this post was submitted on
1,709 points (68% like it)
3,113 up votes 1,404 down votes

Libertarian

unsubscribe69,082 readers

~94 users here now

Free association.

Freedom of the individual.


Frequently Asked Questions



IRC CHANNEL: #Mises on irc.freenode.net

Webchat Link: /r/libertarian's in #mises IRC channel


/r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

  • Please don't downvote comments. As much as you disagree with a comment, no one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them.
  • Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian.
  • Report spam, not content or comments you disagree with.
  • Don't be afraid to check out the new queue to get good content to the front page.

Related Subreddits:

Topics:

Types of Libertarianism:

People:

On Authority:

On War:

Around the World:

Informed Discussion:

Major Subreddits:


External:

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 231

[–]GatewayToHellminarchist 88 points89 points ago

It's probably not the same :(

[–]Branjoe 109 points110 points ago

You are correct. No Little Debbie product contains animal fats, while Hostess' products generally did. There is indeed a noticeable taste difference.

[–]ScottCarmichael 105 points106 points ago

If I don't taste animal when I chew, I stop.

THIS IS 'MURICA! I WANTS MA' TWINKIES!

[–]rabidmonkey1 50 points51 points ago

All joking aside, animal fats are amazing. /r/Paleo will show you the glorious, bacon-lined way.

[–]Euphemism 24 points25 points ago

ohh stop it, you had me at bacon...

[–]texpundit 23 points24 points ago

Don't forget /r/keto !

[–]plantsaretheorigin 13 points14 points ago

Ahhh reddit, the land of bacon diets

[–]comradexkcd 4 points5 points ago

That works!

[–]Knows_where_waldo_is 2 points3 points ago

so only one works...

[–]toinfinitiandbeyond 4 points5 points ago

I won't rest until we get bacon flavored Twinkies back on the market!

[–]EarthRester 6 points7 points ago

In all fairness, that was pretty much the end of the sentence.

[–]FakingItEveryDay 5 points6 points ago

/r/Paleo, or /r/keto will however, kick your ass for the twinkie. Animal fat is fine, sugar is the enemy.

[–]NanSmith 2 points3 points ago

Actually, I've been reading (Michael Pollan). It turns out not all animals are equal (vice Animal Farm). Animals fed corn and antibiotics are measurably worse (tasting and for you) than animals fed grass and sunshine.

[–]rabidmonkey1 1 point2 points ago

Very, very, very true. Paleo takes sourcing (and even the manner of slaughter) very seriously.

[–]I_Hate_Reddit_ 1 point2 points ago

You should watch the documentary ''King Corn'' if you get the chance.

[–]ImpDoomlord 1 point2 points ago

But feeding animals sunshine is expensive

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points ago

Well it does kind of matter what animal.

[–]swizzcheez 2 points3 points ago

Just add bacon grease

[–]Reddit_Never_Lies 2 points3 points ago

[–]the_ancient1 -2 points-1 points ago

I am proud member of PETA

[–]baculumsucker 6 points7 points ago

Doesn't really matter. Hostess is selling off the brands as well, so I'm sure Twinkies will still be made.

[–]the_ancient1 2 points3 points ago

Not for at least a year... and there is no guarantee that the new company will use the same recipe of if they will attempt to make them "healthier" AKA ruin them

[–]DaTroof 12 points13 points ago

Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls are definitely inferior to Ho Hos.

[–]bad_cabobjectivist 32 points33 points ago

I respect your point of view, but I disagree. Not sure If that means I should down vote or not.

[–]LockeAndKeyeslibertarian party 28 points29 points ago

Downvote if you feel it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand, upvote if it's on topic and interesting to discuss.

Downvoting because you disagree just silences the minority, and makes circlejerks.

[–]Chuckieshere 7 points8 points ago

After seeing this, I find it funny that /r/circlejerk might be the least circlejerky by that definition. They never downvote over there, unless someone tries to be serious.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I'm not a part of your system.

[–]bender_2982 9 points10 points ago

Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls are definitely inferior superior to Ho Hos.

