Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

You're forgetting one thing, though. The enforcement behind the laws are also important -- something I feel Libertarians are against because it contradicts their belief of "victimless crimes".

Not in the slightest. Law enforcement is a proper role of government and should be quite efficient. Police must be able to track down and apprehend criminals quickly and powerfully - which is all the more reason to make sure that we define criminal properly.

If we're talking about the extremist "anarcho-capitalists", no -- they don't want any government at all (not even for national defense!!!).

That's anarchy and it doesn't work. It's not me so don't use it to argue against my points.

So any force for the benefit of others is bad, except when it comes to children...

Children must be protected from their parents. Just like adults must be protected from other adults. There is no hypocracy or inconsistency here.

Answer me this, is it acceptible to shoot one innocent person to save another? How about just chopping off their leg, can you chop off an innocent person's leg to save another person? Poke out an eye perhaps? Just take a finger?

How can two wrongs make a right?

Even with Libertarian laws too -- so what's makes our current laws any different?

We have laws that say things like, you can smoke this particular plant but not that one over there. And you can buy alcohol on this day at this time, but not on this other day. Laws that are unnecessarily restrictive because a few people thought they knew what was best for everyone else.

They aren't already...in your opinion?

No. Have you read the full tax code? Do you even know how many laws exist? There are laws that say things like, you can't shoot a buffalo out of a second story window. We have laws that say you can't hire or fire someone just because of their gender or weight (ehem, uh hooters?). No, they're not reviewed carefully.

Blue = Perhaps...

Perhaps? Perhaps laws should be necessary? Perhaps laws should be passed that everyone must follow that are not necessary? Perhaps it is ok to pass a law just because you think it might be a good idea?

 

[Duke]

History would also suggest that people with more money have more power (slaveowner vs slave, landlord vs tenant, noble vs serf)...

...all of which (with the possible exception of landlord/tenant) involved direct violations of the disadvantaged persons physical rights, by violence or direct threat of violence.

Those rights, if you'll recall, are inalienable and are protected by law in a Libertarian society.

So while you are correct in noting the effect of power concentrating into the hands of the wealthy, you are incorrect in assigning the blame to a Libertarian system, since in fact none existed at that time.

You're forgetting one thing, though. The enforcement behind the laws are also important -- something I feel Libertarians are against because it contradicts their belief of "victimless crimes".

You are somehow still confused about what Libertarians believe.

We do believe in the enforcement of laws. In fact, I'll wager that the average Libertarian believes in enforcement that is just as strict if not even more strict than the average Republican. I really don't understand where you've got the unshakable idea that we don't believe in the enforcement of laws. It's clear whenever you bring up the topic of prison and how prison "takes away the freedom of the people in it" that there is a fundamental disonnect in your understanding.

We definitely believe in strict and consistent enforcement of laws. That's why we think that the decision of what becomes law should be made with utmost care and maximum concern for freedom consistent with the protection of every individual's rights.

If we're talking about minarchists like yourself, then yes. If we're talking about the extremist "anarcho-capitalists", no -- they don't want any government at all (not even for national defense!!!).

Those are only Libertarians by your definition. Not by Libertarians' definition. You're describing something that is patently not Libertarianism, and then using that as an example of Why Libertarianism Is Really Really Bad.

So any force for the benefit of others is bad, except when it comes to children...

Ummm, no. See my spiel about 'enforcement' above. Not all force is bad. But force initiated against others who have not used force themselves is bad. Using force against others means you forfeit your right to protection from force being used against you.

Even with Libertarian laws too -- so what's makes our current laws any different?

Laws are made to be enforced, in both Libertarian and status quo systems. What makes our current laws different is the immensely complicated, inconsistent, illogically intrusive nature of the vast majority of our current legal system... much of it derived from the attempt to legislate morality throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Dan cited some great examples. Did you know that oral sex is illegal in SEVEN states, even between partners in a legally married couple? Why in the name of trees is that law on the books? What possible justification can there be for such a pervasive and invasive level of interference in the private lives of citizens? And that's only one broad example. It's also illegal to carry ice cream in your back pocket in Ohio, among literally thousands if equally idiotic examples. And there are plenty that are not so obviously idiotic, but much more ubiquitously invasive.

