America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

Why would you opt out of something essential? That doesn't make any sense.

The role of government is defence of rights.

You suggested the option opting out certain purchases. Healthcare, roads, police, firedepartment are kind of essential to opt out. What roles do you suggest the government do not take?

 

[Famine]

You suggested the option opting out certain purchases.

No, I stated that one could opt out of purchases, in response to your comment that "at least government is elected" as if that's some kind of benefit to a government taking over roles it has no business taking over.

One cannot opt out of paying government for a product or service it has no business being involved in. One can opt out of paying a company for a produce or service it provides if you do not want it.

Healthcare, roads, police, firedepartment are kind of essential to opt out.

Nope. An essential is something you absolutely cannot survive without.

What roles do you suggest the government do not take?

The role of government is defence of rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, I stated that one could opt out of purchases, in response to your comment that "at least government is elected" as if that's some kind of benefit to a government taking over roles it has no business taking over.

One cannot opt out of paying government for a product or service it has no business being involved in. One can opt out of paying a company for a produce or service it provides if you do not want it.

Nope. An essential is something you absolutely cannot survive without.

The role of government is defence of rights.

The premise I suggested, that with less government, corporations will take on certain roles. Which roles we both did not define. That is why I was exploring what you meant with "opt out". Certain public roles provide services/products for its citizens. With less government these services/products would be run by corporations.

I wrongly used essential, I meant more in the sense of important.

Which roles should the government not take anymore, that do not have to do with defence of rights? For example the role of oversight and regulation of financial markets? Infrastructure? Healthcare? Social security?

 

[Famine]

The premise I suggested, that with less government, corporations will take on certain roles. Which roles we both did not define. That is why I was exploring what you meant with "opt out".

"Opt out" means "opt out". If someone does not want to be part of something - both in terms of benefitting from or contributing to - they should not be forced to be part of it.

Certain public roles provide services/products for its citizens. With less government these services/products would be run by corporations.

Yes, that is the general idea.

I wrongly used essential, I meant more in the sense of important.

What's important is up to the individual. That's why they should be allowed to opt in and opt out, not be forced in with no ability to opt out. Government does the latter.

Which roles should the government not take anymore, that do not have to do with defence of rights?

None, because the role of government is defence of rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

None, because the role of government is defence of rights.

Could you define that a little more detailed? Which roles should they keep and which not.

 

[Famine]

Could you define that a little more detailed? Which roles should they keep and which not.

Government should keep roles that defend rights, and not those which do not, because the role of government is defence of rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Government should keep roles that defend rights, and not those which do not, because the role of government is defence of rights.

​

Please elaborate which parts of government are dedicated to the role of defence of rights and which not. That isnt a difficult question. "defence of rights"is much too vague.

 

[Famine]

Please elaborate which parts of government are dedicated to the role of defence of rights and which not.

The ones which exist to defend rights do, the ones which are not do no.

That isnt a difficult question.

It's not a complex answer either, given that it has actually preceded the question...

"defence of rights"is much too vague.

Really? Seems pretty specific to me.

 

[PocketZeven]

The ones which exist to defend rights do, the ones which are not do no.

It's not a complex answer either, given that it has actually preceded the question...

Really? Seems pretty specific to me.

Nope not really. Not really sure why your struggling to answer my question. But have a good weekend anyways.

 

[Famine]

Not really sure why your struggling to answer my question.

I'm not. I've answered it five times.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not. I've answered it five times.

Nope. I asked you for details, elaborating and defining the first answer. Repeating the answer does not answer the follow up questions. Doesnt matter, I am not even sure you know the answers.

 

[Famine]

Nope. I asked you for details, elaborating and defining the first answer. Repeating the answer does not answer the follow up questions. Doesnt matter, I am not even sure you know the answers.

It's literally as specific as it gets. The role of government is to defend rights. That's your definition. Anything it does more than that is not the role of government. That's your elaboration.

I answered it before you even asked, but you've asked it again and again anyway.

