Political Hypocrisy
Offline To start out this section of the forum with something meaty, I'm going to ask a pretty serious question:
Why do people that say they believe in liberty and freedom think it's ok to steal money and coerce others for "the greater good?" I"m talking about today's "liberals" in particular: Why do they hate the idea of Republicans abridging their personal freedoms like freedom of speech...but have no problem with the state abridging their economic freedoms, like a right to privacy and a right to own and trade goods without government intrusion?
I'm honestly flabergasted that people think that it is sometimes ok to steal and enslave. Can some liberals help me understand how you are able to RATIONALLY justify this hypocritical behavior?
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
- Login to post comments
Offline Canada and Europe have effective health care systems based on socialistc principles. Yes, they're not perfect. Too many people in this country have no access at all, however.
I've heard plenty of stories of bumbling bureaucratic inefficiency in places with socialized medicine.
Social Security has kept many families from falling into poverty while they were transitioning out of various types of trauma.
Social Security is a regressive tax (taxes lower incomes at higher rates than higher incomes) which redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich (who tend to live longer past 65).
If they'd been given back the money they paid to social security, they'd have more money than they'd get from social security.
I suppose you have to define what you mean by "work". If every instance of making a payment into a government service represents a failure to you, then none of it will have worked from your perspective. That says nothing of how it's functioned, however.
I could use that as a backup in absolutely every instance in case anything else fails. But I'll do my best to point out problems other than payment via theft.
I don't think anyone has ever sucessfully argued point 5 nor could they. That sounds a bit hysterical to me.
As long as it's deemed "Necessary" and "Proper" the government can do whatever it wants. It does anyways, so necessary or not, the Constitution really isn't used these days for anything other than choosing how we vote, ratify, judge, and arguement over what rights people have.
No nation in it's right mind would allow parts of itself to secede uncontested.
At the time of the founding the US was considered like what the UN is today. Not a ruling nation which governs the States (which are where people's allegiances really lay at the time), but similar to a treaty organization which all States agreed to obey. It stopped becoming a "Union" and became a "Nation" when Lincoln pulled that Fort Sumpter stunt that started the civil war.
I'll check out Spooner's book.
It's a series of essays written for a paper actually, I think. I have an audio version, about 90 minutes long. It's on the front page of this site. Scroll down a bit and you'll see it.
http://adventuresinlegalland.com/
But universal applied morality still seems like a bad bet to me since morality shifts and changes with every generation and not always for the betterment of us all.
There is arbitrary morality, which I really hate. Things like "It's bad to be gay" and "Don't eat with your elbows on the table" and "Don't use words like that" are arbitrary and stupid, and that's what changes from generation to generation.
Then there's rational morality. Rational morality is what allows us to cooperate and prosper. The "Treat others as you would like them to treat you" kind of morality. It's the "This is mine, that is yours, I will not use yours if you will not use mine" kind of understanding that lets us cooperate in peace.
Communism is an extreme and example as slavery was on my part. Communism generally morphs into the government operating as an entity that is concerned only with its own profit being distributed amongst the lucky few at the top and which exploits its people to a horrible extent. Our current system is not even close to socialism.
My definition of socialism is "Belief that society supercedes the individual". Economic socialism such as communism is a form of socialism. I also consider laws of morality (such as laws against those arbitrary events above) to be a form of socialism which I call behavioral socialism, though they are generally a right-wing form of socialism.
Socialistic theories don't foster anything so shallow as freedom form the capitalist pigs though they frequently engage in incompenent sloganeering. It's about freedom from having one's opportunity to enjoy a dignified existence decided by inhuman forces and invisible hands. It's also about freedom from wage slavery, the condition in which labor has no power to demand a fair price for the value of its work.
There is no such thing as wage slavery. The word slavery means "involuntary servitude" and so long as work is entered into voluntarily it cannot be slavery. A wage is a price. A Walmart employee is no more a slave of Walmart than Walmart is a slave of Walmart shoppers. Workers have as much power to demand fair wages as Walmart shoppers have power to demand fair prices. Walmart has no power over the price it pays for labor, that price is determined by the labor that agrees on the wage. I'm also going to point out that the definition of "fair" is arbitrary and I can't work with it.
Another area where we differ. I care deeply about exploitation. It is a necessary condition of the world. I exploit people's ignorance about computers to make my living. That could be argued as an example of a constructive exploitation of an opportunity. There are far nastier forms of exploitation, however, and I find that there is a definite value in working collectively to prevent them.
Without being arbitrary, can you differentiate between harmful and beneficial exploitation?
Good call. Exploit can mean many things.I would argue that child labor can be involuntary exploitation and, thus, a form of slavery if a family's economic situation is so desperate that they have no choice but to require their children to work for next to nothing wages. This was the condition of many laborers in the late 18 and early 1900's. The free market did little if anything to correct this situation and frequently rewarded those who exploited the situation and the people caught in it.
Actually there's a lot of bullshit flying around about that age. "Robber Barons" and all? Wages appear by today's standards to be miniscule because of inflation. If you look up how much wages back then would buy, and compare it to what wages today will buy, you'll get an idea of the real wages. And the wages were not at all bad. When Henry Ford opened his car factory promising $5 a day, people were lining up for those wages. That was good money back then.
I don't find this convincing. Private armies have never been very effective at anything except defending corruption.
I was thinking more like a community militia. People that would defend themselves and their communities from invasion and attack.
The Pinkertons busted plenty of heads at the bidding of the elites when people clamored to be treated only fairly.
The only example of this I'm familiar with was in one of the depression-era miner or construction worker camps. Hoover dam maybe? I forgot exactly which it was.
If that's the case, maybe the workers should have been waving guns around while they were protesting. A modern SWAT team would not be comfortable taking on a camp of angry workers waving AK47s and AR15s around, even with armor.
While police corruption is certainly an issue, it don't think it's at such a level that it's required to bring in private guards who are only accountable to their paymasters.
If someone needs protection for whatever reason and they simply cannot afford a bodyguard, what then?
It depends on the circumstances. If they live alone out on a farm, they obviously won't need one. If they live on a major road, the road-owners would pay for patrols to keep the road crime free so more people would want to use that road. If they rent an apartment, the landlord may pay for some form of protection, or just walk the grounds with an AK over his shoulder.
I have no problem with people protecting themselves. I just question the wisdom of private armies run by the highest bidder.
Ditto. That's why I like the idea of community militias. Modern day experience in Iraq makes it abundantly clear that it's impossible to occupy a place where any portion of the ihabitants don't like you. The US has a military budget that's the sum of the next 40 highest military-spending countries combined, last I heard. They're still taking losses in Iraq against a bunch of insurgents with nothing more than AKs and the occasional RPG-7.
Second, Government does not protect. In fact, it's the entity most likely to hurt you. All people are ineffective at defending themselves against government, even when they are effective against mutant zombie biker gangs and anything else.
If Government had universally failed to protect you you'd be speaking German right now.
I'm sorry but this is statist bullshit. Hitler's forces were already spread out too far, he dared not arm the conquered to fight for him knowing they would turn his arms against him and there's no way he could have gotten across the Atlantic and used Blitzkrieg against a heavily armed America. It's about 2000 miles too far away. The Japanese were outright suicidal and Japanese generals have been quoted as saying "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blad of grass."
Government has many failures in its past but to say that it represents a universal failure is saying that 1+1=11.
Start naming successes of government and I'll refute as many as possible without resorting to the "well it's paid for by taxes" arguement, which is deeper than being about theft, but yeah.
OSHA regulations have saved countless workers.
When I worked as an assistant vendor I was in a number of stores. All of them had balers for cardboard. If you don't know what that is, it's a big metal box with a hydraulic press. You throw cardboard into it, push a button, and the cardboard gets flattened. It's not complicated, it's safer than driving a car.
OSHA regulations say "If you're under 18, it's a federal offense to throw cardboard into this big metal box or push this button to make it crush."
For some reason we still let people as young as 14 drive cars which are much more dangerous involving thousands of factors outside driver control while distracting them with road signs as they attempt to maneuver a four-wheeled big metal box at 60 miles per hour using 20 different controls.
Personally I feel much safer operating a baler than I feel driving a car. I could drive a car at 15. I couldn't throw cardboard into the wrong big metal box at 15.
It's just absurd. And absurdities like that make people under 18 less employable. They either have to take a pay cut or they give the job to someone older. This harms the worker in an attempt to protect them.
There are many instances where government has been successful.
I've yet to find an instance of government success.
It's definitely capable of being both but not universally either.
I'll just have to keep showing you how it doesn't work in specific instances until you see that it is universally one, by it's very nature.
Which makes your argument seem not dogmatic and I appreciate that. However, if I'm supposed to seriously consider this as a political philosophy I'd like to hear how it can address current problems. I'm not expecting you to answer every question. Everyone's got their own forte. But, for every government failure or brutality you claim or imply there's one that can be pinned on incompetence and greed on the part of the free market.
First of all, incompetence on the free market means losing money. Incompetents either shape up or fail on the market. Bureaucratic incompetence is not punished at all, which is why you have to wait 45 minutes to talk to someone at the SSA and 4 to 5 minutes to get what you want from the butcher.
Second, greed on the free market is what motivates mutually beneficial relationships. People want things. People know that just taking whatever they want without paying has bad consequences. The only way they can make money on the free market is to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges by consenting individuals.
I still think you're missing the point. I understand that you're arguing from a perspective of the individual being the ultimate authority in the course of one's life and I find that more idealistic that realistic. There are definitely conditions of one's life that are not the result of consious descision and that couldn't be remedied by a personal decision.
Conditions are inputs that you react to and make decisions about. Obviously not EVERYTHING is decision, otherwise there would be nothing to decide about in the fist place. I still maintain that where you are in life is determined by your decisions above all else. Your world is not, but your position in it is.
You can be held back far more than you allow as it's not your descision. Sometimes you're outnumbered and there isn't a thing you can do about it. MLK didn' t allow himself to be intellectually or spiritually held back and got shot for it. Someone can always find a way to override your decisions if they want.
EXACTLY. And you can always find a way to override their decisions if you want. You seem to be showing a "victim mentality".
The government of any nation is supposed to take the side of its citizens by default.
Pro-citizen and anti-noncitizen are two different things. Once you see through the "us and them" mentality you realize that.
Breeds are a form of watering it down. Ararcho/whatever was always characterized as a cop-out by a lot of the folks I knew. If one is to truly embrace Anarchism then one must accept that all power must rest in the individual and in volunary associations of equals and that no system can be decided as the best means for any individual by another. Of one is an anarchocapitalist, then most anarchists would argue that you're really a capitalist because you still demand that your private property structure be defended by force.
A lot of left-anarchists suffer from dictionary deficiency disease. They define anarchy and capitalism differently than the dictionary does.
Anarchism sounded appealing to me because I never could put my finger on what it is CEO's do to justify so much more pay than the workers who actually make their products. I come from working class roots and the idea of the workers owning the means of production and all sharing equally in the profit of it all had great appeal to me.
Anarcho-syndicalism then. Kthx.
Realism sets in, after a while, and it becomes apparent that Anarchist systems all depend on an informed, motivated populance. I see little evidence to support this being anything more than a utopian notion that all humans tend toward leadership qualities so much as I see evidence of the opposite.
Of course not all humans have leadership qualities. I have no problem with people choosing to obey leaders, I just have a problem with them imposing their leaders on me.