They aren't already...in your opinion?

See the examples above. Do you even have to ask?

 

[Swift]

Well Duke, I don't always agree with what you say. But you've got a pretty decent argument there. Especially about stupid laws. I think there is still on that you have to hold a red flag out infront of your car. But I forget which state that is.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Not in the slightest. Law enforcement is a proper role of government and should be quite efficient. Police must be able to track down and apprehend criminals quickly and powerfully - which is all the more reason to make sure that we define criminal properly.

Criminal is not properly defined in the context of Libertarianism because of so-called "victimless crimes".

Answer me this, is it acceptible to shoot one innocent person to save another?

No.

How about just chopping off their leg, can you chop off an innocent person's leg to save another person?

No.

Poke out an eye perhaps? Just take a finger?

No.

How can two wrongs make a right?

It depends on the situation.

We have laws that say things like, you can smoke this particular plant but not that one over there. And you can buy alcohol on this day at this time, but not on this other day. Laws that are unnecessarily restrictive because a few people thought they knew what was best for everyone else.

You're only saying that because you believe our current government system is too complex. Guess what? Our government is too complex, because society is too complex. I said this before, eliminating or drastically reducing government is not a panacea to societal issues.

No. Have you read the full tax code? Do you even know how many laws exist? There are laws that say things like, you can't shoot a buffalo out of a second story window. We have laws that say you can't hire or fire someone just because of their gender or weight (ehem, uh hooters?). No, they're not reviewed carefully.

If laws like the one I just highlighted didn't exist, discrimination would be even more prevalent.

Perhaps? Perhaps laws should be necessary? Perhaps laws should be passed that everyone must follow that are not necessary? Perhaps it is ok to pass a law just because you think it might be a good idea?

In a democratic society, the people get the government they deserve. If people took a decidely "conservative" path, we wouldn't have unnecessary laws.

...all of which (with the possible exception of landlord/tenant) involved direct violations of the disadvantaged persons physical rights, by violence or direct threat of violence.

That is correct -- in an unrestricted market economy (at least in the case of the slaves).

Those rights, if you'll recall, are inalienable and are protected by law in a Libertarian society.

Without enforcement, laws are just words.

So while you are correct in noting the effect of power concentrating into the hands of the wealthy, you are incorrect in assigning the blame to a Libertarian system, since in fact none existed at that time.

I blamed the economic aspect of Libertarianism. History shows that countries with Libertarian economics (or as close to it as possible) tend to be in favor of the rich (see my essay for more details).

We do believe in the enforcement of laws. In fact, I'll wager that the average Libertarian believes in enforcement that is just as strict if not even more strict than the average Republican. I really don't understand where you've got the unshakable idea that we don't believe in the enforcement of laws. It's clear whenever you bring up the topic of prison and how prison "takes away the freedom of the people in it" that there is a fundamental disonnect in your understanding.

That's because there's conflicting principles... on the one hand you don't believe in force, yet you would liberally initiate force to uphold the law? That's the same problem I have with liberals -- they believe in abortion, yet they are against the death penalty. Either force is good or force is bad.

We definitely believe in strict and consistent enforcement of laws. That's why we think that the decision of what becomes law should be made with utmost care and maximum concern for freedom consistent with the protection of every individual's rights.

Strict enforcement of laws = force = opposite of freedom.
Freedom = no force = weak enforcement of laws.

Those are only Libertarians by your definition. Not by Libertarians' definition. You're describing something that is patently not Libertarianism, and then using that as an example of Why Libertarianism Is Really Really Bad.