FTFY

In the past, yes, I would have agreed with you. But Ho Ho quality had been severely lacking in the last decade. It seemed like the chocolate coating just got thicker and thicker and the cake got drier and drier.

I noticed that Twinkies seemed to be different, too. Not bad, just... less appealing.

[–]orionsbelts -3 points-2 points ago

Hohos are wrapped 3 to a pack, that twat lil debbie only gives you one. not much of a contest. I feel hohos taste better too.

[–]bender_2982 3 points4 points ago

I remember when Ho Hos were two to a pack. Sadly, that's when they actually tasted better. Don't get me wrong, I like Ho Hos. But they just haven't been the same lately, so seeing them go isn't so much like losing an old friend suddenly. It's more like a friend that slowly drifted away and lost touch, and when you briefly see them again years later it's a disappointment to learn that they've converted to Christianity and gotten married to a bitchy girl who turns her nose up at you.

[–]Cavewoman22 1 point2 points ago

I remember when they were wrapped in tin foil in the 70's and early 80's. They were soooo good. In the last decade they just didn't taste the same. But what does, when compared to your childhood memories?

[–]AllWrong74Constitutionalist 3 points4 points ago

Where do you find Swiss Cake Rolls only 1 to a pack? I've never seen them packaged as anything but 2 to a pack. Even when you buy them in the box, the wrapping is over 2 rolls.

[–]roger_ranter 9 points10 points ago

Little Debbie is a craven whore, and so is your mom.

[–]mapachethegreat 0 points1 point ago

Sorry about this unfortunate name, Switzerland. Same with Swiss cheese, which is what we call very bad Ementhaler. If you find decent Ementhaler in the US it's called Ementhaler.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]tekende 0 points1 point ago

You're wrong. Devil Squares are the best snack cake of all time. Of all time!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]tekende -1 points0 points ago

They're from Little Debbie. I don't see them very often but when I do I make sure to grab a box. They're so fucking delicious.

[–]buffalo_pete 0 points1 point ago

I disagree. It's the only Little Debbie product I actually prefer to its Hostess counterpart.

[–]AllWrong74Constitutionalist 2 points3 points ago

I hope you're cool with agreeing to disagree on this subject. Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls don't taste like plastic. Ho Hos do.

[–]Pheenixm 27 points28 points ago

Someone will purchase the Twinkie trademark and recipe during the bankruptcy proceedings. America FTW

[–]cosmicosmo4 18 points19 points ago

I don't know why everyone is panicking like it's the end of twinkies forever. The trademark has huge goodwill, and it literally has to be sold. Someone will be making twinkies within a year.

[–]ElranzerLibertarian Left 3 points4 points ago

Because Twinkies are supposed to last forever.

[–]30pieces 113 points114 points ago

Hey OP, can you please also post this to /r/libertarianmeme, thanks.

[–]DilapidatedWutVote for Nobody[S] 56 points57 points ago

Thanks, I didn't know that existed.

[–]twizzledout 14 points15 points ago

Thanks to this comment I'm that subreddits 1,000th subscriber :)

[–]JimmyGrooveanti-fascist 5 points6 points ago

Always fun to catch random big numbers.

[–]Imtheone457 4 points5 points ago

for me it was 1024, so I ruined it

[–]92235 10 points11 points ago

If you were 1024 in decimal that means you were 10000000000 in binary.

[–]Imtheone457 3 points4 points ago

no, I was 1025, so I ruined the 1024

[–]DirectedPlotfriedmanite 0 points1 point ago

Wait, wouldn't it be 00000000001?

[–]0zXp1r8HEcJk1 0 points1 point ago

No. What are you talking about?

[–]ElranzerLibertarian Left -1 points0 points ago

That's what she said.

[–]30pieces -1 points0 points ago

Fantastic.

[–]JimmyGrooveanti-fascist 3 points4 points ago

You are right, but then again this meme celebrates libertarian views without insulting anyone else, and that is a huge difference between it and the other memes. So I have to admit I'm torn, and I still don't like memes in general, but I think this is just different enough to make an exception.

[–]Houshalter 0 points1 point ago

If there was only like one meme on the front page at a time I don't think anybody would care, but it's getting out of hand.