I disagree. I think you're shoehorning this one. Since we've taken a couple of flights there already, Afghanistan was no hell before the Soviets invaded and destroyed their infrastructure.
So Afganistan was made a shithole by a bunch of commie assholes. Got it.
They weren't quite "there" by western standards, but they weren't anywhere near as bad off as they are now. Removing their government did have horrific consequence for them. Perhaps a peaceful removal would make all the difference, but I have yet to see an example of that.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding an effective disabling of the Afgan government. Could you summarize please?
I don't see how segregation is a problem related to the public nature of an institution when private schools are almost entirely segregated based on income. I think children benefit from being in an environment of mixed racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds.
But you have no right to force your opinion on others. For example, I might believe that my child going to the same school as rap-singing gangstas that won't shut up about how they're in love with a stripper is a bad influence. We can both have it our way. We don't have to force our will on each other's kids. We just have to tolerate each other's decisions.
Besides, I've seen what busing students in form poor communities does. At my high school we had students coming in from two schools over. They drove past Chamberlain and Freedom High to get to Wharton High. They were waiting at school for an hour and a half after school was out for their bus, out in the Florida sun in summer time (basically all year except december to feb, in FL). Is it really worth it?
The fact that those schools are public gave us a civic solution to a bad situation. Private schools offer no such recourse.
You mean to say they offer no means for you to shove your opinion down other people's throats? Sorry, I know that's not what you intended, but it's pretty much what you said.
The KKK tried to outlaw private schools in Oregon. Wanna know why? Because they knew they couldn't control the private schools and use them to indoctorinate children. They knew there would be kids going through school and not become protestant racist assholes. And they didn't like it.
Back this up, please. Particularly the idea that blacks suffer from notably more notions of entitlement than do members of other races.
I speak from personal experience. The black people I've met disproportionately accused everyone else of discriminating against them when they got the same crap everyone else did.
I've met as many whites as blacks who suffer from unreasonable notions of entitlement.
Perhaps it was a fluke of geography in one of our cases then.
Before you think I am, I'm not accusing you of being somehow racsist. I don't get that idea at all.
I know.
Most of the black I know, however--and I've lived in more than one ghetto--didn't really expect that Uncle Sam was going to do anything for them and had a better attitude than a lot of whites I know about the value of work and education.
I was just mentioning trends I observed personally. In my experience blacks do have a tendency to have entitlement mentality and victim mentality more than whites. I never have held the position that all blacks or all whites are one way or the other.
Which scares me. How, exactly, would we hold whatever power structure accountable? If you're going to say the laws of the marketplace, explain to me how there aren't going to eventually be trusts and oligopolies involved and how they're not going to abuse the power they gain.
Fear of monopolies and oligopolies in the free market stems from poor understanding of economics. I recommend the Mises Institute for some material on free-market economics. Mises.org if you wanna check that out.
There would be no power structure. Laws would come from private courts and private security firms would contract with those courts to form private law and private law enforcement. If you didn't like your laws, you could stop contracting with the enforcement agency. They stop getting as much money, try changing contracts with the courts, and see if people like the new law setup. That's how they're held accountable.
No one argues that. That's why there are term limits, elections, checks and balances and limitations on power. Government tries to expand its power constantly. At least in a system with an organized state the populance has a method of fighting back and a means of improving that method.
But statism is the alternative to anarchy. If you don't support anarchy, you support a state, and that means assuming the rulers will try to do good.
As for this term limits, elections, and all that, let me say, Democracy sucks. Hitler was voted in by a 90% majority. If that's not a testament to the failure of democracy, I don't know what is.
You're correct in that. I doubt you or I would have survived our childhood without the help of other people. I doubt anyone would have.
But my mom chose to raise me. You make no distinction between forcing people to help each other and the benefits of people choosing to help each other in that statement. Voluntary is good, involuntary is bad. If the government is doing it, that means it's involuntary.
I don't think that trusts, unfair business practices, neglected populations and exploitations are the side effects of freedom.
Define "trusts". There are infinite levels of competition. If I have a monopoly on 747s, people can still take 737s, 727s, 707s, 767s, and any other Boeing commercial aircraft. They can also take Airbus aircraft. They can choose small aircraft. They can choose to travel by boat or bus or car or train. They can possibly choose to telecommute. If all of the above were too expensive, they'd simply travel as little as possible. "Trusts" and "Monopolies" are arbitrary terms.
"Unfair" is also arbitrary. Is undercutting prices unfair? I bet the consumer is happy about it. Is raising prices unfair? I bet you'd wish I'd raise prices, because then you'd be able to go back into business and start selling for your old price again and have more customers than me.
They're the side effectes of the seizing of power by elites under the guise of the free market. I don't see a lot of historical evidence that the most successful capitalists were big fans of the free market once they got a chance to close it off to others, either.
Gee, thanks. You just made an arguement for anarchism.
The first one that comes to mind is that it provides a consistent response to violent treats.
What do you mean by this? Do you have evidence of this?
I know this is anathema to an anarchist ideology but I do tend to trust the cop who's trained in firearms and law enforcement to end a potentially violent situation more than I do my neighbor and his 9.
I don't trust a cop to be there when my house is getting robbed. My neighbor and his nine are more likely to be there. Personally, I'll take any help I can get. But not knowing how much help you get, but getting it when you need it, is a lot better than knowing exactly how much help you'll get once you don't need it anymore.
You also skipped/merged what I said here:
How was the obligation to contribute a fair share originally created?
I'd dispute that. It's a nice Rand-ish view of the world but I know people who became doctors because of experiences they had that had nothing to do with income.
I never said income. I meant an improvement in conditions from the perspective of the acting individual.
And Rand did have a lot of stuff right. Not everything, and now she's started a cult, but she had a lot of stuff right.
I think people are more complex than that would lead one to believe. I do believe there is such a thing as altruism. I don't belive, however, it's consistent enough to be relied upon.
I never said people were simple. But I believe it is a self-evident fact that human action aims at an improvement in conditions from the perspective of the acting individual.
Any service an be provided in a profitable manner. What I do not expect, however, is that a corporation, or partnership or trust or whatever you want to call it, will do anything other than try to maximize its profits. That's the point of them.
You need to understand how they maximize profits. They provide a good or service with higher quality and lower price than any of their competitors. That's how profit is maximized.
Hospice is not a service that lends itself to high profits, for starters. My mom works for one. She does the billing.
It could lend itself to being a profitable business. Even if it was nothing more than a sterilized office building with doctors that rent "offices" which provide the revenue, and individual doctors competing for the lowest price.
Anyone who owns a business, including me, will tell you that's not true.
1 year ago today I had no money. I now have $2500. If it takes money to make money, how do you explain this phenomenon?
You have time and you have energy. If you need money, you just need to sell your time and energy doing things for other people until you do have money.
Possible doesn't equate to probable or even likely.
Yeah. It doesn't come to you, you have to go find it.
If someone is incapacitated, it can, indeed, become impossible for them to support themselves.
The number of people that are incapacitated to the point that they have absolutely no means of generating income is small, and those people could be helped by charities.
Profit is also a form of theft and if I'm going to use it for taxes then I have to use it for profit, too, because I find both uses equally innaccurate.
Profit is buying things of low value and selling them for a higher value. Value is subjective, not objective, and both buying and selling are voluntary interactions.
Taxation is involuntary deprival of property.
Theft is involuntary deprival of property.
Please, find a way to define profit in such a way that it can be equated with theft, or find a factual difference between the act of taxation from the act of theft.
I'm still looking for an example of this class of leeches. They don't seem to ever have any money because they're always asking for mine. "Leech" is a term born of personal annoyance and, even though I share your annoyance with the various panhandler types I encounter, I don't think it's helping either of us to use a term that defines nothing but contempt.
Leech is a term used to describe one who consumes without producing. It's used in refrence to the blood sucking invertibrate.
People do not steal because they are poor.My book suggestion would be Manchild in the Promised Land by Claude Brown. People do, indeed, steal because they're poor. It's not the only motivation, but it definitely motivates its share of theft.
If people stole because they were poor, all poor people would steal. This is not the case. Theft is a consious act, it's motivations are distinct from the decision. People steal because they decide to steal. People decide to steal because they forsee a reward for stealing which outweighs the risks. What motivates them to seek rewards in one way or another is completely distinct from that.
No, they steal pensions and commit accounting fraud. Superior style does not equal superior morality. And rich people do, in fact, steal.
I should have used a word like mug (as that is what I was specifically thinking of), good point on the rich people do steal. But you have just affirmed my point that people don't steal because they're poor. They steal because they believe rewards to outweigh risks.
I'm enjoying this exchange, by the way. You do defend your positions well.
Thanks. I'm learning from it too. I always enjoy debate for that very reason.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that every government action has been a failure.
Maybe I should start by pointing you towards free-market economics to help you understand how government creates problems. I think I've already pointed you to the Ludwig von Mises Institute's website, Mises.org. What you learn there may convince you that government, by it's very nature, cannot be beneficial.
Oh, there are so many contradictions in the institution of state but I don't find any fewer in the free market.
Could you please opint out a few contradictions in the free market? I'm not aware of any.
I seriously doubt we're ever going to convert one another but I think this conversation has its own inherent worth thus far.
Agreed.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wage slavery is a fact. It is extremely ignorant to think that people "agree" to work for extremely low wages - when the alternative is starvation and/or homelessness. Business has such awesome power to keep wages down, especially for certain people, that a counterbalance is needed - government regulation. Labor will never be able to balance the extreme power the rich have without government help. I would hate to live in your world. The poor would be virtual slaves with no police portection or medical care, while the rich would be able to do whatever they want, and would effectively be the ruling class.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline Wage slavery is a fact. It is extremely ignorant to think that people "agree" to work for extremely low wages - when the alternative is starvation and/or homelessness.
You can't live without work being done. This was true back when humanity lived on subsistence farming. It's still true today. More technology means better tools, you still have to work to get what you want. People that choose to work for low wages are obviously saying to themselves, "I would prefer to work for a wage and buy my food and shelter than grow my own food and build my own shelter." THAT IS A CHOICE. That makes it Voluntary.
You blatantly ignore inconvenient reality, no wonder you think such absurd things. As if people can't possibly live without having a job? Because we all know Walmart has been around for thousands of years making sure subsistence farmers recieved their slave wages, right?
Business has such awesome power to keep wages down, especially for certain people, that a counterbalance is needed - government regulation.
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing hysterically over here.
A wage is a price. That's all it is. When you're producing, you want high prices. When you're consuming, you want low prices. It ultimately balances itself out.
The rich cannot make money if they pay their employees so little that they can't afford anything. THE LABOR CLASS BUYS MOST THINGS.
Henry Ford didn't get rich by selling expensive cars to rich people. He got rich by selling inexpensive cars to not-so-rich people. He also paid good wages to his factory workers.
Because the labor class buys most things, the rich can only sell the things the laboring class makes at absurdly low wages if they sell it for an absurdly low price (otherwise they won't sell it at all, and if they don't sell it they don't become rich). Absurdly low wages and absurdly low prices is perfectly legitemate. It's what would happen should we suffer chronic deflation.
Labor will never be able to balance the extreme power the rich have without government help.
I love how you refer to "government" as some abstract undefined entity, possibly with supreme power to do as it wishes, and do it well.
