Libertarians Are Sociopaths

[cbeast]

There have been dozens of studies like this.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

That's conservative. Fuck conservatives with a large pineapple. Communists were conservatives. Libertarians seem anything but conservatives. Pro-let everyone do what they want and be who they want to be is just about as opposite of conservativism as you can get.

Communists were conservatives

Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.

Pro-let everyone do what they want and be who they want to be is just about as opposite of conservativism as you can get.

And as far from reality as you can get.

[1713510607]

1713510607

[1713510607]

1713510607

[1713510607]

1713510607

[1713510607]

1713510607

[1713510607]

1713510607

[dancupid]

I'm very much a conservationist anarchist/libertarian. I believe in freedom, but please try to keep it safe and respectable. I don't want to embarrass my mother with my anarchist antics.

[Red]

And exactly how many millions of dollars in stock options does the average Chinese laborer get?

Curiously, you know how many stock options Steve Jobs died with?  ALL OF THEM!

Every stock option he received came at the expense of other stock holders. None came at the expense of employees. Each option was worthless when he received it. (Options are the right to purchase stock at the current market price.) They only increased in value because he 1) revived a dying company, 2) saved countless jobs and 3) created multitudes more. The value of his options rose 600 million dollars in the past year alone, even though he received zero additional options.

He cashed out none of them. Had he chosen to cash out those options, every penny of the money would have come from new Apple investors. Zero of it would have come at the expense of Chinese laborers.


Yeah, I'm sure you think he was a insignificant greedy bastard leaching off the work products of others. I just happen to think you are wrong.

[cbeast]

Yeah, I'm sure you think he was a insignificant greedy bastard leaching off the work products of others. I just happen to think you are wrong.

Yep, you and the other 1%

[Red]

Yep, you and the other 1%

Me and the other 1%? Exactly what are you smoking?

If you mean geocentrically? Sure, guilty as charged. Where do you fit on that scale, 2%?

I am the 53%!

[rainingbitcoins]

And exactly how many millions of dollars in stock options does the average Chinese laborer get?

Curiously, you know how many stock options Steve Jobs died with?  ALL OF THEM!

Jobs had 5.4 million shares:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/21/steve-jobs-is-282-million-richer/

Also:

If you actually take a look at the 2011 Apple proxy statement, though, you'll see that, "In 2001, the Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with Mr. Jobs for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs in the operation of his private plane when used for the Company's business. The Company recognized a total of approximately $248,000, $4,000 and $871,000 in expenses pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively."

And the 2008 proxy statement makes clear that what the 2011 proxy statement refers to as "his private plane" was actually bought by the company and given to Mr. Jobs

    When he was elected to the Board in 1997, Mr. Jobs received the standard director's stock option grant for 30,000 shares. Because Mr. Jobs became employed later that year as the Company's interim CEO, he was no longer eligible for such director grants. When the 1997 director grant (which increased to 120,000 shares after two stock splits) was due to expire in August 2007, Mr. Jobs exercised the option and he currently holds these 120,000 shares.

In the 2004 proxy statement, Apple disclosed a restricted stock award to Mr. Jobs that it valued at $74,750,000. It also explained:

    In December 1999, Mr. Jobs was given a special executive bonus for past services as the Company's interim Chief Executive Officer, in the form of an aircraft with a total cost to the Company of approximately $90,000,000. Because the aircraft was transferred to Mr. Jobs in 2001, the amount of approximately $43.5 million paid by the Company during fiscal year 2001 towards the purchase of the plane and the related tax assistance of approximately $40.5 million was reported as income to Mr. Jobs. In fiscal 2002, approximately $2.27 million paid by the Company towards the purchase of the plane and approximately $1.3 million in related tax assistance was reported as income to Mr. Jobs.

In other words, Apple gave Mr. Jobs $74.75 million worth of stock and a $90 million airplane, plus at least $41.8 million in "tax assistance" to Mr. Jobs for the airplane. And the Wall Street Journal headline and news article tell readers about the fact that he's taken $1 a year in salary since 1997. The Journal story acknowledges that Mr. Jobs "owns about 5.5 million shares of the company," but doesn't say anything about how he received them.

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/01/steve-jobs-compensation

[cbeast]

Yep, you and the other 1%

Me and the other 1%? Exactly what are you smoking?

If you mean geocentrically? Sure, guilty as charged. Where do you fit on that scale, 2%?

I am the 53%!

You think you are in the 53%? Tomorrow it will be the 54% and it won't be long before you are the 99% as well.

[Red]

In other words, Apple gave Mr. Jobs $74.75 million worth of stock and a $90 million airplane, plus at least $41.8 million in "tax assistance" to Mr. Jobs for the airplane. And the Wall Street Journal headline and news article tell readers about the fact that he's taken $1 a year in salary since 1997. The Journal story acknowledges that Mr. Jobs "owns about 5.5 million shares of the company," but doesn't say anything about how he received them.

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/01/steve-jobs-compensation
[/quote]

Yes they gave him an Airplane to make it possible for him to become iCEO. That is well known. He was already the CEO of another company so his daily commute was pretty phenomenal.

His 5.5 million shares were the result of an option grant of 10 million shares. You are required to exercise options or they evaporate. In order to exercise the options, you have to go out of pocket for the original value of the stock. Normally people do this by selling the stock and pocketing the difference. In his case, he returned almost half the options to the company in exchange for stock. That showed his commitment to the company and avoided needlessly roiling the market. This is why there was a "tax" charge. He never took any cash, so the company paid his taxes.

