ilovefuzz.com

Ive known and met several billionaires and for the most part the people I’ve met have been actually pretty humble. The guy in charge of the research project (founded by John Kanzious before he passed) has been funding the cancer project we have been involved with for 15 years. He’s a nice gentleman who lives in NY and lost his wife to cancer. So, without him being in the mix now, the FDA wouldn’t be reviewing the human trials that are ongoing. To me, that makes him a good guy to have around.

I’ve also met the head of Cerner, as did my father and my dad actually fucked with him by pretending to not know who he was. He got all butt hurt. That guy seemed like a douche.

I don’t agree with no one should be a billionaire though. I’m a Libertarian and believe in a free market which can lead to anything. I’m not into Marxism or any form of liberalism, though some liberal programs are helpful, most are a joke and make things harder on them and people. Meaning they don’t do what they ought to do. The programs I means.

All hail the Weiland-Yutani corporation, which only has our best interests in mind!

Wait is the the aliens guy? Cause like I dig Guy Pearce.

Jwar wrote:though some liberal programs are helpful, most are a joke and make things harder on them and people. Meaning they don’t do what they ought to do. The programs I means.

This is ONLY because they are constantly being choked by politicians and bureaucrats with the very intent to make things harder for people. Most of them share your belief that the free market is good enough. Ergo your mentality is the very reason why the things you believe don't work, don't work.

John wrote:

Jwar wrote:though some liberal programs are helpful, most are a joke and make things harder on them and people. Meaning they don’t do what they ought to do. The programs I means.

This is ONLY because they are constantly being choked by politicians and bureaucrats with the very intent to make things harder for people. Most of them share your belief that the free market is good enough. Ergo your mentality is the very reason why the things you believe don't work, don't work.

My mentality makes failed socialist programs not work? Really? That's the best you got? How the fuck does that even make sense? I didn't break the system. I didn't create section 8 that fucks more people that it helps or abuse programs that offer the very minimum to allow a human to survive.

Jwar wrote:

John wrote:

Jwar wrote:though some liberal programs are helpful, most are a joke and make things harder on them and people. Meaning they don’t do what they ought to do. The programs I means.

This is ONLY because they are constantly being choked by politicians and bureaucrats with the very intent to make things harder for people. Most of them share your belief that the free market is good enough. Ergo your mentality is the very reason why the things you believe don't work, don't work.

My mentality makes failed socialist programs not work? Really? That's the best you got? How the fuck does that even make sense? I didn't break the system. I didn't create section 8 that fucks more people that it helps or abuse programs that offer the very minimum to allow a human to survive.

It's not you that makes social programs fail. It's the idea of "fuck 'em, they should be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps while we create artificial inflation for insulin because we can make more profit off of it" that a lot of corporations and politicians have under the guise of "the free market will make the system fair".
Corporations benefit from a socialized and governed society and take advantage of systems designed to protect people, like the patent office, which wouldn't exist in a true free-market society. A lot of programs don't work right because of purposefully obstructive bureaucracy rather than because of poor people gaming the system.

No. It’s underfunding that makes them fail as well as many other issues. It’s not cut and dry. There’s an enormously complicated social and economic issue with this country. Most of it can be directly contributed to consumerism as well but that is a separate issue.


Here’s my example. Section 8 for instance is an assistance program for people for housing. I am a property owner and know first hand how programs like this fail people. They don’t have the money. The Government is pulling the strings on this shit you know. They control those programs. They fund the protest groups by proxy as well.

Jwar wrote: I don’t agree with no one should be a billionaire though. I’m a Libertarian and believe in a free market which can lead to anything.

It always leads to one thing, though, weirdly enough.

On a somewhat related note, I read something a little while ago that raised the point (I am vastly oversimplifying the piece, which you can read here: https://aeon.co/essays/pluck-and-hard-w ... es-one-man) that meritocracy is only a slightly more level playing field than serfdom in that, under mostly-rare circumstances, people can become successful in an outsized fashion to their origin, rather than it never happening at all.

I have a similar feeling about discussions regarding the free market as I do "pluck", which will make sense if you read the article.

Jwar wrote:No. It’s underfunding that makes them fail as well as many other issues. It’s not cut and dry.

My dude, you have to realise that this underfunding is a direct result of people railing against government aide, which infringes on the free market. If more regulations were loosened, we would end up with god emperor Bezos.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:

Jwar wrote: I don’t agree with no one should be a billionaire though. I’m a Libertarian and believe in a free market which can lead to anything.

It always leads to one thing, though, weirdly enough.

Lol!

D.o.S. wrote:On a somewhat related note, I read something a little while ago that raised the point (I am vastly oversimplifying the piece, which you can read here: https://aeon.co/essays/pluck-and-hard-w ... es-one-man) that meritocracy is only a slightly more level playing field than serfdom in that, under mostly-rare circumstances, people can become successful in an outsized fashion to their origin, rather than it never happening at all.

I have a similar feeling about discussions regarding the free market as I do "pluck", which will make sense if you read the article.

Jwar wrote:No. It’s underfunding that makes them fail as well as many other issues. It’s not cut and dry.

My dude, you have to realise that this underfunding is a direct result of people railing against government aide, which infringes on the free market. If more regulations were loosened, we would end up with god emperor Bezos.

I don’t agree. Where I live right now, they started a fund for affordable housing. Well, there’s already a fund for that and there is no money in it. Yet the politicians seems to be doing quite nicely for themselves. Government oversight and overstepping is high on my list of “nope, no way”. I can’t help who I am. I yam who I yam.

Jwar wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:On a somewhat related note, I read something a little while ago that raised the point (I am vastly oversimplifying the piece, which you can read here: https://aeon.co/essays/pluck-and-hard-w ... es-one-man) that meritocracy is only a slightly more level playing field than serfdom in that, under mostly-rare circumstances, people can become successful in an outsized fashion to their origin, rather than it never happening at all.

I have a similar feeling about discussions regarding the free market as I do "pluck", which will make sense if you read the article.

Jwar wrote:No. It’s underfunding that makes them fail as well as many other issues. It’s not cut and dry.

My dude, you have to realise that this underfunding is a direct result of people railing against government aide, which infringes on the free market. If more regulations were loosened, we would end up with god emperor Bezos.

I don’t agree. Where I live right now, they started a fund for affordable housing. Well, there’s already a fund for that and there is no money in it. Yet the politicians seems to be doing quite nicely for themselves. Government oversight and overstepping is high on my list of “nope, no way”. I can’t help who I am. I yam who I yam.

If you still live where you used to live you're living in or-right-next-to a state that has (very recently! Like over the last decade recently!) become a case study for whether or not how tax cuts have a positive effect on GDP, economic growth, and employment.

Spoiler alert: pretty much everything points to the fact that they did not do these things.

Jwar wrote: I don’t agree. Where I live right now, they started a fund for affordable housing. Well, there’s already a fund for that and there is no money in it. Yet the politicians seems to be doing quite nicely for themselves. Government oversight and overstepping is high on my list of “nope, no way”. I can’t help who I am. I yam who I yam.

So they're not funding either fund - that's a problem, right?
Funding the funds is exactly the activity 'free market libertarians' oppose to start with, hamstringing them and ensuring the ineffectiveness of state action.

^^