Government is a group of people. Take away the people that make it, and you have no government.
Now, is the government made of rich people or poor people?
If it's made of rich people, the government would be helping the rich.
If it's made of poor people, then labor CAN and IS balancing the extreme power the rich have.
I would hate to live in your world. The poor would be virtual slaves with no police portection or medical care, while the rich would be able to do whatever they want, and would effectively be the ruling class.
Can you substatiate any of those?
How would the poor become slaves?
How would they be unprotected?
How would they have no medical care?
How would the rich become the rulers?
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you actually serious? Subsitence farming is no longer an option in an industrial society, The rich could afford protection, the poor couldn't. They certainly couldn't afford medical care if nobody coerces their employers to pay for it. The rich could afford private armies to enforce their will. Even if there is technically anarchy, if enough well armed people don't want you to do what you are doing, it is effectively "illegal." Look how horrible things were for poor people in the 19th century - pre regulation. I certainly would not want to go back to that. Laissez-faire (sp) Capitalism is by far the worst econmoic system ever invented.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you actually serious?
Yes, I am. And you're either joking or wrong.
Subsitence farming is no longer an option in an industrial society,
You can't repeal the laws of science, and the laws of science have not changed just because we live in an industrialized society. Subsistence farming is easier now than it ever has been, because we have better tools, better knowledge, and better understanding of aspects affecting farming. To say it's "no longer an option" is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
If the economy crashed and we started referring to the 1930s as "Great Depression 1", I'd sure as hell resort to subsistence farming to make sure I had food.
The rich could afford protection, the poor couldn't.
Protection is expensive then? How is that possible if the employees are making slave wages? Protection should be cheap.
They certainly couldn't afford medical care if nobody coerces their employers to pay for it.
Healthcare employees would be making slave wages too, wouldn't they?
The rich could afford private armies to enforce their will.
And socialism isn't going to stop them.
Even if there is technically anarchy, if enough well armed people don't want you to do what you are doing, it is effectively "illegal."
Right. So if all the arbitrarily defined "poor" people have guns and don't want to be "exploited" (also arbitrarily defined) then being rich is "illegal" right? Apply your logic both ways or don't apply it at all. Logic cannot only apply when convenient for you and then not apply when it's not convenient.
Look how horrible things were for poor people in the 19th century - pre regulation.
Dude, things were bad EVERYWHERE back then. And 200 years from now, people are going to look in awe at what shitholes we live in today. The poor people have always had it worse than everyone else just because they're poor. It had nothing to do with regulation.
In the early 19th Century, people still did subsistence farming. In the post-civil war industrialization, more people got out of it.
I certainly would not want to go back to that. Laissez-faire (sp) Capitalism is by far the worst econmoic system ever invented.
Worse than what?
Communist Russia was a shithole for it's entire time without capitalism. Cuba still has '40s cars. If capitalism is so bad, why was the standard of living under it's polar opposite so much worse?
And do you have nothing to say which can contradict these following quotes of mine withing looking like an idiot?
You can't just pick and choose what you want to refute. It hurts your credibility. I'm not picking and choosing which arguements of yours I know how to contradict, I'm refuting ALL OF THEM. So when I make points, you should refute ALL OF THEM or your selectivity will clearly display intentional ignorance. I will not respond to anything further you say until you can refute the following:
A wage is a price. That's all it is. When you're producing, you want high prices. When you're consuming, you want low prices. It ultimately balances itself out.The rich cannot make money if they pay their employees so little that they can't afford anything. THE LABOR CLASS BUYS MOST THINGS.
Henry Ford didn't get rich by selling expensive cars to rich people. He got rich by selling inexpensive cars to not-so-rich people. He also paid good wages to his factory workers.
Because the labor class buys most things, the rich can only sell the things the laboring class makes at absurdly low wages if they sell it for an absurdly low price (otherwise they won't sell it at all, and if they don't sell it they don't become rich). Absurdly low wages and absurdly low prices is perfectly legitemate. It's what would happen should we suffer chronic deflation.
And
I love how you refer to "government" as some abstract undefined entity, possibly with supreme power to do as it wishes, and do it well.Government is a group of people. Take away the people that make it, and you have no government.
Now, is the government made of rich people or poor people?
If it's made of rich people, the government would be helping the rich.
If it's made of poor people, then labor CAN and IS balancing the extreme power the rich have.
- Login to post comments
Offline So now you're changing from wanting anarchy to arguing how the government works the way it is? I'm guessing you are a theist by the way you argue.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Damn meaty alright.
FWIW: I think you ought to take care in how you noted that liberals have "no problem with..."
I think usage of the word "no" there may be unfair. I know what you meant, but someone is liable to call strawman.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
My intention was really to illicit some kind of defensive response from anyone that wants to claim to be a liberal and justify what modern day liberals (in particular, Democrats, Socialists, Labour party advocates etc) preach.
I completely realize that I posed a leading question...I'm hoping somone can correct my misconception of "liberals" if it is indeed a misconception.
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
First,
I'm not even sure that I am a liberal. I have been told that my political ideology falls into the socialist category. I suppose that labels will be needed for this discussion of politics. I would prefer attacking each issue separately, but for the purposes of your thread, zero, I'll play the name game.
Capitalism struggles with the problems of overpopulation and inflation. I can evidence this using the various fuel and healthcare crises in our present world. The more people there are then the more resources used and the more people get sick. Not necessarily per capita, but sheer numbers. Simple economics produces a non-sustainable growth pattern based upon future projections using present rates in any capitalist society. I'm not professing eugenics. I'm just sayin'.
Currently, there are many families in need of assistance. However, there are families who abuse the system that helps. The problem is, in my opinion, that the people with less motivation to change their lives are sucking the resources of the system. Ergo the system needs to be revamped to disallow the abusers.
I produce far more than I could use. In a capitalism, this is judged as success. There are others who produce less than they need. It seems patently obvious what needs to happen in this situation. However, I cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It would require a giant leap of 'faith' on the part of those charged with the care of the needy. In the best interests of all involved, my extra work should go where needed in order not to be wasted. I get what I need, they get what they need.
The only thing left is making sure that those in charge have the tools they need to discern need from greed. There also must be a way to guarantee that those people are doing their jobs correctly. This can be accomplished by the development of a distribution division that must answer to a quality assurance division that answers to the entire populace. In other words, if I want to build a dam in Colorado then the other states must approve. If one state does not approve then the project does not go forward. If this state, that did not approve, is found to have a separate agenda of their own then the other states may move to superimpose their judgment upon the project. A veto override of sorts in which that state's vote is then taken away from the dam vote.
AND NOW FOR THE RANT. lol.
Currently, our tax dollars are spent upon compromise after compromise with everyone trying to achieve their personal agendas rather than accomplishing the will of all. Some of these personal agendas have no basis in progress or even maintenance. We spend billions on restoring the legacy past rather than building a new future. Our needy have nowhere left to turn but to the churches for aid since the government cannot control what it spends its money on with regard to the people. In turn, the churches use this as a means to push their agenda upon the rest of the populace.
DONE WITH THAT RANT.
I drive 28 miles per day, five days per week and thirty miles on the weekend/days off. Thus I drive a total of 170 miles per week. This uses approximately 10 gallons of gas per week. That is what I need.
I have a wife and four children(in a socialist government, I would have had two maybe three with approval). We eat three to four small meals a day. That is 42 small meals per week. This is what I need.
We have one computer. This is what I need.
We have two tv's. I need only one. (The extra one is really old. I have taken good care of it. Here is the bonus part of socialism. If you take care of what you have then you are doing well.) This did not change the need for a new one because the old one did not have A/V jacks. Which I am sure that everyone would agree that is a necessity if you are to watch informational dvds or educational games.
Anyway, I think this illustrated my thoughts coherently enough for purposes of debate. If it read too much like a anti-american rant then please remember that I live in america too so I'm obviously not anti- just not pro-. lol. [That was meant as humor. Don't correct the logic on that.]
On a side note: Please tell me when I make a logical fallacy. I love that stuff. Typically, on the other message boards, people just tell you that you're wrong without giving the chance to correct the use of bad logic.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I'd just like to point out that the labels can be, and usually are, misleading. For example, I'm almost socialistic on certain issues (like health care) but almost libertarian on others (gun control). I think most people are like that somewhat, so ANY party platform is sort of a misleading construct. Also, these constructs change over time.
The traditional democrats would cringe at today's milquetoast dems who not only have no progressive ideas, they seem to have NO ideas. Far from following in the progressive footsteps that ended slavery, emancipated women, and ended segregation, they pander to the religious mainstream instead of making church state seperation an issue. And traditional republicans would likewise cringe at today's neocons, who instead of taking a lassaiz-faire approach actually kowtow to big business (like oil companies) while intruding on our personal lives and being big spenders for a mistaken war.
Basically, people like me (I'm basically a Socialist) don't like the idea of a permanant aristocracy - which is what we would have if there isn't some way of keeping the gap between rich and poor from continuing to grow. It just plain isn't right that there are billionaires (people who have more money than they could possibly ever use) while there are people who can't even afford a place to live. Of course you have idiots like Rush who talk about it being about how hard you work, which is totally irrational - the jobs where people work really hard pay next to nothing, while the ones where people sit on their ass and do nothing vut tell others what to do pay the most. I FUCKING hate capitalism!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Well, these ideas hold different postulates about human nature. Socialists assume that people will work for the greater good with no extra benefit, and capitalists assume people would be lazy in a socialist system and need financial interest to be productive.
Neither system describes humanity as a whole; there are people of each stripe in every community, and a bit of each way of thinking in each of us. So we come up with a capitalistic system that has bits of socialism in it. We've seen poor folks taking advantage of the welfare system, and we've seen businesses leveraging monopolies to stifle competition. Both are bad for the society as a whole.
I would be all for capitalism if there were mechanisms to assist the lower class to achieve potential. Basically, I'm with Matt that Rush is full of shit (duh!) - many people are born into life situations that no amount of hard work will get them out of. And this is a loss to society - how many of those could have been brilliant doctors or scientists, given the chance? Of course, the big question is, how do you give people this chance without opening up the system to abuse? Welfare can help some of these, but also allows some people to stay on the dole and continue making bad choices.
On the other side of the coin, business should be rewarded with profits for making the good calls that brought it success - otherwise why risk starting businesses? But it's human nature to use that money & power to stifle competition in the quest for still greater profits, and sometimes it goes too far. How far is "too far"? Good question.
This is like saying, "I'm Christian on some ideas, and Atheist on others." I'm Christian in that I don't believe it's ok to steal, but I'm atheist in that I don't think there's anything wrong with coveting thy neighbor's wife
I'm being rhetorical here, but my point is that you are NOT a libertarian even partly just because you agree with libertarians on some issues. I agree with Christians on some issues, but I am most definately NOT a Christian. You believe that you should have the freedom to do certain things and don't mind if the government coerces you (and everyone else) to do or not do other things that politicians rule is ok or not ok. This is not part-libertarianism, this is socialism. Socialists be they from the left or the right believe people should have some freedoms and not others. Also, as much as I love libertarians, they don't own the concept of freedom, though they are the only party (that I'm aware of) that doesn't believe in compromisng it.
Agreed. And Libertarians cringe at both parties for being inneficient liberty crushing machines of tyranny and corruption.
