Rugged individualism doesn't work for 350 million people. And Rand is compromised by his association with the GOP as Bernie is with the Democrats. He did a very weak job of defending their positions with Jon Stewart this week, opting to just shift the discussion away from GOP tenants. 99% of this county's government is dictated by business now, the laws are written by lobbyist and passed by contribution whores and future cushy job seekers. The people are sold-out for greed; placated, manipulated and distracted. True populist are more Christian-like in that they will set aside the their own personal gain to work for the greater good. You can always tell people's true motivation by looking at the money. Look at the money and tell me who speaks for The People.
So do you agree with him that the GOP is responsible for ISIS and everything they have done the last 20 years in foreign policy has been a disaster?
He may not think of it that way, but he's advocating for expansion of state powers and confiscation of wealth. He's ok with this because he would use it in benevolent ways. To redistribute wealth. To subsidize/mandate desirable behavior. To tax/prohibit undesirable behavior. I would not agree with that. I like him in spite of his dad.
Ok... I see why you don't like Bernie. Anyway, Caterpillar has avoided paying billions in US taxes since 2000 by shifting profits to a affiliate in Switzerland and Rand Paul said they deserved an award instead of being questioned about taxes... That boy is a ankle grabber.
I'm not the biggest fan of Bernie, but he's the only candidate in either party that actually brings to the table fresh ideas and isn't afraid to speak his mind on a consistent basis. I would vote for him because, if nothing else, he represents the biggest threat to the Washington establishment and seeing him do battle with a Republican senate and congress on a regular basis would be thoroughly entertaining.
The idea is universal, power brokers rule the people for their own benefit until the people rise up in numbers. It can be a grass roots political uprising or revolution, it can be the The US Revolution, French Republic Revolution, The Boxer Rebellion, The Russian Revolution, Mao Tse-tung, The Iranian revolution or ISIS. Propaganda is one of the main tools of oppression. I think the plutocracy in America use FAUX and hot button social issues that actually mean very little in the course of human events in order to maintain the growth in wealth disparity, though I don't think it's a centrally organized conspiracy or anything. I think the Koch brothers and other do support the false notion of a Tea Party rebellion to just promote gridlock so there can't be any reform. I don't have a clue how anyone would consider Citizens United democratically defensible. If politicians weren't owned I think it would be the fastest Constitutional amendment in history.
Agreed... And I don't think it's a centrally organized conspiracy but I do think there are different groups of the elite who are organized to try to rule how they see fit.
Market fundies think that all is well (and basically for the best) if The Market provides hundreds of types of deodorants while kids go hungry and folks go without healthcare. Has to be ok if that is what the market does in the real world. Sorry econ 101 little graphs don't translate 100% to the real world. If mere humans try to regulate The Market it will be a fail as you can't mess with Mother Nature and The Market. I am always struck at the way the followers of folks like Hayek and Milton Friedman are like some of the more dogmatic followers of Marx, believing that they have found the answer to all questions of how to run a society and an economy. Sanders with his democratic socialism is not among these dogmatsts.
I'm always struck by people here always complaining that we libertarians are either too dogmatic or too inconsistent. Sanders thinks children are hungry because there are too many choices of deodorant. That's dogmatic Marxism, and also wrong. What Sanders really means is that he doesn't much care for the preferences of free human beings (that's all the market is). "Why are people buying deodorant?", thinks Sanders. That's a poor use of wealth. The state should have that wealth. The state could put it to better use (and by better, Sanders means his opinion of better). Like food and health care for children. The state knows how to more justly allocate resources than free people. Like Venezuela: Spoiler Notice they don't have a bunch of shelves full of wasteful deodorant. Smart.
Wow, oh my goodness. Sanders spreading ignorance to his acolytes. You realize that just because there are many types of deodorants doesn't mean we're producing too many, right? The market can provide a million bottles of old spice, or it can provide 100,000 each of 10 different types. There is no waste. It's as much as consumers need. Let me show you this fascinating graph. It's a huge advance in the field of economics. Not everyone knows about it. Spoiler
Sanders should listen to Gladwell. Embrace diversity, embrace choice. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iIiAAhUeR6Y?start=443" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
See what I mean. The "libertarians" think deodorants, health care , clean water what's the difference as they are all, or should be, market commodities or equally to be focused on unless you inject silly mere human non-market values.
I think what is really going on is that the "libertarians" are just butt hurt that when Bernie Sanders proposes free college for all qualified students, funded by a tax on market trading it displeases the Koch and the other wealthy "libertarians".
Well believe it or not if they are market commodities they are cheaper and higher quality. I mean, look at California's water situation. You really want to go there? That said, I'm all for providing a safety net.