So when did he convert all that stock into cash and start blowing it on cocaine and hookers? Oh yeah, he died never having taken his profits.

Yes, obviously he was out to screw everyone.

[Rassah]

Communists were conservatives

Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

[NghtRppr]

Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

Nobody said anything about being a hunter-gather but you. Divide the area of arable land by the number of people on the Earth and the average 3 person family could have 15 acres of farmland. That's assuming that everyone would be a farmer, which is idiotic. There are other ways to make a living without working at McDonald's or being a farmer. If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.

[Red]

If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.

Please don't send them here! Have you seen Montana? There is no one there. Totally empty. Free land for everyone!

[cbeast]

Communists were conservatives

Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

You can't argue with that logic. I'll say Good Day, Sir.

[Red]

You can't argue with that logic. I'll say Good Day, Sir.

Oh, come on! How can you fail to grasp the, "Everyone who disagrees with me is all alike," argument?

It goes back to Sun Tsu. "The enemy of my enemies, is me!"

[rainingbitcoins]

Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

Nobody said anything about being a hunter-gather but you. Divide the area of arable land by the number of people on the Earth and the average 3 person family could have 15 acres of farmland. That's assuming that everyone would be a farmer, which is idiotic. There are other ways to make a living without working at McDonald's or being a farmer. If everyone had their own personal 2000 square foot house we could fit everyone inside of Texas. There's plenty of land.

So then the proper first step in your brand of unregulated capitalism is to confiscate the land and redistribute it to the people? Do I have this right?

[rainingbitcoins]

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.

[Red]

Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/15forage.html?_r=1

This one was interesting. But really I'm not attempting to make a particular political statement other than, "go clever people!"

[Rassah]

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.

Only a part of human nature. Not everyone is like that. My family grew up under communism. I did for a part of my childhood as well. I am actually VERY liberal, and was kinda shocked when someone pointed out the communists=conservatives thing to me, too, but it made a lot of sense. They are just as antigay, antisemitic, and racist as the conservatives I've seen here.
What saddens me is that a lot of the ex-soviet immigrants who came here to escape communism have become conservative republicans. They hate and fear socialism, and thus democrats, so much that they don't even recognize the real monster they escaped from, conservatism, and got pulled into the same extremist paranoia and desire for government control of morality and patriotism that communists subjugated people with there. In a great irony, they have swung so far to the right that they ended up coming right back around to the same place.
I also believe far-right fascism and far-left communism are two sides of the same coin. One is corporate control of government to the point where they are one entity, and the other is government control of corporations to the point where they are also one entity. In the end, there's no difference. It's why extreme left and extreme right scare me equally.

[Red]

That was well stated. You should write more longer well thought out posts like this.

[rainingbitcoins]

The only difference between religious conservatives and soviet communists was the "god" they worshipped. Both clung to their beliefs in the face of reason, both hated and feared anyone who thought or was different, and both are willing to kill anyone they deemed undesirable. The belief systems were different, but the ignorance and conservative mindset was exactly the same.

These traits are so common that you may as well call them human nature, unfortunately.

Only a part of human nature. Not everyone is like that. My family grew up under communism. I did for a part of my childhood as well. I am actually VERY liberal, and was kinda shocked when someone pointed out the communists=conservatives thing to me, too, but it made a lot of sense. They are just as antigay, antisemitic, and racist as the conservatives I've seen here.
What saddens me is that a lot of the ex-soviet immigrants who came here to escape communism have become conservative republicans. They hate and fear socialism, and thus democrats, so much that they don't even recognize the real monster they escaped from, conservatism, and got pulled into the same extremist paranoia and desire for government control of morality and patriotism that communists subjugated people with there. In a great irony, they have swung so far to the right that they ended up coming right back around to the same place.
I also believe far-right fascism and far-left communism are two sides of the same coin. One is corporate control of government to the point where they are one entity, and the other is government control of corporations to the point where they are also one entity. In the end, there's no difference. It's why extreme left and extreme right scare me equally.

What you're talking about is known as right-wing authoritarianism.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Despite the name, it's definitely not limited to the right-wing, as the psychologist who proposed this theory back in the '80s points out in his book, The Authoritarians.

Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said.

 Interesting read if you get a chance. He put the whole thing online:  http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter1.pdf

And of course, it should be noted that not every person on the far-right or the far-left shares this personality trait, but the author makes a compelling argument that the rather large percentage of people who do are directly or indirectly responsible for quite a few social ills.

[grondilu]

An other thing:  if public education aims at providing education to the poor, why on earth is it proposed to everybody???

Does the State assume that every one is a poor thing that must be taken care of?

I should hope it assumes that, rich or poor, kids don't chose what life they were born into, and everyone should be given an equal chance at starting life before they get to a point where they actually can make their own choices, for better or worse.

This is a terrible assertion.  You seem to be advocating for equality at the cost of uniformity, which terribly reminds me of "The brave new world".  You are basically saying that parents should not have the right to make decisions regarding the education of their offspring, otherwise some children might be disavantaged in the future.  You might as well assume that parenthood should be outlawed and that children should be raised like orphans, in public institutions, by State employed surrogate mothers.

An other reason why this is wrong is that nobody knows what is the best education for children, if such a thing exists.  And if it does exists, I very much doubt that public centralization of decision regarding pedagogic methods is the best way to find out what it is.  Giving the responsability of educating millions of children to a few technocrats is a total madness, imho.

It is crazy to advocate for the same education to hundreds of millions of children, just in order to prevent a small percentage of them from not having some.