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
Capitalists do not need to assume that some people would be lazy in a socialist system. Some people ARE lazy in our present socialist system. Capitalists don't assume anything about human behavior. Capitalists use their minds to create useful and/or desireable products and services. If these products are useful or desirable creations, they will sell and the capitalist will make a profit, thus encouraging him to continue to create and innovate new products and services. If the capitalist gets lazy or attempts to take advanatage of his position in the marketplace, a new capitalist will quickly emerge and knock the lazy or exploitive capitalist out of the market (or at least encourage the old capitalist to be competitive or fair again). Capitalists may do all of this for money, fame, or simply because they enjoy creating and sharing their ideas with the populace. It doesn't matter what their motivation is though. What matters is that that are FREE to do this, and the people are free to reward them if they do a good job.
The point of libertarianism or capitalism isn't to "describe humanity" or attempt to philosophize its behavior. Libertarians and capitalists want one thing for themselves and for everyone else: freedom. That's it. We want to be able to do whatever we like so long as it doesn't abridge your own freedom to do whatever you like. We feel that all behavior is allowable except 1) Murder 2) Slavery and 3) Theft. We feel that this is self-evident.
Goverments that use coercion are governments that condone slavery. Governments that steal people's money are governments that condone theft. There is no other way of looking at it. You can call coercion "regulation" and you can call their theft "taxation" but they are still crimes against an individual's freedom.
There is. It's called freedom. Anyone is free to work hard, be creative, and be rewarded for their labour and their ideas. They are also free to use their charms to beg money from charities, from their friends and their family.
YOU are free to help the lower classes. You are free to organize charities and raise money for the lower class. You are NOT free to take other people's freedom away by coercing them with government force to serve what YOU consider to be important. This is tyranny.
Yes, and you are free to do something about this problem. Hell, you might convince me to help you...but you are NOT free to coerce others to do what YOU consider to be a problem.
Think of all the things that Christians think are wrong that you disagree with. How would you like it if they got to decide whether you were allowed to do those things or not simply because they have the majority of the votes? You probably wouldn't like it at all. That's how I feel when others try to force THEIR beliefs on me using government coercion. Where do you draw the line? Who is right?
Since it really is subjective...shouldn't we just let individuals decide what is wrong and right? Shouldn't we let individuals that care about X support X? Why use FORCE to make other people do what YOU believe in? (Unless you believe tyranny is ok)
Appeal to emotion. Speculation. No deal.
Here's the converse: how many brilliant minds are presently stifled by the idea of excessive taxation? What's the point of working hard and sharing ones ideas if someone else takes part of the reward from you? How many brilliant minds move out of their own birth countries to another country just so they can avoid paying taxes that are too high? We can speculate, but speculation doesn't prove anything.
I'd argue that you can't. But the real point is...why would we do it when we know that such a system is basically endorsing tyranny and coercion. Is tyranny and coercion ever ok even under the label of "greatest good"?
I don't think it's rational to use assumtions about "human nature." Since humans appear to have a wide variety of behavioral patterns, I would argue that it would be difficult to ever pin down a "human nature" especially in the context of economic freedom. The very fact that there are devout socialists and dedicated capitalists should clue us into the fact that if there was a "human nature" it would be that we have a bunch of very different ideals.
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
The fact is, people are able to advance from the lower classes to the upper classes. Do most people do this? No. Why? Because most people a) aren't brilliant b) Aren't really hard working c) and probably don't care about wealth as much as we assume they do.
I think life really comes down to self-fullfillment. One can be perfectly fullfilled being "lower" or "middle" class. I'm tired of people obsessing over money as being the only deciding factor in one's happiness. Most of my friends don't make much money but they are perfectly happy being smart, having sex, being creative, travelling every now and again, and making a living doing what they love! Why does everyone have to be a freaking millionaire in order for things to be fair?
Oh, I see, you're talking about the really really poor people. Ok, well, why don't you, I don't know...say create an operating system, market it to the entire world, earn about 40 billion dollars, and then give it all away to the poor people. Oops...it looks like the evil Bill Gates already beat you to it. Oh, and his evil billionaire buddy Warren Buffet also donated 30+ billion dollars. How many poor people have you helped with your socialist ideals?
Says who? Says you? Why do YOU get to decide what the rest of us must do?
And again, if you really care about this issue, why do you spend so much time on this forum instead of working out in the world to solve the problem? You are the number one poster here. That must amount to a bunch of hours that you could have used to work and send the proceeds to poor homeless people.
Dude, you know I love you, and I'm glad you're here, but I find it hypocritical of someone to say all these bad things about billionaires who do generally give away vast shares (if not all) of their wealth to chairities, while the average joe doesn't do shit about poverty except complain about how "unfair" things are.
I'd argue that if you really wanted to help poor people, you'd try to earn some freaking money so you could give it away to them. That's my plan anyway. I don't think I could ever live with myself if stealing was part of my plan.
This is actually true. Because the people that work the "hardest" are the ones that don't try to improve their brains. They are doing grunt work. My first job was working as a cashier at a drug store and it required a minimal amount of my neural activity. I made about $100 a week (part time). When high school was over, I got a job waiting tables 4 nights a week and I made $500 week (part time) which was enough to put me through school which I paid for in full without student loans (although I did earn a scholarship--that helped). The knowledge that I gained in school and in my independant studies allowed me to get a comfortable job working for myself where I sit on my ass (part time) and earn significantly more just using my brain and my keyboard. I plan to continue this trend until I am rich enough to put my money where my mouth is.
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
And they'd have had billions more had they not had to give so much to the government. And the government did not spend all the money on poor people. Anyone aware of how much Bill Gates is giving to the public school system because our government is failing to fund it properly?
He helped RRS today, all 3 core members are unemployed right now (unless you count this as a job).
This brings up an interesting question. What happens to the hard working people who are born with less brain power in your system? Are they S.O.L.?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Well, I gotta hand it to him on that point. Money talks. And doesn't it feel SOOO much better to give it voluntarily because you believe in it,?
Yep.
Just kidding. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not responsible for the deficiencies of evolution. It is NOT my fault that someone else is born with less natural brain power. If I happened to care about these people, I might be inclined to help them out voluntarily. Maybe I'll give them a job. Not everyone can be a freaking CEO. We do need some people to collect garbage, flip burgers, etc.
That said...in the future, many menial tasks like these can be taken over by robots and the whole problem of brain power can be solved in a free market because scientists and investors will seek to improve people's brain power with technology, gene therapy or some other solution not get imagined. Scientists have already doubled most people's lifespans by researching hygine, medicine, nutrition and human biology. What makes us think that they can't one day improve people's brain power?
It is obvious that almost all problems are eventually solved when people are given enough freedom and time...so it follows that to maximize human progress we need to maximize freedom and time. We can maximize freedom by obying the philosophy of liberty and we can maximize time by offsetting menial labour tasks to robots and other technologies (that require freedom and time to develop).
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
Obviously were never going to agree. I feel we have an obligation to make sure everyone has an acceptable lifestyle, and nobody needs to be a billionaire. And with things like inheritance, plenty of rich people did absolutely nothing for their wealth other than have the luck of birth. I really disagree that people accept being poor - who would want to be? It's pretty obvious that almost nobody changes their social class - except through pretty much luck. You mention Bill Gates - he was at least middle class. Obviously someone who was, say too poor to afford a computer could have never done anything like that. To me, capitalism is at least as bad as Christianity - and notice most conservative Christians are also staunch capitalists.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I just don't understand how YOUR feelings should be allowed to determine how much freedom other people can enjoy. Even though I disagree with your philosophy, I would never make you do anything that you didn't want to do. I want to protect your freedom and you want to destroy mine. No wonder we don't agree.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Plenty of parents that created their wealth chose to give their children an inheritance. That's what they wanted to do with THEIR money. If your parents give you a gift, are you meant to refuse on the grounds that it's "lucky" to have such generous parents?
Not me. That's why I started working when I was 16, put myself through community college and university, and eventually begand making a decent living. I can't speak for all the other people. It seems to me that if people spend more time going to church, watching tv, or whatever...then their number one priority is not improving their financial situation. Do they enjoy being poor? Of course not. Do they hate it enough to get off their asses and do something about it? Negative.
It's not obvious to me. Just because most people don't change their class doesn't mean that it can't happen. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. I never said it was easy, I said it was possible.
You make the human race sound so pathetic. Like if someone doesn't have every tool handed to them on a silver platter they will utterly fail. I'm more optimistic about my race. I believe that people get what they go after. Life is hard. Nobody said it was easy. Still, the poor can become middle class with a little bit of hard work. The middle class can become upper class with a little bit of thinking and creativity.
But ultimately, anyone can become happy, which is what really matters, by developing some self worth. Of course, if they have the same lacking faith in themselves as you seem to have for humanity, then they will fail and they will be miserable. But I can't be responsible for the personality and determination levels of others.
I think it's unfair to say that most conservative christians are staunch capitalists. First, it's not true! Most Christians (in the US) consistantly vote for Republicans. Republicans do not believe in the free market as they consistantly pass laws that limit and/or regulate free trade. Aside from being innaccurate, it's irrational to write off Capitalism because you allege that Christians believe in it. Should we also write off laws against stealing since Christians also believe that thou shalt not steal?
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
I totally disagree. I think many of the problems this country has could be solved by eliminating the cruel "free" market. As I said, I personally am socialist, actually leaning toward communist. There are some rich people who are good (like Bill Gates, as you mentioned), but if things were the way you wanted,, I truly think there would be people starving in the streets - most of them wouldn't care. I would hope if things got that bad there would be a revolt that would put the rich who didn't help against the wall, but that's just me. I see things keep getting worse with the gap between the rich and poor. The only thing I think that will help other than going to Socialism would be maybe if poor people would start going in en mass and just taking from supermarkets what they need. And if the owners would try to use force to prevent them, maybe they would need to shoot them down. Something needs to be done to lower the awesome power money has.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
There are so many problems with this, I don't even know where to begin. How would the "poor" people define themselves? Someone below X amount of income? Or someone that just "needs" something from the supermarket? If poor people did this, what's to stop the supermarket owners from just shutting everythign down since there is no incentive for them to serve the community any more since all their labour is being stolen?
And here's the real part that made me cringe: you condoning the murder of someone simply because he was trying to protect his property from being stolen. That kind of made me sick to be honest.
Clearly the awesome power of money has you condoning murder and theft. I agree something needs to be done.
..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh
So is their taking stuff any worse than the owners allowing them to starve because they have no money? And of course people with money are the only ones who have influence on 99% of politicians. I only suggest we need a drastic change in the way we run things. I would agree with executing many owners of businesses - the ones who treat their employees badly and don't pay them enough. Andtake all their property and divide it among the employees.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
WHAT!?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm a strong believer in the right to a living wage.
Matt,
I'm afraid that isn't one of the parts of socialism. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
So much so that you'd take away a persons ability to earn a living wage by murdering them? You don't think murder is too harsh?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I think nothing would be too harsh for business owners who exploit their employees. I would include death by torture in that.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I'm blown away. I can't believe what I'm reading. If that is on your list of offenses that deserve death, I'd imagine you have a mile long list. Am I right?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Not really. Just that, Rape, child molestation, that's about it. Maybe Murder, but not in every case.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Matt,
We had this talk a while back. I thought that we agreed that businesses that treat their employees badly ran themselves out of business. It was the same way with governments.