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 2 points3 points ago

I'm torn between calling a vote to banish memes to r/libertarianmeme so that the subs quality would improve, and my philosophical principals of why democracy is unethical

[–]psychohistorian3libertarian party 0 points1 point ago

Mod said he will never remove posts.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/yfb7a/meta_proposal_ban_on_memes/c5v4l0i

I understand his position but 4 of the top 8 posts in here are just two different image macros. I'll just be getting my libertarian news from somewhere else, obviously the majority of people like to upvote these sorts of things repeatedly.

[–]bootlegsoup 10 points11 points ago

I just want my orange cupcakes...

[–]DisregardMyPantsCentrist Libertarian 0 points1 point ago

Those things are all that's left from Hostess at my 7-11. According to the lady that works there no one wants them.

[–]bender_2982 5 points6 points ago

Those bastards. I fucking love those and I'll never have them again, and people are abandoning them?

[–]DisregardMyPantsCentrist Libertarian 2 points3 points ago

Checked in this morning: Someone gave them a home.

[–]bender_2982 0 points1 point ago

[–]tuoder 44 points45 points ago

I know, right? The workers didn't get fucked over at all. /s

Really though, Twinkies aren't going anywhere. Somebody is going to pick up the brands Hostess is leaving behind. That's how bankruptcy works: assets are sold to repay creditors.

[–]bkayh685 14 points15 points ago

Exactly! This is what I tell people when they say GM and Chrysler would have disappeared had we not given them TARP funds. Then they look at me like I have a dick on my forehead.

[–]tuoder 14 points15 points ago

The brands would still be around, and maybe even many or most of the plants. The jobs probably would've gone, though, or would've been replaced by cheaper, non-union labor, possibly in a right-to-work state or in a different country. Now is not the time for unemployment to spike again.

Thankfully, the TARP money consists mostly of loans which will be repaid at interest.

[–]babyslaughter2 10 points11 points ago

Even if the GM plant shut down and each job went overseas, it would still be better than bailouts. This is because while we were losing production, we are buying cars at a cheaper price so we are collectively retaining more value. When people "buy local", they are supporting local jobs but simultaneously harming their own pocket book buy getting an inferior product for a higher price (unless the local product actually happens to be the cheapest and best on the market).

When we bailed out the auto companies, we propped up an inferior business in the same way we do with subsidies, thus in the long-term bringing on another bubble. (Although I will confess that having the loans repaid with interest is a mitigating factor.)

[–]tuoder 6 points7 points ago

I think we're just coming at this with radically different worldviews. It comes down to how you define better and who it is better for.

Some people think a better car is one that supports the local instead of the global economy. If you subscribe to a subjective theory of value, as I think is the conventional libertarian view, there's no arguing that.

The boom and bust cycle is a lot more complicated than government=bad. I think the real-world data has shown that regulation can be used to stabilize, and that unregulated markets are less stable overall. And furthermore, when people's livelihoods are at stake, there is value to economic stability that is only vaguely quantifiable.

[–]babyslaughter2 8 points9 points ago

I'm not arguing about global economy vs. a local one, I am arguing that economies are better at every level when free markets rule. You make like I am saying "lost jobs are okay when I've money in my pocket". What I'm really saying is "money saved in bad industries mean more jobs created in good industries".

Maybe we're not particularly good at making cars, or growing coffee, or mining gold. Our reaction shouldn't be to put subsidies on producing those things, it should be to import those things and export the things we are good at producing.

I think that our latest recession / depression have overwhelmingly shown that regulation only exacerbates the natural business cycle. When people's livelihoods are at stake it's doubly important that we don't have completely propped up industries which will result in a bubble bursting and lost jobs.

[–]tuoder -3 points-2 points ago

'Better' is subjective. I don't think we disagree about the objective standards you've pointed out. We disagree about defining better.

All the government has to do to stabilize the economy is to put money in when things are not going well, and take it out when it is. This counteracts natural market forces.

I don't think I'm going to argue Keynes better than Keynes, so you're probably better off reading him yourself than getting it from me, though I do think you should brush up on theories of value before you inadvertently argue against your own school of thought.

