/liberty/ - Liberty

>>11161

>authentic

>has principles

Right, that's why he pays his employees less than his proposed minimum wage and had anti-war protesters escorted out of his office by the police.

>>11166

Don't forget he has a completely fucking retarded view of legitimately derived government authority.

According to Bernie, if there's 5 people on a desert island 3 of them can delegate the fourth to rape the fifth. This sounds extreme, but I know most of you on /liberty/ are clever enough to understand this is merely the universalisation of a principle Our Lord and Savior, Sanders, espouses.

Because he says you can delegate the gvt. the right to violate the property rights of your fellow citizens, or any of their rights really. He doesn't limit it to property. If I can delegate the right to tax, a right I do not have, why can I not delegate my right to abuse other people in other ways besides expropriating their property? Why can I not delegate the right to murder them, to destroy the body which is their property? Why can I not delegate the right to torture them for the hell of it, obviously I can't do that as an individual, but apparently it's totally okay if I just delegate my non-rights to a "government official" to do it for me.

>inb4 some statist accidentally stumbles upon /liberty/ and says majority rule WITH minority rights, checkmate atheists!

PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE MINORITY RIGHTS YOU FUCKS

>>11167

Link to video of Bernie's view on rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIKP4W50-I

"DURR I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION"

>>11160

gib

>>11168

R E K T

E

K

T

>>11166

I have not heard of the antiwar protestors thing.

>>11161

Oh. So it's just envy politics?

>>11160

Anon, I think you answered your own question. Sanders is like the personification of everything liberal politicians stand for: Telling people whatever they want to hear so that they'll think you care about them, and promising them free stuff so they won't realize you're just trying to take away their rights and property.

I mean, c'mon, his policies read off like a Socialist Demagogue Checklist. It's only natural that he would mostly attract the sort of selfish retards who would fall for that sort of rhetoric and have been doing so many times in the past.

>>11161

>most people knows that capitalism sucks

Correction: Those people have been led to believe that capitalism sucks by sleazy politicians using "muh 1%" as a scapegoat for several decades and flat-out lying about basically everything.

These same people often lack the perspective to realize that capitalism, even in a neutered form, has produced the highest standards of living and economic growth in the world by an overwhelming margin.

>>11167

>>11168

Also this. That video disgusts me.

>>11181

Bernie Sanders being a dirty hypocrite:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

Bernie Sanders being a filthy hypocrite:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/bernie-sanders-voting-record-antithetical-to-his-purported-anti-war-stance/208066/

>>11183

*have done so

>>11160

Literal retards that just want free shit

Because in the US there are two sides. It doesn't even matter if he supports the genocide of baby seals, the demos would still vote him because he represents the left while trump represents the right. I talked to some 30 year old literal faggots about trump and they didn't know anything about him, they just said what he is going to do to the country is horrible. They don't know shit.

>>11238

Of course, you're right about that. But it hasn't even come down to "Democrats vs Republicans" yet. Sanders has support from these morons while he's still just up against other Democrats, so I feel like that doesn't really apply here.

>>11244

He's up against hillary. Compared to that, anything would look good.

>>11255

You say that, but I honestly think I'd rather have Hilary in office.

But that's not saying much, because I'd rather have pretty much anyone else in office.

>>11257

That psycho bitch with half a dozen scandals? Can't believe anyone's willing to vote for her

:\\\\\\\\\\\\\

>>11183

>These same people often lack the perspective to realize that capitalism, even in a neutered form, has produced the highest standards of living and economic growth in the world by an overwhelming margin.

Yeah, and before capitalism, feudalism did the same thing.

>>11291

And Communism will not.

Also, economic calculation is impossible in gommieland.

>>11291

…Okay? And then capitalism outperformed feudalism, so now we use that instead. That doesn't mean we should now regress to a system that has similarly proven itself ineffective.