I'm pretty sure that we covered the worst case scenario of christians attacking our businesses with violence.
That 'golden rule' debate in Secularity last spring. Remember?
Have you altered your viewpoint toward violence since then or are you drunk posting again? lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Actually I am drunk right now, but that doesn't stop them. Business has all the power and most of them mistreat their employees. The extreme power of money needs the equally strong power of government to balance it out. If it was up to me, Capitalism would be a capital offense.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I must say that your drunk spelling has improved greatly over the summer.
In a socialism, the store would be owned, supplied, and managed by the government so there would be no need for violence against the store owner unless the government was not doing their job.
In a capitalism based upon the 'free market' ideal, I could see where violence such as Matt's beating store owners to death would be punished by the whole conglomerate of businesses and people. Thus making it as it is now in our present system. Punishable.
The actions of violence could never be condoned in modern civilization. We've simply moved beyond that nihilistic approach to changing the system. Anarchy has proven itself to be unreliable for future planning.
I think it's a fair assumption with that being said, that a business owner could fear reprisal from disgruntled employees in a free market. Especially when they sell beer to said employees to drink on nights off. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
If they are dealing with a pimp like me there could be consequences!
Oh, you're a pimp, a BUSINESSMAN?
I'm sure you give your Ho's complete healthcare, a retirement plan and take no more from their whore earning than it takes to keep you modestly comfortable. How dare you make a profit.
Anything else, and you clearly desearve execution.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
How do you define "Exploit"? Make a profit off of? Because if they didn't make a profit off the employees, the employees wouldn't be getting hired.
Your ethics are arbitrary points on a continuum. In my personal opinion, if you are being arbitrary, you are definitionally wrong.
Libertarian ethics are binary. There is good, and there is bad. It is not determined by opinion, but by whether something is voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary is good, involuntary is bad.
If someone volunteers to be exploited, they clearly want to be because they believe it in their best interests. Stopping someone from exploiting someone that chose to be exploited harms both the exploiter and the exploited.
So who do you think you're helping by killing exploiters of people that want to be exploited?
Well, here's my problem with Libertarianism: An awful lot of it just seems to be based in being cranky. Being insulting and throwing out accusations and strawmen doesn't make you right. Saying everyone is trying to take your piece of the pie just makes you sound like a slighted child. I bet you drive to work on a road, right?
For one, I actually do give a shit about people who can't make it at the same level as everyone else. Call me a bleeding heart, whatever, but I'd much rather be compassionate than hard and self-righteous. The idea that someone who hasn't had any success in a particular framework--in this case, capitalism--has competely revealed their worthlessness as a human being is rather, well, fascist, come to think of it.
When it comes down to it, I'm as sick of -isms as I am of religions. Everyone's got an answer, just jump in this box and all your problems will be solved. I own my own business and I do rather well. I enjoy the competition aspect, I get a giddy thrill out of my successes and try to learn from my failures. Not everyone is fit to undertake a venture like that but I think that everyone does have value and I'd much rather pay a bit of my income to keep a roof over their head than have them out on the streets freezing to death. Everyone feels like they're safe from that fate until they loose a leg, or get metally fucked up by bad genetics, or have some other influence in their lives over which they have no control.
I find it interesting how many athiests will go on about the malevolence of religion but have no problem with the malevolence of capitalism with no recourse. Boy for sale, anyone?
Simply said, I have seen no capitalist system that has not, over time, come to favour a certain group of individuals at the expense of most everyone else. Capitalism is natural, it is a condition of the human mind and it is something which brings great joy to many. It's not all there is to life, however.
Mad about having your money stolen? Well, quit driving on the roads then. Don't call the fire department when your house burns down and make sure not to call the ambulance when you have a heart attack from being so angry.
I mean, really, a lot of libertarians just seem really greedy and selfish to me. It's your right to be that way, of course, and I know that's not all there is to it but I hope you never get treated the way you seem to wish to treat the world.
It's based on a universally applied morality. Theft is wrong even when called "Taxation." Slavery is wrong even when called "Law". Murder is wrong even when called "War." And if you look at how government is incessantly and increasingly involved in these activities, you'll see why libertarians have a lot to gripe about.
I see a lot more insults, accusation, and strawmen from other groups than I do from libertarians. Would you care to point out some of these insults, accusations, and strawmen so I can correct them?
There's nothing anti-libertarian about that. What's anti-libertarian is telling the police to take my money to give to the politician and telling the politician to be charitable with it. Libertarians have no problems with compassion, caring, and charity, we have a problem when you start taking our money and telling us what wonderful things you plan to do with it. The best intentions do not justify the worst crimes.
First of all we're not in capitalism today. We have a mixed economy which does it's part to keep the little guy down.
Second, "success" can only be defined arbitrarily. For some, "Success" is living another day. For others, "Success" is vast riches. How do you define it?
After you define it, please connect how the idea that failure is worthless is related to fascism. Bonus points if you can include the definition of fascism in your explanation and still make the two look somehow connected.
You have some kind of -ism, because if you don't, you are a vegetable. So be specific on what labels you're sick of.
If you found out they were blowing all their income on crack and hookers instead of putting a roof over their head would you keep putting out for them to make sure they have a roof over their head?
You can still do things without having a leg. You can't run very fast and you probably wouldn't want a job that requires you to stand up or move around a lot. There's plenty of jobs that don't require that.
There are also plenty of charities for people that are mentally deranged or retarded. Eliminating taxation would make people rich enough that those charities would have even more money flowing through.
Statism is a religion. Statism is malevolence. Capitalism can never be more malevolent than the people engaged in it. And a worse situation is putting malevolent people in charge of the market, like we have today.
You probably trained him to return to you anyways.
Government is what favors a certain group of individuals at the expense of most everyone else. You have never seen a pure capitalist system. Give me a specific example of people that have been favored and I will tell you how it was not a result of capitalism that they came to be favored.
Capitalism is economics, and economics is decisionmaking, which is almost everything you do. Your entire life is a series of inputs, decisions, and consequences. What is there in life that was not reached by decision?
You are not given a choice whether to pay for the roads or not. Your money will be stolen to pay for roads irrespective of use of roads. The disjunction between payment and consumption is one of the major failures of government. Many fire departments, especially in rural areas, are privately owned and subscription-based. Hospitals can be provided without government involved as well.
We use these services because they are what is available and usually by monopoly decree. Not because we support government involved in them and payment via theft.
There is no action undertaken by humans which is not selfish. Altruism is done for the selfish end of feeling good about yourself. Believing that I need to pay for your altruism is hardly compassionate or charitable.
If the world treated me the way I want to treat it, I'd leave everyone else alone, and everyone else would leave me alone. I sure hope I get treated the way I want to treat the world.
"There are only two kinds of people in the world; those that wish to be left alone, and those who will not leave them alone." -Earnest Hancock.
Libertarians seem to be on the opposite utopian spectrum of communists.
Holy bitter-ass strawman Batman :roll:
First and foremost, I NEVER claimed that a libertine system would be gumdrops and lollypops - I merely think that it is the most fair system available. I don't say such, because I'm pissed people may get a slice of my pie, I say that out of bluntness and what I believe is fair and will is ultimately beneficial to all.
What makes you think I DON'T care about the less fortunate? How dare you insinuate that I don't.
I regularly volunteer my time to charities, I regularly donate money to them as well. My problem is FORCING people to do this via taxation. I do not see it as fair as robbing some to feed others without consent - that is exactly what welfare is.
Do I think people should be allowed to starve in the streets, no. Do I think the government should be allowed to forcibly take money from me to feed that person, also no.
I'm so glad you are happy.
But should you be FORCED to pay what you pay for social programs? Are you saying you wouldn't help people if you weren't forced to do it?
Hey, I'm unemployed at the moment. I AM collecting the insurance I payed for with my tax dollars, but I think there is a better way.
It should have been my OPTION to pay into unemployment insurance with a PRIVATE company or not.
True freedom entails responsibility and consequences. If I lost my job and chose not to have insurance, well, then I'm fucked. If I keep my job I save money on insurance. There are options in the middle as well. But to FORCE people pay into a program they may never use is asinine.
There is NOTHING inherently evil about capitalism. It is the MOST fair option available.
So, would you say the average standard of living has gotten better or worse over the last few decades?
I would have NO problem at all making ALL roads toll ways or privitizing fire departments - many FDs are already privitized. That way people who actually use the services are the ones that actually pay for them.
You couldn't be more wrong. It is my sense of fair play and justice that makes me favor a libertine system and a free market. If I were greedy, would I be charitable? I simply think we don't need a babysitter to force us to take care of our own.
And I hope one day you figure out what it really means to understand what freedom actually means.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Very well said.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I define "Utopian" as "Overoptimistic about results with a little or incorrect evidence when discussing political policy".
Utopianism on the nature of man:
Pure Communist (Stateless, non-totalitarian) utopianism: "The new Communist Society will bring about the new Communist Man."
Problem: It assumes mankind's nature is completely malleable.
Moderate (statist) utopianism: "A man may attempt to dominate others, so we must put a man (or group of men) in dominion over all other men to prevent this."
Problem: Self-defeating logic. Attempts to dam a river believing it will prevent floods, without reguard to the flood plain behind the dam, which is deemed a "necessary evil".
Anarcho-Capitalist (extreme libertarian) utopianism: "A man may attempt to dominate others, so we must get rid of the institution of government which is founded on dominion."
Problem: ?
Utopianism on wealth:
Pure Communist utopianism: "There is enough wealth to go around, it is just not distributed properly. We can redistribute it and all be wealthy."
Problem: Assumes wealth production is static, and does not increase or decrease depending upon incentives and disincentives.
Moderate utopianism: "The market does a good job producing wealth, but some people need the wealth more than others, to prevent starvation."
Problem: Unprincipled, ultimately self-defeating, founded on theft. Accepts fundamental concepts of pure communism and pure libertarianism, two polar opposite ideas, and holds both as truth. See 1984 definition of "doublethink". Creates dependants, who are kept poor by lack of motivation to work. Generally excuse for taxation, which except for "legality" is indistinguishable from protection money paid to a mafia.
Anarcho-Capitalist utopianism: "Wealth production is best achieved in an unregulated market in which people are free to produce unhindered and compete for customers by offering the highest quality at the lowest price."
Problem: ?
Does calling something "utopian" refute the doctorine or does it dismiss it as not requiring refutation? If it is dismissive, how do you know the doctorine is incorrect before dismissing it? If you don't, are you being intellectually honest with yourself?
I love political debate. My opponents always make mistakes.
I explained a problem I've had trying to listen to Libertarians and I have tried to do so many times: They seem to decay into "I, me, mine" right away. I don't find that attractive at all as an ideology. So, explain to me what else it offers. How do you intend to pay for things, such as roads, hospitals, etc, without collecting any tax dollars? Private systems? If a road is used by the military to defend a border, am I not benefiting from that road because of that defense even if I don't happen to drive on it personally? Private systems don't seem to work very well now for far less important things. If I'm wrong, show me an example. Private health insurance is just one picnic after another. How would you improve the outcomes versus what we see now? Why should I be so convinced to say "I'm a libertarian?"
Altruism will save the world? It seems that relying on the charity of others is relying on altruism to an extreme extent. I honestly have no reason to believe that the successful--the wealthy--are going to suddenly be overly-concerned with the well-being of the poor. Your "crack and hookers" statement pretty much confirms that attitude to me. It's exactly the kind of dismissive attitude I've heard from a great deal of them.