Then how else would you explain how some Libertarians believe in some government and how others believe in no government?

Not all force is bad. But force initiated against others who have not used force themselves is bad.

Even if it's indirect force? There are too many loopholes in that...

Using force against others means you forfeit your right to protection from force being used against you.

So under a Libertarian government, I would forefeit my right to protection if I physically prevented a friend of mine from committing suicide? Like I said, too many loopholes -- which is exactly why our government is so complex. A complex government for a complex society.

Laws are made to be enforced, in both Libertarian and status quo systems. What makes our current laws different is the immensely complicated, inconsistent, illogically intrusive nature of the vast majority of our current legal system... much of it derived from the attempt to legislate morality throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Complicated laws for a complicated society. You cannot enforce simple laws onto a complicated society because you will leave open too many loopholes.

Dan cited some great examples. Did you know that oral sex is illegal in SEVEN states, even between partners in a legally married couple? Why in the name of trees is that law on the books? What possible justification can there be for such a pervasive and invasive level of interference in the private lives of citizens?

I was not aware of this law. However, I can almost guarantee that the majority of the people who live in these states live in primary social environments.

And that's only one broad example. It's also illegal to carry ice cream in your back pocket in Ohio, among literally thousands if equally idiotic examples. And there are plenty that are not so obviously idiotic, but much more ubiquitously invasive.

Now you're just nitpicking... trying to find any excuse to make government look like this omnipotent force that needs to either be drastically reduced or pratically eliminated. When was the last time you've heard of a law enforcement agent arrest someone for carrying ice cream in their back pocket? That was probably a law that was created when drugs were legal in the United States -- though I won't get into that here.

See the examples above. Do you even have to ask?

I only wanted his opinion on the matter.

Well Duke, I don't always agree with what you say. But you've got a pretty decent argument there.

Read mine next!

Especially about stupid laws. I think there is still on that you have to hold a red flag out infront of your car. But I forget which state that is.

Read what I said about a democratic society and government.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Libertarian Essay II

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that there are (in my opinion) two different types of Libertarians. There are the "minarchists" who believe in a "minimum" amount of government intervention (in terms of economics at least), and then there are the radical "anarcho-capitalists" that place the market above all else. This essay is addressed to the latter.

Earlier, I stated that Communists and Libertarians were very similar, yet very different. Their differences are quite obvious:

Communism/Libertarianism:

• Property is theft; it belongs to everyone / Property is sacred; it belongs to me
• Totalitarianism; the government knows what's best / Anarchy; any government is evil
• Capitalists are cannibals / Capitalists are noble
• The poor are oppressed; the market is not equitable / The poor are sheltered; the market creates equity
  
  Their similarities on the other hand are bit more difficult to determine. Communists in the late 19th and early 20th century are similar to the Libertarians of today and here's why in my opinion:
  
  There was no nation that practiced pure Communism, just as today there is no nation that practices pure Libertarianism. As a result, these theoretically untested political systems have excellent rhetorical appeal because technically we can't see any evidence of it, or point out its faults. Communists (at the time) and Libertarians, however, seem to be skeptical about everything that has been established. For the Communist, it's capitalism; for the Libertarian, it's government.
  
  Speaking of government, the libertarianism that historically has any effect in the world almost always involves easing governmental restrictions on business. For example, during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, businesses in the United States could essentially do whatever it chose to do -- and with few (if any) governmental restrictions, it did just that. The end result? Industrial age robber barons amassing millions while others lived in tenament housing, huge monopolies (or trusts as they were euphamistically referred to as), omnipotent corporate management that crushed labor unions, diseased rats in our meat (read: Upton Sinclair's The Jungle), slavery, imperialism (in support of corporate interests), a 22-25% unemployment rate, and thousands of bank closures.
  