>>11261

To be fair, she is a psycho bitch with half a dozen scandals. It's just that Sanders still manages to be worse.

>>11160

>Seriously, why is there so much support for this guy?

He's one of exactly two candidates that aren't outright owned by wall-street, bankers and corporations.

He *actually* wants to jail the bankers that committed fraud and engineered the 2008 economic collapse, received a 3 trillion bailout stolen from the very people whose lives they already ruined, and then used it to pay themselves bonuses.

>>11399

I'm impressed. That's exactly two points in his favor. Well, maybe three, what with him trying to make political campaigns harder to manipulate. He's still an asshole.

>>11399

I agree that this is a much better answer than the "free stuff!" argument.

Also, out of curiousity, one of two? Who do you think is the second?

>>11413

>Also, out of curiousity, one of two? Who do you think is the second?

Trump ofc. Nobody owns Trump but Trump. Nobody owns Sanders but Sanders. I mean this in the literal financial sense of campaign funding. These are the only two candidates about which this is true. Even Rand Paul is being propped up by big-money donors. The rest of them are backed by billionaires, corporations, wall street, bankers, etc… the usual suspects. Clinton is the worst of them.

>>11406

A third is he said "the NSA us out of control" direct quote (samefag)

>>11416

Trump also gets a lot of big donations. I don't think any of those three will be bought out.

Point is only two of those candidates, Paul and Sanders, are promising to do something about campaign finance. Trump seems content to be able to buy favors from government; after all he did it for decades. Why ruin a good thing?

Sanders has a few other positive things going for him in the civil liberties area, so I understand the appeal, but the economic policies are outright islamic gommunism. Trump is just a straight-up authoritarian who wants the president to be like a CEO.

>>11507

>the economic policies are outright islamic gommunism

Read a fucking book nigger

>>11507

>but the economic policies are outright islamic gommunism

As I said earlier…

>He *actually* wants to jail the bankers that committed fraud and engineered the 2008 economic collapse, received a 3 trillion bailout stolen from the very people whose lives they already ruined, and then used it to pay themselves bonuses.

I can get behind that economic policy

>>11687

Except he also wants to hike up government spending immensely, redistribute wealth, and generally continue to do the things that got us in this situation in the first place. Every one of his economic policies involves pouring more money into institutions that have proven ineffective time and again.

There's also the matter that punishing the bankers at this point would be completely ineffective. The problem is and has always been government regulation, which is something Sanders wants to increase even further. He's just another sleaze continuing the trend of shifting the blame away from the people who're actually responsible, and I really don't see how anything he's proposed is going to help anybody – especially long-term.

To my knowledge, all the bankers really did was adopt incompetent business practices. It's purely the government's fault that they were able to keep it up and not receive punishment (in the form of going out of business unless they stop sucking so much). They're just a scapegoat used to sucker gullible liberals into giving the government more money. If you want to punish them, then deregulate and let them face unrestricted competition.

>>11690

>To my knowledge, all the bankers really did was adopt incompetent business practices.

It's not that. It's that banks literally create money and then give that money to themselves and their billionaire friends ("investors") and then act like they earned it. It's corporate crony capitalism at its worst.

>>11687

Bernie wanting to jail bankers is nothing more than a public execution in order to drum up support and dispense propaganda. Yes, the banks were absolutely a root cause of the problem. But we should not forget about the heavy government involvement; terrible monetary policy and financial regulation lead to this outcome. Effectively, Bernie is placing all the blame on this "1%/banker" class without having the government own up to their own sins. This should be condemned because it dishonestly tricks people into thinking the problem will be solved merely by getting rid of the bankers. That won't solve it. The government needs to stay away from harmful monetary policy and (over)regulation of the financial sector.

Did you know that every deodorant company means one less deodorant stick goes to feeding hungry children?

>>11923

>Effectively, Bernie is placing all the blame on this "1%/banker" class without having the government own up to their own sins.

They're exactly the same entity.