>Eliminating taxation would make people rich enough that those >charities would have even more money flowing through.
Really? So, these rich folks are so horrifically burdened by taxes that they can't spare a dime right now? Please. There are philanthropists in this world and I actually know a few. Their numbers and committment is hardly enough.
>There is no action undertaken by humans which is not selfish.
Well, that attitude *really* makes me want to sign up for the libertine revlolution!
>Your entire life is a series of inputs, decisions, and >consequences. What is there in life that was not reached by >decision?
Being a bisexual redhead with working class parents comes to mind. Having functional arms and legs and no major health issues is in there somewhere, too. Being white, I didn't decide that. How, exactly, do you know a thing about my life, by the way?
>You have some kind of -ism, because if you don't, you are a >vegetable. So be specific on what labels you're sick of.
I'm sick of people who claim to forward the cause of freedom constantly demanding that I redifine myself into a form that they understand. I think, if there is any solution to whatever social ill happens to be most prevelant at the time, that solution will likely consist of a merging of successful methods rather than ideological purity. Hence, I don't subscribe to an "ism" as much as I can avoid it. Everytime a lot of people have, it's seem to have gone horribly awry. Everytime I talk to some lefty college kid, I'm a rightist or an authoritarian, everytime I talk to a libertarian or a conservative, I'm a bleeding heart or an idealist. Seems everyone else has a label, why the hell should I worry about making my own?
I don't really think I need to explain how fascism works to you. Read some Mousillini if need be. Read some Dickens, too. You might find that government and the economic elites work together rather well and that it seems to just come together all-too-nicely where the opportunity presents itself. Hell, look at Enron. How would you prevent that from happening again? What would be your solution to preventing child labor? Slavery? "Univerally applied morality"? Who decides what's moral? You? I don't think there's any sort of moral failure on the part of your "crackhead" example. It's the result of a poor descision. I've made plenty, just not that one. I bet you have, too. And, as far as those jobs for people who don't have legs or are retarded, damn, don't they usually pay so well? I bet they could afford to drive on all the roads they wanted and have their houses put out a million times a year!
>You have never seen a pure capitalist system.
Nor have you.
>You probably trained him to return to you anyways.
That kind of crap is *exactly* what turns me off from Libertarianism everytime I hear it discussed. It so often comes down to a Rush Limbaugh mentality. If you want to attract us all to your big, privately-funded tent, that's not much of a start.
Arg. That had so many logical fallacies that you'd make a creationist proud.
Note: That was an emotive response.
Well seeing as "Society" and "Communities" and "Groups" and "Classes" are all fictive and usually arbitrarily defined entities, I can't work with them without being arbitrary, which in my mind is on par with contradicting oneself. I cannot speak for you. I cannot speak for others. I cannot speak for "us". I can only speak for myself. So I speak for myself and myself alone. Excuse me for believing other people are free, independantly thinking individuals whose goals and thoughts are not identical to my own.
A system which maximizes your freedom to act without infringing the rights of others to the same.
That's not the ideaology at all. Yes, we do tend to emphasize the individual, but in doing so we endeavor to empower everyone. It is hardly egocentric to value civil liberty for all.
What it offers? How about the freedom to do as you choose and controll your own life?
A libertine system would do away with drug laws, marriage laws, reproductive laws, "right to life" laws, most if not all immigration laws, etc.
Yes, via privitization.
I'm not entirely sure we'd have a military in the respect we have one now under a libertine system, nor do I especially think we'd need one.
This is because the system we have now is not actually a free market. The system we have certainly doesn't seem to protect the consumer or the little guy either.
The government is incapable of making corporations accountable when corporations are the ones lining their coffers.
If we simply leave it up to the consumer directly, you'd see some changes.
Why do you think airline tickets cost as much as they do? Constant government bailouts of a failing industury - that's why. If it were left to the market, the prices would plummet, due to competition. It goes without saying.
And it is piggybacked and supported via state laws and constant lobbying (aka - bribes). Auto-insurance is a great everyday example. You are FORCED to purchase insurance - of course you are going to be exploited and charged more than you should be in such a system. Insurance should be an option, not an edict. Quite simply, the government has no business being involved in such matters.
How could it get worse?
Nobody is claiming that a libertine system will solve all the problems of the world. What I do believe is that such a system provides for maximum civil liberties and financial freedom. It also entails greater individual accountability and responsibility - and plenty of people fear that and actually call such empowerment unfair. Now that's ridiculous.
I'm a libertine, because I believe in personal freedom and responsibility - little more.
To be bluntly honest, if we are not capable or willing to save humanity from itself, then why prolong it? If we cannot rely upon individuals to support the less fortunate amoug us without being forced to, what does that say about us? And still, the fundamental point is how can you possibly justify forcibly taking from one person in order to support another? That's theft, regardless of what we call it.
Right, Bill Gates doesn't contribute billions to charitable endeavors. I don't voluteer at the Food Bank or give blood.
Think about what he said. Most evolutionists, including this one, would agree with him. Even charitable acts are often selfish in nature - they are done to make you feel better about your self, to gain favor, to reduce guilt. It is actually a prevailing theme in sociobiology.
You're talking past one another here.
So where, exactly, have you seen me or anyone else say that our ideal system is the only one that could work? Ultimately, it should be a compromise. For example, I do not think that our courts should ever be privitized - they should be independent and supported by the community, either via fines that that the courts take in or via taxatation.
So, you hate the lable more than anything else - how petty and shortsighted. I will tell you flat out that libertarians are much like atheists - we basically agree that civil freedoms should be put into the hands of the people and that the government should be kept out of our business whenever possible - but that's about it. I've had lengthy political debates with other libertarians. Just because I use the term to describe myself does not me I fit your definition of the term.
The question is, why DIDN'T the current system prevent if. The current system is not libertine or free market, so what gives? How the fuck could you possibly pin that on me?
The kid's choice. I've been working since I was 10 at odd jobs until I could get an actual job when I was 14.
Ridiculous. You think there is something in libertarianism that allows you to own people? Quite the contrary, it provides the maximum level of civil liberty for all.
We all do, collectively. As has been done for the majority of history.
Right, because Stephen Hawking is a very, very, poor man.
Unfortunately.
Quite frankly given what you've said here, I don't care to associate with myself with you at all.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
For starters, Stephen Hawking is hardly a typcial example of someone living with a disability.
I'm not sure what's so offensive about what I've said. I see some of your points, I used to subscribe to Anarchism myself, not socialist Anarchism, just Anarchism. I get the idea of maximizing freedom but, then I see places like Afghanistan where there was no functioning government and it went pretty bad. Granted, they're caught up in religious furvor and tribal loyalties but I'm not certain as to how all those things would suddenly be set aside. I used to like to think that, perhaps, given total freedom people would find the best parts of themselves and work together as never before. It never seems to work, however, and I've never really heard a solid answer as to how one would remedy that. If someone has an idea for a solution to all that, I'd love to hear it. Not sarcastically at all, either, I'd honestly love to hear the idea.
- how petty and shortsighted
Nice ad hominem but it really doesn't address the issue. Thanks for your opinion, though. It's taken in the spirit in which it was offered.
>we basically agree that civil freedoms should be put into the >hands of the people and that the government should be kept out of >our business whenever possible - but that's about it.
That would have sufficed.
I'm not sure when you were asked about what is moral and what isn't, I don't remember ever being asked, but I've found more disagreement than agreement on that issue. My issues with libertarianism aren't so much moral ones as they are practical and I probably over-responded to the prior poster over the "trained him to come back" remark.
But I really would like some concrete answers. Just take a road to keep it simple. I get the idea of toll-roads. No one is charged for a service of which they don't make use. That makes perfect sense in one regard especially in the idea of it leaves more cash for the individual to utilitze in means that fit their needs. However, on a practical level, is that going to be enough to pay for maintaining an infrastructure? Is there really no benefit in having a functioning highway system for everyone?
As for people paying for ambulance services, I should have been more clear. How would one ensure the ambulance shows up if they know the money isn't there? Is this where the philantropy would come in or would there be some sort of regulation?
As far as not needing an army. I'd love nothing more to say I agree with that but I'm guessing that you're talking about worldwide change before that happens. It seems like we've always found a reason to attack each other and it's hard for me to envision people dropping their national identities any time soon. As much as I'd like to see a peaceful world I'm not sure I believe it'll happen within the next five generations. I think it's inevitable that it will happen eventually, but I don't think we've even seen the start of it yet. I really don't mind paying for an army, though I think what we have now is far in excess of what's reasonable.
>The kid's choice. I've been working since I was 10 at odd jobs >until I could get an actual job when I was 14.
So have I but I had the luxury of it being a choice. It's the situations where people really have no choice because of poverty I'm wondering about. If philanthropy doesn't come though, where does one find the hand up?
>Yes, we do tend to emphasize the individual, but in doing so we >endeavor to empower everyone. It is hardly egocentric to value >civil liberty for all.
Makes sense.
>The question is, why DIDN'T the current system prevent if. The >current system is not libertine or free market, so what gives? How >the fuck could you possibly pin that on me?
Speaking of talking past each other...
I'm not pinning it on you. I'm asking a question. Obviously, the current system didn't prevent it and there needs to be changes to keep it from happening again. How would a libertine society function to prevent such things? If I'd wanted to pin it on you, I would have said "the free market caused this and therefore you have no answer". I'm not under the illusion that the market is particularly free right now, it's an old-boys-club and it obviously offers a route to the top for people who don't earn it. I'd like to hear about the social theory regarding how a libertine society would address this kind of a fiasco. I'm asking a question. If it somehow came off as an accusation or an implication that your libertinism would condone such a thing, sorry you took it that way and if I worded it in a fashion that made it sound that way.
Would this be the role of the courts, then? There's obviously going to be a line where some people start abusing whatever power they're accumulated. My question is, where is that drawn? At what point does a civil authority have to step in?
As for an ism, I pretty much believe that the only crimes are rape, theft and murder and variations on those. I don't believe there's such a thing as consensual crime and that it's a just a construct of a moral system that's become incompatable with contemporary society. I don't think I actually disagree with any of what libertarians espouse on those points. I'm just a bit curious about privitization fixing so many problems. I wonder about public school systems being gone and how that would affect society. Yes, there are a lot of lousy public schools but there are also good ones out there. I went to one. Yes, there is a lot of crappy city bus service but I've been grateful for it at various times.
This is pretty much about services for me, and whether I think the free market could provide them. I don't get this from thinking free market capitalism is necessarily bad, but I don't think a lot of needed services are necessarily profitable nor are they going to be popular.
Obviously, there are going to be people who make poor descisions or allow them to be made for them. There are people who would sell themselves off if they could for whatever reason. If there is a government that enforces laws against that, then it's not a purely free market. That's an outrageous example used to illustrate a point. Here's a less provacative one: It's really not profitable to install scrubbing hardware in factory smokestacks. Someone's going to have to see that it's done. Do libertarians believe in environmental regulation being enforced by the government? If not, what's the solution offered? Generally, of course, I'm sure everyone's got their own variations.
I know very-well the arguments for throwing off government in the process of throwing off tyrrany. But, obviously you would call yourself Anarchists if that's what you were but you don't. So, what sort of government do you imagine?