[–]blakerboy777 2 points3 points ago

I think I'd rather have a volatile economy that grows more overall than a stable one that grows less. I'd rather have huge wage inequality than wage equality if, with inequality, the average rises significantly. I'd rather most people be better off than overall than everyone being on the same page. And that's if government works perfectly. If it doesn't, than it will take too much out when the economy is doing poorly and not take enough when the economy is doing well, leading to larger deficits that eventually need to be repaid. Hence my preference for free markets over regulated ones.

[–]BatterseaPS -3 points-2 points ago

I agree with you in theory, but in practical terms, if we implement your methodology, certain societies would just die out. After all, it's likely that some economies will die out. That may be ok in the long run, but no one will agree to it in the short run.

[–]babyslaughter2 6 points7 points ago

People would leave societies and enter other ones, they wouldn't literally die. I don't see a problem with people having to adapt to changing economic conditions.

When the car was popularized, people stopped riding horses as much and a society of horse breeders "died out". That doesn't mean we should subsidize horse breeders.

[–]BatterseaPS 1 point2 points ago

Of course people will die if entire industries and ways of life collapse. Many died due to the Great Depression. The market always corrects, but the corrections can sometimes be very painful. There's always the question of how much pain we're willing to accept.

[–]babyslaughter2 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, of course a depression would make people die. I wasn't prescribing a depression, I was trying to avoid it.

[–]blakerboy777 2 points3 points ago

No one will agree with it in the short run. No one will sacrifice of themselves for the greater good if the benefit isn't immediately in front of them. However, we don't need people to agree in any specific instance. We just need people to agree in theory, and pass laws against propping up failed businesses. It's just like crime. We can all agree that violence is wrong until one person particularly upsets us. We shouldn't make our system of government such that the person who is upset must at once agree to that rule of law. We just need everyone to agree in theory that violence is wrong, and then when they've committed a crime they are forced to submit to the rule of law based on their prior acknowledgement of it. It's ridiculous to expect auto-workers to just accept that their company is out of business when the government could swoop into save them- however, it is quite reasonable to convince a person in the validity of the free market, so that when their company is going out of business the government is never even considered an option.

[–]shenpen 0 points1 point ago

people value job security over savings because jobs have low granularity

[–]eitauisunity 2 points3 points ago

Yet that isn't really a problem of the free market. That is a problem that the state has created. Unions having lobbied for labor laws in their state makes it so it is less profitable to run a company in those states. Without those laws all states would essentially be right to work, and the only power that unions would have would the ones that are agreed on voluntarily through contract. If they then see that they're going to lose their jobs because the contract is too much of a strain on the employer such that they will go under, it will then be in their interests to renegotiate, which isn't an option for many of the labor laws in other states.

[–]tuoder 0 points1 point ago

Whenever the results of the free market incentivize lowering the standard of living, that's a problem of the free market.

[–]eitauisunity 0 points1 point ago

Sure it is, but that isn't what is going on here. Also, when those incentives do exist people tend to react in the market to correct it. For instance, the forming of unions is a market reaction since if people are being exploited by an employer, they can voluntarily organize to decide to withhold their labor from the employer unless the employer stops exploiting them. The employer then may decide instead of bearing the costs of replacing and retraining his entire work force as well as the time-costs of not having employees operating his firm during all of that, he may see it reasonable to meet or compromise on their demands. The different of how government affects change is it tends to be on the basis of the threat of force and it is also very slow to take any change. Usually so slow that a firm will go under before it could lobby to get the law changed to make it so both the employees keep their jobs and the employer stays in business.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to add that people shouldn't downvote tuoder; his comment is on topic and if you disagree with it, then I ask that you take the time to respond as to why he is wrong instead of silencing his opinion.

[–]tuoder 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, I think my main point here is that the market is not going to provide a guarantee of a living wage to anyone. I don't think we strictly disagree about that.