  Another example of Libertarian economics is the economic system of Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed like my avatar. Russian GDP fell 50% in 5 years, they no formal banking system, no anti-monopoly regulation, or any form of assistance for the unemployed or the elderly. Inflation hit over 2,000% in 1992. Obviously, all of the economic liberalization under Yeltsin is what led to these issues. Now, with Putin, Russia is slowly moving back to authoritarianism.
  
  In my opinion, the best example of Libertarian economics is Chile under the dictator Pinochet. In 20 years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, the healthcare system was privatized (which led to typhoid fever epidemics between 1977-1986), unions were crushed (that sounds familiar...), military spending skyrocketed, and the poverty rate doubled. Although there were periods of rapid economic growth and rapid decline, between 1974 and 1982 Chile averaged a 1.5% growth rate.
  
  I will agree with the Libertarians on one thing, though. The free-market economy is very efficient when it comes to deciding what is to be produced and how it is distributed (unlike Socialism/Communism etc.). However, unrestricted markets are not equitable because they do not address issues such as the environment, racism, working conditions, corruption, monopolies, bureaucracies (in business not government), and social services.
  
  It is my belief that that politcal philosophy should offer a postive outlook, benefit an entire population, and produce greater prosperity and freedom for all -- Libertarianism does none of these.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, that was much worse than your last essay!

Speaking of government, the libertarianism that historically has any effect in the world almost always involves easing governmental restrictions on business. For example, during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, businesses in the United States could essentially do whatever it chose to do -- and with few (if any) governmental restrictions, it did just that. The end result? Industrial age robber barons amassing millions while others lived in tenament housing, huge monopolies (or trusts as they were euphamistically referred to as), omnipotent corporate management that crushed labor unions, diseased rats in our meat (read: Upton Sinclair's The Jungle),

Yea, the US did pretty badly during the industrial revolution. It was a period of time that brought us from being a third world mudhole to a world force to be reckoned with. It was a period of extrodinary growth in the economy. It was our teenage years as a country - we grew rapidly but we had little experience as a nation.

Your attempt to stamp the industrial revolution as a terrible time in our country's history is doomed to failure.

There was no nation that practiced pure Communism, just as today there is no nation that practices pure Libertarianism. As a result, these theoretically untested political systems have excellent rhetorical appeal because technically we can't see any evidence of it, or point out its faults.

Sure, that’s a similarity. They also both end in “ism”.

Communists (at the time) and Libertarians, however, seem to be skeptical about everything that has been established. For the Communist, it's capitalism; for the Libertarian, it's government.

This isn’t true. Libertarians are not skeptical about capitalism since it has been prove to work well. It’s interesting that you say communists are skeptical about something libertarians aren’t, and then say that they are similar since they are skeptical of everything. Communists by the way are not skeptical of government.

Speaking of government, the libertarianism that historically has any effect in the world almost always involves easing governmental restrictions on business. For example, during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, businesses in the United States could essentially do whatever it chose to do -- and with few (if any) governmental restrictions, it did just that. The end result? Industrial age…

Exactly, the industrial age. A massive boom for our country that lifted us out of our pathetic existence and led the world in progress.

robber barons amassing millions while others lived in tenament housing, huge

Just because you call them “robber barons” doesn’t make this bad.

monopolies (or trusts as they were euphamistically referred to as),

Establish which monopolies existed, how they had no competition and make sure to indicate that they had no government help in becoming a monopoly.

omnipotent corporate management that crushed labor unions,

Good.

diseased rats in our meat (read: Upton Sinclair's The Jungle),

Read fiction (anti-capitalist fiction by the way).

slavery,

Wait, slavery was caused by capitalism? Not seeing it.

imperialism (in support of corporate interests),

hmmm?

a 22-25% unemployment rate, and thousands of bank closures.

What was the unemployment rate prior to the industrial revolution.

Another example of Libertarian economics is the economic system of Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed like my avatar. Russian GDP fell 50% in 5 years, they no formal banking system, no anti-monopoly regulation, or any form of assistance for the unemployed or the elderly. Inflation hit over 2,000% in 1992. Obviously, all of the economic liberalization under Yeltsin is what led to these issues. Now, with Putin, Russia is slowly moving back to authoritarianism.