>Quite frankly given what you've said here, I don't care to associate >with myself with you at all.
I'm not asking you to associate yourself with me. I'm asking you why I should vote for a libertarian candidate in November.
First off, I'm not arguing for socialism. That's an assumption on your part. Nor am I arguing for communism which is just another form of slavery. Nor am I arguing for the majesty of the current system as I see it as rather fascist in the sense of government by and for corporations. I'm asking, basically. If I'd argue anything, I'd argue that our constitution, in the spirit in which it was originally written, was a good thing in most cases. 3/5 of a human being being an obvious indicator of some major issues.
You chose to make the "trained him to come back" remark. What I mean by Limbaughesque in that regard is that it's just a bar-room kind of arrogant remark. That's what I call crap. If it wasn't intended to insult I see no purpose in it. If I insulted you, I apologize if only in the interest of finding out exactly what it is libertarianism is all about.
What I've heard form Libertarians is that they're concerned with ultimate freedom. I don't know if that's factual or not as it's pretty much what everyone says about their ideology.
I'm asking what your vision of the world is. I already know that libertarian is about the smallest possible government. I'm asking you when the government would step in to correct forms of exploitation that are beyond the pale. When does the restriction of freedom become balanced by the protection of a weaker individuals who, for whatever reason, are just innefective at defending themselves?
>If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I'm asking about people who can't afford health insurance and about the reality that some people are never going to get paid enough to afford it, at least as it's currently structured. I'm gathering that doesn't particularly concern you, so it's simply something about which we disagree. If privitization would somehow make it accessable in one form or another to everyone responsible enough to utilize it, I'd be all for it. I don't care about the socialism or capitalism of it. If getting rid of insurance altogether would make a hospital stay affordable enough for an individual of less than extravangant means to afford, I'd be for that, too. I find it disturbing to have people dying of curable diseases in such a wealthy country.
>Besides, if you wanted, you could pretend to have prefence to one >gender, dye your hair or shave your head bald, and disown your >parents. You decide not to do those things.
I think you know what I mean more than you're letting on. I hardly think "passing" is analagous to freedom. I'm not so convinced that randomness doesn't play a large part in life. People are sometimes held back purposefully by others because of the random circumstances of their existence. In some cases, government has provided a remedy. The civil rights acts of the 60's, for example.
>You're talking to an ANARCHO-capitalist here. I want the >government gone. That would make cooperation between money >and power disappear by taking away the institution of power.
You're talking to a former ANARCHIST here. I used to think removing government altogether would only constitute the removal of an unjust, arbitrary system of exploitation that holds no other purpose than the oppressing of individuals realizing their full potential in life. Then I started wondering about how the places without governments are as far as living conditions go and I didn't see much improvement over the places with governments and, much to my chagrin, I saw many, many disadvantages. I see many instances where government intervention was a good thing, school desegregation, civil rights laws, sufferage, and it still, frankly, makes me uncomfortable to admit that. What I have a hard time arguing, as far as Anarchism is concerned, is that people's good natures will cause them to behave in a manner that is more conducive to social cohesion, and freedom, than not.
> Are you prepared to objectively reconsider your beliefs about >government or will you continue to be emotional and irrational?
I have before and, yes. I'm not particularly attached to my beliefs about government. However, I won't stand for being expected to argue as a socialist when I'm not one. I can hardly effectively argue views to which I don't adhere.
You don't really have to convince me that freedom is good. Personally, there's still a part of me that would like to believe that the world could function great without any government at all. I'm just not so convinced that there's no such thing as a fair share to pay. What about voluntarily paying into collective services? In the sense of non-profit services. One thing I've never really seen is a for-profit company that can provide something as necessary as health care. This is what concerns me about the whole thing. I don't see the benefit, and I see several drawbacks, in some people being permanently shut-out by virtue of not having sufficent funds at their command. Moral or immoral isn't my main concern, honestly, I find that our streets are full of homeless people just an invitation to crime and other social ills. I feel it's worth it to provide a minimum level of services to them to avoid paying larger costs in other ways.
>If you choose reasonable re-evaluation, then we can proceed.
>If you choose emotional closed-mindedness, I can't convince you >for the same reason an atheist cannot convince a fundamentalist.
That's true for both of us. I choose to listen with an open mind if you're open-minded enough to understand that I hear fundamentalism in your words as much as you hear them in mine. Convince me. I'd rather be presented with fact that force me to change my mind than go through life with a stagnant mind.
Did I say otherwise? You don't know or work with many "disabled" people, do you?
I know and have worked with disabled people, and it's never been an issue. Hell, I'm disabled myself. I fail to see whatever point you think you are making.
You are entitled to NOTHING special because you are disabled - why should you be?
You may be limited on the jobs you can do, but as long as you are not discriminated against for being disabled (and laws prevent such and would most likely apply under a libertine system), so what?
I'm blind in one eye. It prevents me from being able to do several jobs. I went to school for jobs that didn't require two eyes. I don't deserve any special treatment or consideration. It's a bitch that I'm blind in one eye, but it's not unfair, not something I deserve compensation for, it's life.
What on earth make you think I'm an anarchist or should be compared with such? That simply shows me how little you actually understand the political position I advocate.
Holy fuck, you're simply clueless. You think Afghanistan of all places was a libertine society? Are we in Bizzarro world?
You just equated libertarianism with the situation in Afghanistan, and I'm the asshole guilty of ad homs?
Thanks for your inability to comprehend as well, it's special.
It is evident your issues extend far beyond the practical. You obviously take this personally. There's nothing wrong with that, but have the courtesy to admit it.
For fuck;s sake, your first post in this thread began:
“An awful lot of it [libertarianism] just seems to be based in being cranky. Being insulting and throwing out accusations and strawmen doesn't make you right. Saying everyone is trying to take your piece of the pie just makes you sound like a slighted child. I bet you drive to work on a road, right?”
You clearly don’t understand me or my position. You are biased from jump with a ridiculous straw-man version of what you think I believe.
If the tolls are insufficient to maintain the road it tells you one thing - this road is not necessary and obsolete. When you consider the fact that state run toll roads fund not only those toll roads but a significant portion of the road maintenance and highway patrol upkeep for the entire state, the answer is self evident. And I would hope not even you would say that a private company couldn’t make or mend roads faster and cheaper than the state’s DOT. If you disagree, you obviously don’t live in NJ, PA, MD, or DE.
How do you ensure the police or public ambulance service show up when you call them, exactly? Do you actually think the state has an obligation to provide such services to you or that they are accountable for such services?
Private law enforcement, ambulance and fire companies operate under the same laws we all do. If you call them, they are as obligated as any public service to show up - they bill you later.
Yeah, you’re attacking me philisophically, I figure I’m entitled to a bit of idealism here. If you’re going to bash it, bash it as it SHOULD be, not as it would be.
Don’t you think a good way to go about dropping that identity would be to enact an open boarder policy? And in conjunction with that, we as a nation stay the fuck out of the quarrels of other nations. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to come to the US and work here should be allowed to. A global economy requires a global market place. At some point we must become one world rather than many nations. It’s going to happen eventually, why fight it?
I’m glad you see the writing on the wall and see it as inevitable as well. It has to start somewhere, sometime. Why not here, now?
Working is ALWAYS a choice.
From their own volition. Nobody is entitled to a happy or prosperous life. Some people run billion dollar corporations, some people scrub toilets for billion dollar corporations. That’s NOT unfair. That’s life.
You have the right not to have your race, sex, sexual preference, etc. held against you. Other than that, you’re on your own - make the most of it. Yes, some people get a leg up, because their parents help them out, or because they are smart and get scholarships and what not - good for them.
Well, thing is, you say it makes sense, but you don’t actually seem to see it.
It wouldn’t.
What I wrote was in response to Oliver Twist type abuses of the working man. It is plainly obvious that prohibitions against such practices today do NOT prevent them from occuring. Prohibitions NEVER work. Most of our laws are retroactive. We like to think they prevent crime, but they don’t.
There will ALWAYS be criminals. There will ALWAYS be abusive and exploitive companies. Make all the laws you want, and it won’t change that fact. It also won’t change the fact that MOST people and companies are honest and fair. Dishonest and incompetent companies typically do NOT last - at least not without help from the government.
In this case a libertine system would work much in the same way as the system today works. Like today, all we could do would be to respond to the situation. Regardless of criminal liability, which would be essentially the same in a libertine system or today’s system, you can pretty much count on the exploitive company going belly up within days. That’s the justice of the market and consumer appeal.
Fair enough.
That’s a very good question. To be honest, I’m not exactly sure.
I guess I would say that the courts should ultimately enforce contracts and settle dissolving of contracts.
In the example you gave above, a company violated an implicit or possibly explicit contract - they would of course be liable. Similarly, if you claim a product does X, and it doesn’t do X, well, prepare for lawsuits. Divorces would be similar contract disputes.
Of course there are also criminal matters, which is why I said the courts must remain independent.
That’s a pleasent surprise, and you’re right - I don’t consider anything a crime unless it violates another person’s person or property without their consent.
I went to a pretty good PS too. It’s beside the point.
It is not right that people without children pay taxes to support public schools. It is not right that property taxes pay for such schools. It is not right that we have to pay tax on property that we own.
I think a privitized school system would certainly be more accountable the system we have now. For fuck’s sake, most kids are simply taught to pass the tests involved in the utter bullshit “No Child Left Behind” program and little else, so the district can maintain their funding.
I don’t see how it can get much worse. At least in a privitized system pulling your dumb-ass kid from the school would hurt them rather than help them (which would be the case for a public school). Yeah, go figure why the “dumb” kids get suspended every other week in PS.,
You really are not entitled to any services from your government. The monster has grown to be so much more than it was ever intended to be. For fuck’s sake, we started out as the people being the army and the government simply adjudicating things,,,,,
The government does not need to be involved. If the shit coming out of your stack makes the people around you sick, they get to sue the shit out of you. Just like today.
A government of absolute minimums. Like I said, our courts should be independent and unprivitized. Other than that, I don’t see much that the government does that can’t be eliminated altogether or replaced by private industry.
Well, you either get it our you don’t.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
>You don't know or work with many "disabled" people, do you?
I helped supervise a group of five developmentally disabled people in a lumber mill in which I worked when I was 16. They did minor things like handing stickers to the people stacking lumber for the kiln. One of my best friend's has Parkinson's at 29 years of age. My father's back is essentially destroyed from being hit by a car when I was 5. Yeah, dude, I know quite a few disabled people. You said Stephen Hawking was hardly poor. I pointed out that his situation is definitely atypical.
Given that most anarchists subscribe to the idea that government ought to be reduced to almost nothing or eliminated altogether and that their reason for believing so is based on individual freedom, it seemed like a reasonable comparison. I have no idea why you're insulted by that. Some great minds have subscribed to Anarchism.
You seem fucking clueless from time to time and given to taking things personally, yourself. I mentioned Afghanistan as an example of a serverly reduced/non-existent government. I mentioned it as an example that an absense of authority doesn't ensure that people will act constructively any more than a presence of one does. I pointed it out because it seems to be an example of the worst case scenario of a lack of governance. Obviously, it's not a functional society at all and I was wondering what would suggest that a libertine society would function. If you're going to point your finger at me for taking something personally, at least have the courtesy to notice it in yourself, as well.