[–]eitauisunity 0 points1 point ago

Well, neither will the state, and while I don't disagree with you, I still have a hard time believing that the state will do a better job to provide for everyone, or anyone, by using coercion against innocent people in order to facilitate that (all while taking a nice cut for themselves I might add). The idea of the "free-market" is one that matches reality: there are no guarantees. Anyone tries to sell you that there is by backing that guarantee by taking from other people through force and coercion are likely to do the same from you by putting you in a position where they are your benefactor of whom's whims you are subject to, regardless of whether you object to those whims or not. I think it is also a fair position to insist that I keep what I make provided I don't take yours. I, like many people, are not heartless. I try to help people when I see them in need, and I know many people who do the same, but if I do so it's help that goes in its entirety to those who I am intending to help, and I am not doing it by the threat of force or having it taken from me by my employer while they are under the threat of force.

[–]tuoder 0 points1 point ago

There are people who are quite happy with the state-based solutions to the poverty capitalism creates in general. Most people are happy with some kind of social safety net, in fact.

I welcome you to create an effective state based on voluntary taxation.

[–]eitauisunity 0 points1 point ago

Firstly, I'm not trying to propose an alternative state-like institution that happens to be voluntary, but instead alternatives to the entire institution.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "the poverty that capitalism creates." When I say "capitalism" I mean "Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit." If you mean "capitalism" as in "the free-market that we have now" then I'm afraid we are talking about different things. It would appear to me that capitalism, as I mean it, has not really gotten a fair shake under the state (just as communism arguably has not) but it would appear that capitalism has created significantly more wealth even despite the state. In most cases where "capitalism" has created poverty, you can probably link the causality of that poverty to state actions.

The paradigm I am rejecting here is statism. I believe that using aggression to solve problems leads to more problems in number and complexity than the initial problems you started with.

Most people are happy with some kind of social safety net, in fact.

Well, I would suggest that the state doesn't provide this in any meaningful way. For any person they help, it comes at a much greater cost than it needs to to provide the same benefit. I'd be willing to entertain your construction of how the state is the only way to provide a "social safety-net."

Voluntary taxation is a bit of a conundrum. I mean, if you pay "taxes" voluntarily, there is already a word for that--it's charity. "Oh, but I love paying taxes. It satisfies my civic duty!" Well, see what happens when you all of a sudden decide you don't like paying taxes to fund a massive, deadly war abroad, paying into a shit-value Ponzi-scheme, and supporting the kind of class-warfare that only a drug war can prop up--let's then see how voluntary it is.

[–]D33GS 1 point2 points ago

I've always looked at the GM and Chrysler bailouts as an offense to free market capitalism as it punished Ford, Toyota and others by supporting their seemingly "beaten" competition with the "too big to fail" nonsense. Ford especially considering that they were in some financial trouble too but got themselves out of it without governmental funds. Granted GM and Chrysler were in much worse shape but ultimately their running of their businesses lead to it (be it their product, union deals, executive pay, etc...).

The automaker and bank bailouts have also really become an Exhibit A for the so call slippery slope. Now that they have been bailed out you have calls to bailout students, homeowners, etc... who are under on their loans. I've seen at least several people saying that Hostess should have been nationalized before this was allowed to happen (I know right). Pandora's Box has been opened when it comes to governmental bailout now and it has changed the way many Americans view governmental intervention in the free market for the worse.

[–]the_ancient1 1 point2 points ago

Yep that plan worked out Very Well for Pontiac, Olds, SAAB, Saturn, Hummer, and others....

I can go down to the dealership today and buy a new SAAB right? ohhh wait I cant? hmmmm I guess bankruptcy does not always mean the brand survives huh?

Edit, For the record I do not agree GM should have been Bailed out. But is a completely FALSE statement to say brands never die in bankruptcy.

Often companies will buy a Bankrupt brand with the expressed purpose to KILL IT. so no one can ever use it to compete against them in the future.

[–]bat-fink -4 points-3 points ago

Oh, great! Let me go out and buy me a Saab right away! No, I meant a Saturn. No, ... Wait... I meant a Pontiac.

...Wait..

Shit. Looks like you're really not on to something after all.

[–]Starcraft_IIIhayekian 6 points7 points ago

Desire-able brands; not shitty clunkers :P

[–]texpundit 4 points5 points ago

I've already heard rumors that some food company in Mexico bought them out and will be producing everything there.