Oh yes, Putin has been doing wonderful things. Putin is our hero right? Give me a break.

You cite post-Soviet RUSSIA as an example of capitalist failings?

In my opinion, the best example of Libertarian economics is Chile under the dictator Pinochet. In 20 years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, the healthcare system was privatized (which led to typhoid fever epidemics between 1977-1986), unions were crushed (that sounds familiar...), military spending skyrocketed, and the poverty rate doubled. Although there were periods of rapid economic growth and rapid decline, between 1974 and 1982 Chile averaged a 1.5% growth rate.

Yes well, Chile is also a fantastic example of a libertarian government, except it isn’t. I’d like to see how libertarianism leads to increased military spending, or an increase in national debt… which natural resources were wasted? I’d like to see how libertarianism makes it profitable to go waste natural resources. I can’t quite see the market interests wasting resources.

But some libertarian policies of Chile have worked famously – their social security system is dismantled at this point because everyone chose not to use it. They’re getting along quite well with that. I posted an article about that – which you failed to include in you essay (rant).

I will agree with the Libertarians on one thing, though. The free-market economy is very efficient when it comes to deciding what is to be produced and how it is distributed (unlike Socialism/Communism etc.).

👍

However, unrestricted markets are not equitable because they do not address issues such as the environment, racism, working conditions, corruption, monopolies, bureaucracies (in business not government), and social services.

The market is supposed to address racism? How does it not address working condition, corruption or monopolies? I think the market does these things extraordinarily well. Working condition are improved by competition for labor. Corruption is found and removed by the negative impact it has on the company’s competitive edge. Monopolies are made by governments and destroyed by competition.

It is my belief that that politcal philosophy should offer a postive outlook, benefit an entire population, and produce greater prosperity and freedom for all -- Libertarianism does none of these.

Libertarianism does all of those.

Strict enforcement of laws = force = opposite of freedom.
Freedom = no force = weak enforcement of laws.

You’re obviously still missing something. I don’t know what exactly but this is so incredibly dead wrong. Libertarians are all about strict enforcement of law. It helps protect our freedom from those who prove they do not deserve it.

Force is not the opposite of freedom, freedom does not mean no force. To be truly free our rights must be protected, which means the law must be enforced

 

[Swift]

You’re obviously still missing something. I don’t know what exactly but this is so incredibly dead wrong. Libertarians are all about strict enforcement of law. It helps protect our freedom from those who prove they do not deserve it.

Force is not the opposite of freedom, freedom does not mean no force. To be truly free our rights must be protected, which means the law must be enforced

Wow, so all men are created equal, but not really? Some people deserve freedom and some don't? How does that work?

 

[Danoff]

Wow, so all men are created equal, but not really? Some people deserve freedom and some don't? How does that work?

Easy, you do not deserve freedom if you infringe someone else's rights.


So, let's say you murder someone. You have infringed their rights and deserve to be in prison.

I don't see what's complicated about that.

 

[Swift]

Easy, you do not deserve freedom if you infringe someone else's rights.


So, let's say you murder someone. You have infringed their rights and deserve to be in prison.

I don't see what's complicated about that.

Not a thing. Until you look a the way the laws are setup.

Here's the challenge with Libertarianism. It would require a fundamental shift in our entire country that would be near impossible. Everything, and I mean everything would have to change. Some of what you say is very good and logical. Others of it is simply cold heartless and cruel for a gov't founded of the people, by the people and for the people.

 

[Danoff]

Here's the challenge with Libertarianism. It would require a fundamental shift in our entire country that would be near impossible. Everything, and I mean everything would have to change. Some of what you say is very good and logical. Others of it is simply cold heartless and cruel for a gov't founded of the people, by the people and for the people.