Think of a thing a government can do. Is that thing defending someone's rights? If the answer is "yes", it's a valid role of government. If the answer is "no", it is not. I absolutely cannot help you if you do not understand this concept.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's literally as specific as it gets. The role of government is to defend rights. That's your definition. Anything it does more than that is not the role of government. That's your elaboration.

I answered it before you even asked, but you've asked it again and again anyway.

Think of a thing a government can do. Is that thing defending someone's rights? If the answer is "yes", it's a valid role of government. If the answer is "no", it is not. I absolutely cannot help you if you do not understand this concept.

If you cant define it in more detail then just say so. So Infrastructure, healthcare and social security are in your opinion better off in a for-profit model run by corporations?

 

[Famine]

If you cant define it in more detail then just say so.

It doesn't get any more detailed. And I did say so... in the post you just quoted:

It's literally as specific as it gets.

So Infrastructure, healthcare and social security are in your opinion better off in a for-profit model run by corporations?

Think of a thing a government can do. Is that thing defending someone's rights? If the answer is "yes", it's a valid role of government. If the answer is "no", it is not. I absolutely cannot help you if you do not understand this concept.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's literally as specific as it gets. The role of government is to defend rights. That's your definition. Anything it does more than that is not the role of government. That's your elaboration.

I answered it before you even asked, but you've asked it again and again anyway.

Think of a thing a government can do. Is that thing defending someone's rights? If the answer is "yes", it's a valid role of government. If the answer is "no", it is not. I absolutely cannot help you if you do not understand this concept.

This level of libertarian Puritanism will never happen anywhere, ever. Not even Houston, Texas.

 

[PocketZeven]

It doesn't get any more detailed. And I did say so... in the post you just quoted:

This level of libertarian Puritanism will never happen anywhere, ever. Not even Houston, Texas.

I guess we should all just live under the monopoly of 1 large corporation, as long as they're not violating our rights.

 

[Famine]

I guess we should all just live under the monopoly of 1 large corporation

There's an impressive irony in that sentence. It shouldn't escape you.

as long as they're not violating our rights.

Sounds good.

If no-one's rights are being violated, what's the issue?

 

[ryzno]

I guess we should all just live under the monopoly of 1 large corporation, as long as they're not violating our rights.

Sounds like our government.

 

[Famine]

Sounds like our government.

Well, up to the last bit at least

 

[PocketZeven]

There's an impressive irony in that sentence. It shouldn't escape you.

Sounds good.

If no-one's rights are being violated, what's the issue?

What Irony? I already adressed the main difference between a corporation and government.

A lot of issues actually:
poverty, exploitation, deaths because of no healthcare or druguse, racism, sexism, more and more uneducated people etc.

Sounds like our government.

If you remove the part, you can elect the people in government and the seperation of powers, then yes. A corporation is for profit and has free reign without oversight to exploit (as long rights arent violated). Survival of the fittest essentially

 

[Famine]

What Irony? I already adressed the main difference between a corporation and government.

So did I - you can't opt out of paying government. No matter how much they creep their mission, powers and roles, you can't go shop elsewhere. They own you.

A lot of issues actually:
poverty, exploitation, deaths because of no healthcare or druguse, racism, sexism, more and more uneducated people etc.

And it's your contention that a government is required to solve these things and no company can employ people fairly, treat their illnesses, educate them...?

A corporation is for profit and has free reign without oversight to exploit (as long rights arent violated).

Can one exploit without violating rights?

Are you aware of a type of company known as "a charity"?

 

[Danoff]

A lot of issues actually:
poverty, exploitation, deaths because of no healthcare or druguse, racism, sexism, more and more uneducated people etc.

Let's try @Famine's test here:

Poverty... is it violating someone's rights to be poor? No. Not a role of government
Exploitation... is it violating someone's rights to be exploited? Depends on what you mean by exploited... so possibly a role of government.
Healthcare... is it violating someone's rights to have no healthcare? No. Not a role of government.
Racism... is it violating someone's rights to be racist? No. Not a role of government.
Sexism... is it violating someone's rights to be sexist? No. Not a role of government.
Uneducated people... is it violating someone's rights to be uneducated? Yes if you're a child. Possibly a role of government...

In that last case, it'd be the role of government to either compel parents to provide education or find parents who can.