[–]eitauisunity 0 points1 point ago

Here comes the "they turk 'er jerbs!!!" posts on facebook.

[–]HalfGingGhost 0 points1 point ago

I say we just start a fund on reddit. Let the users of reddit own the Twinkie. Red dit can do anything.

[–]the_ancient1 1 point2 points ago

It will take atleast a year before anyone will be able to produce under those brands.

THe purchasing company does not have to stick with the same products, they can use the Twinkies name on anything, not just golden wonderfulness.

Nor does the new company have to follow the recipe everyone loves

So there is absolutely no guarantee that Twinkies, as we know them today, will survive

[–]eitauisunity 1 point2 points ago

While that is true, if they want the brand to remain profitable (which if they are buying it and not producing a competing product it is likely that they would), they would have a large incentive to produce exactly what people wanted before bankruptcy. But you are correct in that they don't have to.

[–]tuoder 1 point2 points ago

I went to write this post and you'd already done it.

[–]redblender 1 point2 points ago

Really though, Twinkies aren't going anywhere.

Funny, I just googled "Twinkies" and this breaking news popped up:

3:52PM EST November 19. 2012 - Twinkies won't die that easily after all.

Hostess Brands and its second largest union will go into mediation to try and resolve their differences, meaning the Irving, Texas-based company won't go out of business just yet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/19/twinkies-hostess-mediation/1715415/

[–]tuoder 1 point2 points ago

Haha, well they ought to do this again in a while to spur sales.

[–]kit_carlisle 0 points1 point ago

I feel the need to correct that: The workers really screwed themselves over. The union put everyone in this situation because they believed the company could survive with substantial increases in pay, while in actuality Hostess couldn't even survive the strike.

Yes, someone will come along and buy up Hostess and probably rebrand it under the same name, but the company's business plan was pretty old and their products weren't particularly well marketed.

[–]tuoder -1 points0 points ago

I think, by and large, the workers just felt they weren't being treated fairly. In most ways, they were, and the tension between what they believed and what was true destroyed the company.

I think the opposite will happen. Someone will buy the brand and let the rest go. The brand equity is the most significant value left here.

[–]not_brent_spiner 12 points13 points ago

But do we have a Sno Ball replacement yet? (Serious question. I'm going to miss those little suckers.)

[–]I_DOWNVOTE_THINGS 13 points14 points ago

And the raspberry zingers! Not the raspberry zingers!

[–]KeatingOrRoark 0 points1 point ago

Take one of these things and eat it with some raspberry jam.

[–]I_DOWNVOTE_THINGS 4 points5 points ago

You sound like an innovator. Bring your resume.

[–]DilapidatedWutVote for Nobody[S] 4 points5 points ago

I'm with you on this one. Sno Balls >> Twinkies in my book.

[–]Starrfx642 0 points1 point ago

This needs to be addressed.

[–]Alagator -1 points0 points ago

expect you wont miss them, the recp will be sold and someone else will be making them

[–]ElranzerLibertarian Left 0 points1 point ago

Pretty sure when assets go for sale, that includes recipes and trademarks.

So someone, whether Little Debbie, Nestle, etc will wind up making the product.

[–]majoroutage 9 points10 points ago

American Twinkies haven't been the same in years anyway.

I, for one, welcome our new competitor-branded overlords.

[–]IHaveHerpes 0 points1 point ago

wait, when did little debbie have a cigarette?

[–]BongHitta 0 points1 point ago

victory cig

[–]Utenlok 5 points6 points ago

These fucking suck. Not a good replacement.

[–]habitue 0 points1 point ago

Not to mention, one of the producers of these copycat products will probably buy the rights to the "Twinkie" trademark and recipe after the bankruptcy. Twinkies aren't going anywhere

[–]kelustu 0 points1 point ago

The libertarian market that fucked us all in 2008? inb4 excuses for why continued deregulation since the 70s has resulted in multiple financial crashes and The Great Recession can be directly linked to extreme deregulation of derivatives.

[–]orangepeel 0 points1 point ago

You need to think about this a little bit more deeply. The banking industry is controlled from the top to the bottom by the government. Do you know that "legal tender" laws allow the federal reserve to dictate banking policy?