You think it's cruel to one person, I think it's cruel to another.

Let's take health care for example.

You think it's cruel to turn someone away from a dental appointment or a routine wart removal or a sick visit because they can't afford it. I think it's cruel to force a doctor to provide that service for free.

You think it's cruel because the doctor should just be nice - so you think it's ok to force him to be nice.

I think it's cruel because it's not the doctor's fault that the patient couldn't pay for health care, it's the patient's fault - and he's getting corresponding services for what he earned - nothing. On the otherhand making the doctor offer services for free is slavery.


It's all in your point of view. You think it's cruel not to force charity. I think it's cruel to do so.

 

[Swift]

You think it's cruel to one person, I think it's cruel to another.

Let's take health care for example.

You think it's cruel to turn someone away from a dental appointment or a routine wart removal or a sick visit because they can't afford it. I think it's cruel to force a doctor to provide that service for free.

You think it's cruel because the doctor should just be nice - so you think it's ok to force him to be nice.

I think it's cruel because it's not the doctor's fault that the patient couldn't pay for health care, it's the patient's fault - and he's getting corresponding services for what he earned - nothing. On the otherhand making the doctor offer services for free is slavery.


It's all in your point of view. You think it's cruel not to force charity. I think it's cruel to do so.

Ok, now what if that routine check would have discovered cancer, emphasima or some other disease and could've been treated. But instead, they get turned away, come back in two years with a golfball size tumor. As far as healthcare goes, I think it's LUDICROUS that we should have to pay for it at all. If we have the ability to help people with there health problems we should. I'm not talking about cosmetic surgery because people think they look old and junk like that. But dang, I should be able to get a physical every year and Not have to worry about it. Women should be able to get a papsmear done at least once a year. And stuff like that. I honestly wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I knew my healthcare wasn't going to be an issue.

 

[Duke]

I had a huge answer typed up, and I lost it. Frankly, Brian is going so far out of his way to purposely misunderstand what Libertarianism is that I don't think I can bring myself to bother right now. Perhaps I'll feel like it later.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, now what if that routine check would have discovered cancer, emphasima or some other disease and could've been treated. But instead, they get turned away, come back in two years with a golfball size tumor. As far as healthcare goes, I think it's LUDICROUS that we should have to pay for it at all. If we have the ability to help people with there health problems we should. I'm not talking about cosmetic surgery because people think they look old and junk like that. But dang, I should be able to get a physical every year and Not have to worry about it. Women should be able to get a papsmear done at least once a year. And stuff like that. I honestly wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I knew my healthcare wasn't going to be an issue.

You don't mind paying for your healthcare. Fine. But how much healthcare are you willing to pay for? That's a personal choice. If we nationalize healthcare then you don't have a choice how much you have to pay for.

The way you put it, "we have the ability to help people" and so we should right? Yes, we have the ability to help them - but why does that mean that it should be free? Is food free? No. You need it, but you pay for it on your own. Why do you want to force everyone to pay for everyone else's health care? It creates a system where the sickest benefit the most and the healthy pay way more than their share. Should we pealize people for being healthy and reward people for being sick? That's the system you propose - its inequitable.

 

[ledhed]

So why nationalize it ? Why must everything be one extreme or another ? Why cant healthcare be subsidized by a national dedicated tax so that everyone is guaranteed care ?
You can always choose to buy a different doctor if you can afford it . If you cant you use the state provided care. Put up a national refferendum spelling out the program and vote on it . Screw putting the government in charge ..let them write checks to the private sector to administer it. Its not a one or the other or all or none proposition . The screw ball system in place now sucks so change it.
i look at education and healthcare as a perfect place for government intervention. An investment in society that helps keep the biggest asset of a country ITS PEOPLE in servicable working order . Its a capitalist idea to protect and nurture your assets is it not ?