Yes, I do take it personally when a thread starts out with "hypocrite" in it and then it's full of nasty back and forths and when someone goes for the blame liberals thing again. I started out my thread in a way that was neither respectful nor constructive and I admit that was a poor way to ask a question. My bad, fair enough.
The rest of your answers are actually damn interesting and make sense, particularly the "I don't know" which indicates that it's not a lockstep ideology you're espousing and I appreciate that. I don't know everything, either, and am generally suspect of people who claim as much.
If you're looking to forward this as a political movement, here's what I can offer. I probably fall into the category of "liberal" in most instances though not all--I own guns, I think prohibitions on weapons are a stupid as prohibitions on behaviors. I don't necessarily think that everything on Earth has to be accessible to everyone. It's not fair but, as you said, it's life. If someone has some fucked-up ideal that prevents them from giving me a fair shake, well, fine. I value their right to be stupid more than my right to be employed by someone who doesn't like me.
A lot of us in the "liberal" category are there because, generally, when you hear free market or personal responsibility, it's immediatey followed by a bunch of religious, imperial rhetoric. The same way I'd imagine that, when you hear the term civil liberties, it's followed by an economic ideology that you find repugnant. And nowhere in any of it does anyone dare say "I don't know." There isn't a real choice offered and many of them are false choices when it seems that trend it being broken.
>Well, you either get it our you don’t.
Which is what I was saying. I don't get it when someone is trying to start a debate by immediately saying half the population are hypocrites. Perhaps they're misguided from your point of view? I realize this wasn't your post but it seems to fit the spirit of things thus far.
Liberal and conservative are really party definitions at this point and pretending they're not is kind of silly. They're both synonyms for the two dominant political parties and don't really mean anything other than Democrat or Republican. Saying that anyone who votes Democrat is a hypocrite is not endearing anyone to your cause. I vote Democrat because the other party is constantly engaging on a direct assault against the liberties that matter most in my life, not because I really care about making sure you pay taxes.
The type of answers you gave in the last part of your post are why I'm going to look up who happens to be running on the libertarian ticket in New Mexico and what they're about. I don't know whether I'd vote for them now or not but being called a hypocrite certainly didn't persuade me to even consider it.
I didn't accuse you of arguing for socialism. I believe I just said that socialism doesn't work and I never have seen it work. Individualism does work.
I have a number of problems with the Constitution.
1. Nothing prevents the three branches from colluding to increase federal government's power.
2. Nothing explicitly assures the right for States to secede (even though it SHOULD have fit under the 10th Amendment).
3. It wasn't ratified by any legislature or any people. The Federalists stacked the Constitutional Conventions in favor of federalism before holding the conventions.
4. Read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" to discover why the Constitution has no authority.
5. The "Necessary and Proper" clause negates everything else the Constitution says.
It wasn't intended to insult. I was telling you one reason why I wouldn't buy a boy even if you were trying to sell one. Besides, there was an ignorant implicit assumption that parents own their children in the very nature of the remark. The whole thing was absurd and it's really not worth discussing any further.
What differs is the definition of "freedom". When a libertarian says "freedom" they mean "liberty" and the right of self-ownership. When a communist says "freedom" they mean freedom from the shackles of the capitalist pigs. The word freedom is used by everyone because it sounds good. Communists don't use words like "liberty" to describe their ideology (or at least they haven't in my experience).
The smallest possible government is no government at all. Some minarchists or limited-government people call themselves libertarians, which is true in a relative sense.
I don't care about exploitation. I see voluntary interactions and involuntary interactions. "Exploit" can only be arbitrarily defined and unless I know exactly what you mean by "exploit" I can't address your concerns with it. Voluntary "explotation" is fine by me. Involuntary "exploitation" is wrong not because it's exploitation but because it's slavery. It's that simple.
First of all, if someone can afford it, they could get bodyguards. The owners of streets could buy police protection on their roads to keep people safe on those roads. Banks have security guards, roads can also. If you want someone else to protect you, you can buy it. If you don't, buy a rifle instead.
I live in a trailer park and security around here isn't provided by the police, the landlord is a bodybuilder and he patrols the park regularly.
Second, Government does not protect. In fact, it's the entity most likely to hurt you. All people are ineffective at defending themselves against government, even when they are effective against mutant zombie biker gangs and anything else.
So is government the solution, or is it a form of the problem itself?
No, it's not that I don't care about it, it's that I don't know about it. It's just not a high-priority thing I need to know. I'm unaware of laws pertaining to health insurance agencies and such so I can't specify how things would be made better without government intervention.
See, this is where the confusion is. I'm talking about life, you're talking about the world you live in. Your decisions make your life, they don't make your world. That appears to be where the confusion is.
As for discrimination, there's nothing wrong with it. You cannot be held back anymore than you allow yourself to be held back. MLK certainly didn't allow himself to be held back.
Besides, the government seems to have no qualms with discriminating against people that aren't "US Citizens" as they're called. That's a circumstance which you don't have total control over that people are held back for.
I wasn't expecting that. What kind? There's plenty of breeds of anarchism that all generally hate each other.
Lack of government has not caused these places to be conflict-filled shitholes. The fact that they are conflict-filled shitholes prevents government from forming. Correlation implies causation, you've got that much down, but you reversed the cause-effect relationship.
The school segregation problem was caused by the fact that the schools are a PUBLIC institution in general. Unless there was a law prohibiting private schools from desegregating, schools would only be as segregated as people wanted them to be.
Civil rights laws have caused many minorities (notably blacks) to think they are entitled to things. This entitlement mentality is not conductive to freedom whatsoever.
Suffrage wouldn't exist without government because there would be nothing to vote for.
What I have a hard time arguing, as far as Statism is concerned, is that rulers' good natures will cause them to behave in a manner that is more conductive to social cohesion and freedom than not.
We've established that. You're not a socialist. You just think the individual should give up rights for the collective good because it is somehow necessary or practical.
You're right. But I have to convince you that the side-effects of freedom are not bad.
What property does government have that makes it necessary?
How was the obligation to contribute a fair share originally imposed upon any individual?
I know damn well that dentists don't become dentists for non-profit purposes. And to my knowledge, dentistry is a form of healthcare.
Food is more necessary than healthcare and lots of companies make lots of profit by giving people food.
What service exists that by it's very nature cannot be provided in a profitable manner?
You don't need money to make money. That's really one of the big illusions about money that people still believe. Someone cannot be permanantly shut-out of something for not having enough money, because it's always possible to make more money.
Whenever you want to do something with taxpayer money, remember to use the word "theft".
Using theft (taxes) to get money to pay people not to engage in theft DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. It actually makes it worse because it tends to create a class of leeches, people who refuse to attempt to improve their own condition because they would stop recieving free money if they did so. More money has to be stolen from people to pay the others not to steal than the others would be stealing.
People do not steal because they are poor. They steal because they believe it to be rewarding. Rich people do not steal because they do not believe that stealing $20 from a guy on the street is worth the cost. Poor people steal because they believe that stealing $20 from a guy on the street is worth the cost. I've known well-to-do theives and poor people that would never steal from someone else.
Well I think we have some progess now. I didn't see any emotional responses and we're re-entering the realm of reason.
I'm well aware that what I'm saying can sound like fundamentalism. It's as fringe, extreme, and fundamentally different from everything else that people have good reason to be critical of my beliefs. But trust me, I have tried to refute anarchocapitalism every time I've considered an alternate perspective. I haven't been able to refute it yet. I keep trying because I know my life will be a lot easier when I don't have to convince people of something so radical, but I can explain every assault I've been able to think of.
The most I can do to convince is to point out the failures of government in every case, and show you obvious contradictions in the institution of the state, and offer a philosophy which solves failures of government and has no appearant contradictions (it might yet have some, I haven't found any though).
I know damn well that dentists don't become dentists for non-profit purposes. And to my knowledge, dentistry is a form of healthcare.
Food is more necessary than healthcare and lots of companies make lots of profit by giving people food.
What service exists that by it's very nature cannot be provided in a profitable manner?
I'd dispute that. It's a nice Rand-ish view of the world but I know people who became doctors because of experiences they had that had nothing to do with income. I think people are more complex than that would lead one to believe. I do believe there is such a thing as altruism. I don't belive, however, it's consistent enough to be relied upon.
Any service an be provided in a profitable manner. What I do not expect, however, is that a corporation, or partnership or trust or whatever you want to call it, will do anything other than try to maximize its profits. That's the point of them.
Hospice is not a service that lends itself to high profits, for starters. My mom works for one. She does the billing.
You don't need money to make money.
Anyone who owns a business, including me, will tell you that's not true.
That's really one of the big illusions about money that people still believe. Someone cannot be permanantly shut-out of something for not having enough money, because it's always possible to make more money.
Possible doesn't equate to probable or even likely. If someone is incapacitated, it can, indeed, become impossible for them to support themselves.
Whenever you want to do something with taxpayer money, remember to use the word "theft".
Profit is also a form of theft and if I'm going to use it for taxes then I have to use it for profit, too, because I find both uses equally innaccurate.
Using theft (taxes) to get money to pay people not to engage in theft DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. It actually makes it worse because it tends to create a class of leeches, people who refuse to attempt to improve their own condition because they would stop recieving free money if they did so. More money has to be stolen from people to pay the others not to steal than the others would be stealing.
I'm still looking for an example of this class of leeches. They don't seem to ever have any money because they're always asking for mine. "Leech" is a term born of personal annoyance and, even though I share your annoyance with the various panhandler types I encounter, I don't think it's helping either of us to use a term that defines nothing but contempt.
People do not steal because they are poor.
My book suggestion would be Manchild in the Promised Land by Claude Brown. People do, indeed, steal because they're poor. It's not the only motivation, but it definitely motivates its share of theft.
They steal because they believe it to be rewarding. Rich people do not steal because they do not believe that stealing $20 from a guy on the street is worth the cost.
No, they steal pensions and commit accounting fraud. Superior style does not equal superior morality. And rich people do, in fact, steal.
Poor people steal because they believe that stealing $20 from a guy on the street is worth the cost. I've known well-to-do theives and poor people that would never steal from someone else.
So have I. In fact, I'd wager that most of the people I know wouldn't steal from anyone. I'm sure it's the same for you and everyone else, really.
Well I think we have some progess now. I didn't see any emotional responses and we're re-entering the realm of reason.
I'm well aware that what I'm saying can sound like fundamentalism. It's as fringe, extreme, and fundamentally different from everything else that people have good reason to be critical of my beliefs. But trust me, I have tried to refute anarchocapitalism every time I've considered an alternate perspective. I haven't been able to refute it yet. I keep trying because I know my life will be a lot easier when I don't have to convince people of something so radical, but I can explain every assault I've been able to think of.
LMAO, I know how that goes. Sometimes it's a bitch when something makes sense to you. I get that, too. It's the inherent comedy of life: Everyone bungles through trying to find something that makes sense and hopes that finding it will make life easier. You find it and, next thing you know, you have to defend it constantly.
I'm enjoying this exchange, by the way. You do defend your positions well.
The most I can do to convince is to point out the failures of government in every case, and show you obvious contradictions in the institution of the state, and offer a philosophy which solves failures of government and has no appearant contradictions (it might yet have some, I haven't found any though).
I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that every government action has been a failure. Oh, there are so many contradictions in the institution of state but I don't find any fewer in the free market. I seriously doubt we're ever going to convert one another but I think this conversation has its own inherent worth thus far.