[–]ORBOTRON 3 points4 points ago

I made this yesterday to drive traffic to my C4L FB page, glad it's making its rounds :) Check out the original here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=446414812083821&set=a.427739090618060.102738.422706497787986&type=1&theater&notif_t=like

[–]DilapidatedWutVote for Nobody[S] 1 point2 points ago

I came here to add this link after reading your comment in /r/LibertarianMeme but you beat me to it.

H/T, sir.

[–]MHOLMES 2 points3 points ago

Where is this free market?

[–]elliottok 2 points3 points ago

the actual twinkie brand and recipe will be bought by someone and then produced again. That would be the real free market win.

[–]Pheenixm 2 points3 points ago

Someone will purchase the Twinkie trademark and recipe during the bankruptcy proceedings. America FTW

[–]buffalobilliebobvoluntaryist -1 points0 points ago

You shouldn't be eating that shit any ways

[–]Krases 80 points81 points ago

DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO STATIST.

[–]cristoper 21 points22 points ago

You, buffalobilliebob, are no fun.

[–]mego 4 points5 points ago

But he isn't overweight. If he is it is from real food (or beer) and not sugar-junk. Save your junk calories for beer.

[–]ifeelstabby 1 point2 points ago

Proof needed that bufflobilliebob isn't fat and not just making the predictable fat joke.

[–]JimmyGrooveanti-fascist 4 points5 points ago

I agree you shouldn't eat that shit, but right now I am smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer so if I tried to stop you from eating that shit I'd be a hypocritical asshole. I try not to be, so eat up: ain't gonna act like it's good for you but that's your life, and you take the risks you want to take. If you find it delicious, I raise my beer to you.

[–]Addyct 4 points5 points ago

I honestly don't understand this attitude. He didn't say you can't, he said you shouldn't. Just because you smoke or drink, that doesn't make eating shitty food any better for you. It's entirely reasonable to do something stupid without deluding yourself into thinking it's smart.

[–]Illivah -1 points0 points ago

What did I miss about Twinkies that this matters? Darn it, now I have to update my relevant twinkie knowledge.

[–]Crocquack -1 points0 points ago

Do they also have something similar to snoballs?

[–]Xan075 -1 points0 points ago

Dude, those things are awful...

[–]SpectacularSuz -1 points0 points ago

What about Devil Dogs? :(

[–]HiImTed -1 points0 points ago

IT'S NOT THE FUCKEN SAME!

[–]TuLive -1 points0 points ago

I have always preferred Little Debbie not only for taste but its half the cost of Hostess.

[–]RazsterOxzine 1 point2 points ago

What if Little Debbie goes under because of the same thing.

[–]ArliethDerpytarian 0 points1 point ago

BLASPHEMY!

... :(

[–]pixeltarian 0 points1 point ago

hahaha. this is total BS. hostess MURDERS every Little Debbie rip off.

Prime example: Ho-Ho's vs. Swiss cake rolls.

[–]beedogs -1 points0 points ago

yay! an inferior, shitty product! and we can gloat about how them damn unions fucked everyone over! DERRRRRRP!!!!!!!!!

[–]mutilatedrabbit 0 points1 point ago

another win for my hometown. omgz!!

[–]ElranzerLibertarian Left 1 point2 points ago

I'm more worried about the self-funded union pensions that Hostess, Co. stole from their workers to pay the company debt, and won't be paying back to the workers under bankruptcy.

[–]maelstrommama 0 points1 point ago

So the free market is decidedly bad for your health?

Not sure why saving the twinkie is anything remotely positive. If it were saving the jobs that were lost when hostess closed, fine -- but saving a foul product and still killing jobs? I get that I'm skipping over the humour but this notion that the biggest loss for Hostess was the goddamn junk food really bugs me.

[–]zppa 0 points1 point ago

But they taste like shit

[–]HappyGlucklichJr -1 points0 points ago

Oh, but Cadillacs could only be made by GM Corporation? Yeah sure.

[–]LetsMango 0 points1 point ago

Come to Canada! Eat as many twinkies as you desire! You might even see a polar bear during your visit.