 

[Danoff]

So why nationalize it ? Why must everything be one extreme or another ? Why cant healthcare be subsidized by a national dedicated tax so that everyone is guaranteed care ?
You can always choose to buy a different doctor if you can afford it . If you cant you use the state provided care. Put up a national refferendum spelling out the program and vote on it . Screw putting the government in charge ..let them write checks to the private sector to administer it. Its not a one or the other or all or none proposition . The screw ball system in place now sucks so change it.
i look at education and healthcare as a perfect place for government intervention. An investment in society that helps keep the biggest asset of a country ITS PEOPLE in servicable working order . Its a capitalist idea to protect and nurture your assets is it not ?

I oppose this on moral grounds.

Why should I (or doctors or whoever) be forced to pay for someone because they refused to save for healthcare costs? Do you have a right to basic health care? If not, you can't morally force everyone else to pay for it. If so, why? What gives you that right? Do you have a right to food? Do you have a right to housing?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I oppose this on moral grounds.

Why should I (or doctors or whoever) be forced to pay for someone because they refused to save for healthcare costs? Do you have a right to basic health care? If not, you can't morally force everyone else to pay for it. If so, why? What gives you that right? Do you have a right to food? Do you have a right to housing?

Let's see -- yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare costs? You've just created an epidemic of typhoid fever.

You don't want to pay for someone else's food? You've just doubled the crime rate, and tripled death rate due to starvation.

You don't want to pay for someone else's housing? You've just quadrupled the crime rate because now you have millions of people living on the streets, begging for food while the wealthy landowners and corporations exploit the abundance of labor by lowering wages (because there's no more minimum wage by the way).

Libertarianism is not the answer for our society.

 

[Danoff]

Let's see -- yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare costs? You've just created an epidemic of typhoid fever.

You don't want to pay for someone else's food? You've just doubled the crime rate, and tripled death rate due to starvation.

You don't want to pay for someone else's housing? You've just quadrupled the crime rate because now you have millions of people living on the streets, begging for food while the wealthy landowners and corporations exploit the abundance of labor by lowering wages (because there's no more minimum wage by the way).

Libertarianism is not the answer for our society.

Nonsense. Your answer to all of those questions is yes? I have a right to have food provided to me, or to have housing provided to me, or medical care? That's absurd.

If I don't pay for someone's food I cased them to starve? I don't see how it is my responsibility if they starve. It is their responsibility to provide food for themselves. They don't own me, I owe them nothing. I'll donate to charity if I wish.

So let's take a hypothetical.

Somebody doesn't earn money for food. He's starving in the streets and nobody will give him food.... I walk up and he asks for money. I say no. He dies of starvation.

I killed him? I'm responsible for his death? He takes no responsibility to provide for himsef?

That's about the most back-assward way you can possibly see things.

(btw: you're required by law to immunize your kids... YOU immunize your kids as in YOU pay for it)

 

[ledhed]

Danoff you do not oppose taxes to pay for others to go out and fight wars to protect you when you can decide to do it for yourself or police to protect you from criminals so why not doctors to protect you from disease ? Not everyone chooses to get sick . They get ' invaded " by disease . Soldiers and police protect us from bullets and bombs and theft of property ( or try to ) doctors and nurses from germs and theft of our health .

 

[Danoff]

Danoff you do not oppose taxes to pay for others to go out and fight wars to protect you when you can decide to do it for yourself or police to protect you from criminals so why not doctors to protect you from disease ? Not everyone chooses to get sick . They get ' invaded " by disease . Soldiers and police protect us from bullets and bombs and theft of property ( or try to ) doctors and nurses from germs and theft of our health .

One is protection against other man, the other is protection against environment.

Health care is equitably provided by the free market, so there is no need to force the issue. A military is not equitably provided by the free market - if that were attempted it would destroy freedom... same thing with police but that's a harder argument.