 

[mustafur]

So this is why I say Libertarian's live in a fantasy world, because basically none of it will work in reality because the public isn't going to accept it.

It's a dream that only .01% of the population want, when it requires a Majority to actually even be implemented.

It also has the" It'll work out" approach to the disabled the elderly, I'm sure no one will have any issues with that..

 

[TenEightyOne]

What Irony? I already adressed the main difference between a corporation and government...poverty, exploitation, deaths because of no healthcare or druguse, racism, sexism, more and more uneducated people etc

Surely corporations can do all that too?

 

[Famine]

So this is why I say Libertarian's live in a fantasy world, because basically none of it will work in reality because the public isn't going to accept it.

Yeah, those idiots, thinking that governments should interfere in the smallest possibly way in everyone's lives and exist to defend and preserve rights.

It's a dream that only .01% of the population want

Interestingly unfounded number.

when it requires a Majority to actually even be implemented

Something something tyranny of the majority something.

It also has the" It'll work out" approach to the disabled the elderly

Ahahahahaha, like "oh the government will look after them" isn't literally just that, and people don't just ship off the elderly to retirement homes so they don't have to take any responsibility for it themselves?

 

[mustafur]

Yeah, those idiots, thinking that governments should interfere in the smallest possibly way in everyone's lives and exist to defend and preserve rights.

Yeah sure but without a pathway to reality on how it can be implemented it's a dream.

Interestingly unfounded number.

Well yeah It was an obvious exaggerated number.

like "oh the government will look after them" isn't literally just that, and people don't just ship off the elderly to retirement homes so they don't have to take any responsibility for it themselves?

Not all elderly go to retirement homes, they also have access to healthcare in basically every first world country(even America mind you).

Not everyone has kids to look after them when they get old.

I also wonder what the Libertarian's response is to Veterans, Kick them to the curb once they have served their purpose(defend your rights) or have their medical issues part of the Military expense(don't want to let the government get too big now do we).

 

[Famine]

Yeah sure but without a pathway to reality on how it can be implemented it's a dream.

And?

Also, there is a pathway.

Well yeah It was an obvious exaggerated number.

Indeed.

Not all elderly go to retirement homes, they also have access to healthcare in basically every first world country(even America mind you)

"Not all" Love it.

Not everyone has kids to look after them when they get old.

Yes, that does seem to be obvious also.

I also wonder what the Libertarian's response is to Veterans, Kick them to the curb once they have served their purpose(defend your rights) or have their medical issues part of the Military expense(don't want to let the government get too big now do we).

You could probably find out by checking the various parties' manifestos.

 

[Exorcet]

I also wonder what the Libertarian's response is to Veterans, Kick them to the curb once they have served their purpose(defend your rights) or have their medical issues part of the Military expense(don't want to let the government get too big now do we).

I mean you have to pay them. If they want some of that in form of benefits post service, it doesn't really make a difference.

 

[Danoff]

So this is why I say Libertarian's live in a fantasy world, because basically none of it will work in reality because the public isn't going to accept it.

It's a dream that only .01% of the population want, when it requires a Majority to actually even be implemented.

It also has the" It'll work out" approach to the disabled the elderly, I'm sure no one will have any issues with that..

Do you remember how we got here? People complaining about lobbying. The irony is that it's the non-libertarian ideal that has to cope with corporations trying to use force against you (lobbying). Interesting turnabout.

Edit:

Also, we've been through this before, but people in need of charity rely on others to help them either way. In one version, it's voluntary. And in the other version, people point guns at people to help other people... charity of violence if you will.

 

[Rallywagon]

Do you remember how we got here? People complaining about lobbying. The irony is that it's the non-libertarian ideal that has to cope with corporations trying to use force against you (lobbying). Interesting turnabout.

Edit:

Also, we've been through this before, but people in need of charity rely on others to help them either way. In one version, it's voluntary. And in the other version, people point guns at people to help other people... charity of violence if you will.

Charity of violence? I mean, if we are talking about choice making, couldn't one just make the choice to learn another language and go live where they find the laws and regulations more fitting to their whims?