[–]MJZMan 0 points1 point ago

I could paint a turd yellow and call it a twinkie, so stop with that shit. It doesn't matter how they look, if it doesn't taste like a twinkie, it won't be a twinkie.

[–]Crimzenator 0 points1 point ago

They look offbrand :(

[–]BearCutsBody 0 points1 point ago

It's been years since I have even thought about eating a twinkie...do people seriously still actively buy them and eat them? Just trying to figure out why everyone is so upset.

[–]TomTheNurse 0 points1 point ago

Free market my ass. Hostess shut their doors due to the unmitigated greed of our Wall Street overlords. The only thing free in our so called "free" market is the unbridled ability to destroy the lives of American workers in the name of profit.

[–]ListenToThatSound 0 points1 point ago

That's weird, I had some of those a few years ago, except they were called Golden Cremes.

[–]msiekkinen 1 point2 points ago

I don't think many people really care about Twinkies because they like them. It's the death of a nostalgic part of childhoods across the country. The Original can never be replaced.

[–]Yoddle 0 points1 point ago

Gotta get that great value brand at Walmart.

[–]clarke187 -1 points0 points ago

little debbie is a horrible cunt.

[–]matts2 -1 points0 points ago

So why all the union bashing the other day? Hostess management ran the firm into the ground and lost all shareholder and lender value.

[–]ImpDoomlord 0 points1 point ago

please tell me they have little Debbies donettes?

[–]gladbach 0 points1 point ago

No replacement for raspberry zingers though.....

[–]tek0011 1 point2 points ago

Little Debbie is NOT Hostess

[–]duganaok 1 point2 points ago

Not the same

[–]funbob1 1 point2 points ago

And in about 6 months when Little Debbie buys all of Hottess's product names, thesewill be real Twinkies.

[–]makeskidskill -1 points0 points ago

Little Debbie is a filthy whore. Her shit is disgusting

[–]R88SHUN -1 points0 points ago

People are freaking out about Twinkies, meanwhile hostess owned Wonder Bread too.

[–]jumpingtheship[!] 2 points3 points ago

Seriously, this was my first thought. Wonder Bread and Colombo bread. The outlets sold bread for cheap (as low as $0.99 a loaf). Great for parties and BBQs.

[–]chiguyNon-labelist -2 points-1 points ago

Doesn't the heavy hand of the FDA automatically exclude talk about food companies being part of a free market?

[–]nuberballs 0 points1 point ago

I think its more all the subsidies

[–]bastardsnow -1 points0 points ago

the FDA, the true oppressors.

[–]DrGhostly -4 points-3 points ago

Yep, time to unsubscribe. It was fun for those first few months when memes and this bullshit wasn't as prevalent. Might be good for my health either way, no political subreddits to worry about.

[–]PussySmasherMD -5 points-4 points ago

The argument isn't that the free market can't provide fun, lighthearted wants, it's that it can't provide cold hard necessities and wholesome education. Please stop this image macro, strawman meme bullshit.

[–]hlfry 1 point2 points ago

I'm so confused and apparently out of the loop...what happened to twinkies?

[–]Emberglo 8 points9 points ago

Hostess went bankrupt. Stopped production. It's a twinky shortage like Zombieland up in here.

[–]rockincooldude 4 points5 points ago

company went under. No Twinkies for now. Some people are upset about it.

[–]hlfry 1 point2 points ago

thanks for filling me in both of you haha.

[–]robot_rumpus 0 points1 point ago

Not the same without Twinkie the Kid!!

[–]Kinglink 0 points1 point ago

If it was the free market, shouldn't they be able to be called twinkies?

[–]EvOllj -2 points-1 points ago

The funny thing about a twinkie is that many of its ingredients can not only be grown and harvested, they can also be easily and generally more cheaply be mined (and chemically seperated/created from something that was never part of a plant or animal) instead.

A free market has many components of the final product getting traded randomly between many independend manufacturers, making it nearly impossible to tell the different origins in the final product.

[–]koft 1 point2 points ago

I wasn't aware that wheat and sugar could be dug out of mines.