarchist website:

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property."

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31

Basically there is a distinction between "private property" and "personal property". Personal property has always existed; private property was created by the State, usually by a king or other authoritarian ruler passing out grants of land to his family or cronies (often those most successful at murdering for him).

@averagejoe1 said
Dissect your formula, please. I don’t follow subtract from the 27? To what end? Really you do not close your response. At least say where the dollar is…….

I'm not entirely sure if my solution is correct.
The beginning point in my reasoning was to recognize that one dollar did not (because it could not) mysteriously disappear. So the only way that dollar could go missing would be because of a mistake in calculation. Ten dollars minus one equals nine, and nine times 3 equals 27 (supposedly the cost of the room)
But the cost of the room is not $27. The cost is $25. The $2 kept by the bellhop was supposed to bring the total cost of the room down to $25. So the mistake in calculation was adding rather than subtracting the pilfered $2.


By the way, the bellhop didn't keep $2 to make it easier for the 3 men to divide the reimbursement. He pocketed that money because he's a thief.

@kilroy70 said
I'm not entirely sure if my solution is correct.
The beginning point in my reasoning was to recognize that one dollar did not (because it could not) mysteriously disappear. So the only way that dollar could go missing would be because of a mistake in calculation. Ten dollars minus one equals nine, and nine times 3 equals 27 (supposedly the cost of the room)
But the cost of ...[text shortened]... ke it easier for the 3 men to divide the reimbursement. He pocketed that money because he's a thief.

By the way, the bellhop didn't keep $2 to make it easier for the 3 men to divide the reimbursement. He pocketed that money because he's a thief.

A stupid thief, because when the 3 men check out of the hotel and hand the room key over to the manager they might express their gratitude for the $3 dollar reimbursement.
The manager didn't become manager because he's stupid. He knows the reimbursement was supposed to be $5, so he gives the men another $2 and fires the bellhop.

The bellhop then uses his $2 windfall to buy a cheap bottle of wine.

@metal-brain said
Wealth inequality is why super wealthy people control government. Libertarians want to make that worse. Not all of their social stances are good either. They want open borders more than democrats. They would like to eliminate social security to end the income tax, but that is not even possible since the national debt is too high.

Few people care about the national deb ...[text shortened]... argue it will save lives killing mosquitos that carry malaria. The environment is not their concern.

The Democrats have consistently brought down deficit spending over the last few decades which is necessary to reduce the debt don’t let the MAGA propaganda fool you

@kilroy70 said
I'm not entirely sure if my solution is correct.
The beginning point in my reasoning was to recognize that one dollar did not (because it could not) mysteriously disappear. So the only way that dollar could go missing would be because of a mistake in calculation. Ten dollars minus one equals nine, and nine times 3 equals 27 (supposedly the cost of the room)
But the cost of ...[text shortened]... ke it easier for the 3 men to divide the reimbursement. He pocketed that money because he's a thief.

Ha . You reason like Marauder.
No no no….read the problem, because you are saying The problem clearly states that the cost of the room is $25, so you must re-analyze the problem. You have conflicting statements.

First you say that $27 is the cost of the room. Then you say “ but the cost of the room is not $27 , it is $25..”

Sumpin’ gotta give….

@averagejoe1 said
Ha . You reason like Marauder.
No no no….read the problem, because you are saying The problem clearly states that the cost of the room is $25, so you must re-analyze the problem. You have conflicting statements.

First you say that $27 is the cost of the room. Then you say “ but the cost of the room is not $27 , it is $25..”

Sumpin’ gotta give….

That the bellhop stole $2 doesn't change the fact that 30-5=25. There is no "missing dollar".

The simplest way to look at it is that each man should have paid $8.33 which is 1/3 of $25. Instead they paid $9 which was $8.33 apiece for the room and 67 cents apiece or $2 to the bellhop.

@averagejoe1 said
Ha . You reason like Marauder.
No no no….read the problem, because you are saying The problem clearly states that the cost of the room is $25, so you must re-analyze the problem. You have conflicting statements.

First you say that $27 is the cost of the room. Then you say “ but the cost of the room is not $27 , it is $25..”

Sumpin’ gotta give….

Yes, the cost of the room is $25. But the 3 men don't know that. After getting back $3 they would naturally assume the actual cost to be $27.

The three men believed the cost of the room is $27 after paying $30 ($10 each) and getting back $3. But the actual cost of the room is $25. They wouldn't know the reimbursement should have been $5 instead of $3 unless the bellhop told them he kept $2 of it for himself.

If the bellhop had handed over the $2 he originally intended to keep for himself then the 3 men would know the actual cost of the room is $25. But you can't get to $25 from $27 by adding $2, you get there by subtracting $2.

@no1marauder said
The government is the entity that created the largest impediment to personal freedom in the first place i.e. the institution of private property.

Laissez faire libertarians who endorse capitalism are intellectually incoherent.

In a libertarian society you're free to join communes and collectivists and not own anything, you just can't force it on others.

And of course those few words 'can not force others' is where No1 shuts down.

@wajoma said
In a libertarian society you're free to join communes and collectivists and not own anything, you just can't force it on others.

And of course those few words 'can not force others' is where No1 shuts down.

There is no such thing as a "libertarian society" and there never has been.

The very institution of private property was created by force by the State saying Individual A "owns" this property even though he doesn't use it personally. And then the State creates a paramilitary force to "defend" A's private property from those it has declined to give "private property" to.

Capitalism is based on nothing more than force thus making "laissez faire capitalism" and any type of "libertarian" thought completely incompatible when viewed rationally.