 

[ledhed]

Dead is dead . whats the difference between bullets and bombs or germs and accidents ?
Harm is harm ..sick is sick man or nature ...by your logic after an earthquake instead of the national guard you would have everyone pay for the rescue and cleanup individualy .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Dead is dead . whats the difference between bullets and bombs or germs and accidents ?
Harm is harm ..sick is sick man or nature ...by your logic after an earthquake instead of the national guard you would have everyone pay for the rescue and cleanup individualy .

What's scary is, he's sees nothing wrong with that. Private charity doesn't work -- it's been tried before. Where the market fails, the state must work to fix the inequities. You cannot blame market failures on government intervention -- rather, it is the lack of government intervention that causes market failures.

 

[Danoff]

What's scary is, he's sees nothing wrong with that. Private charity doesn't work -- it's been tried before. Where the market fails, the state must work to fix the inequities. You cannot blame market failures on government intervention -- rather, it is the lack of government intervention that causes market failures.

Did you read that book I suggested? Describing how the government did much to cause the great depression?

Dead is dead . whats the difference between bullets and bombs or germs and accidents ?
Harm is harm ..sick is sick man or nature ...by your logic after an earthquake instead of the national guard you would have everyone pay for the rescue and cleanup individualy .

Ok. Harm is harm. So if someone ever gets hurt it's my responsibility to make sure they get better? Sick is Sick. So if someone ever gets sick it's my responsibility to pay for their health care?

We can pass laws to ensure that man doesn't harm man. We can't pass laws to ensure that viruses don't harm man. We can't put viruses in jail. We can't hold them responsible for their actions.

You have a right not to be harmed by other people. But I can't even imagine what would happen if you had a right not to be harmed period. Harm is harm though right? Regardless of whether it's self inflicted, natural inflicted, or neighbor inflicted....

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Did you read that book I suggested? Describing how the government did much to cause the great depression?

I did -- and I don't agree with it. Milton Friedman is a Libertarian (a minarchist to be specific). His son, David, is an anarcho-capitalist -- I did my research.

 

[Duke]

OK, I give up! You guys are right. I'm quitting my job this afternoon and going on the dole.

Thanks for picking up my slack, folks! I'll check back in from my public housing via free broadband. Right after I get this hernia I've been suffering with fixed via socialized medicine.

Whew, that's a load off my mind.

 

[ledhed]

BTW is this the butterrfly crap you keep aluding to ?
The "Butterfly Effect" is the propensity of a system to be sensitive to initial conditions.Such systems over time become unpredictable,this idea gave rise to the notion of a butterfly flapping it's wings in one area of the world,causing a tornado or some such weather event to occur in another remote area of the world.

 

[Danoff]

I did -- and I don't agree with it. Milton Friedman is a Libertarian (a minarchist to be specific). His son, David, is an anarcho-capitalist -- I did my research.

Who gives a flying rat's ass what his son thinks?? He lays out in that book exactly how the great depression happened.

You think you understand it better? Than a nobel prize winning economist? ...and you called ME arrogant.

I'm not saying he's right. But perhaps you could back up your arrogance...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

OK, I give up! You guys are right. I'm quitting my job this afternoon and going on the dole.

Thanks for picking up my slack, folks! I'll check back in from my public housing via free broadband. Right after I get this hernia I've been suffering with fixed via socialized medicine.

Whew, that's a load off my mind.

Wow. Is this a common trait for all Libertarians? No middle ground? It's either a socialist dictatorship, or a free-market libertarian society, right? You can't have any elements from both societies, right? The poor should fend for themselves -- OK, fine, I'll give you that. But when IRS reports that a greater proportion of real (adjusted for inflation) wages is going to people with higher than average incomes, that is where socialism steps in to correct the market failure.

BTW is this the butterrfly crap you keep aluding to ?
The "Butterfly Effect" is the propensity of a system to be sensitive to initial conditions.Such systems over time become unpredictable,this idea gave rise to the notion of a butterfly flapping it's wings in one area of the world,causing a tornado or some such weather event to occur in another remote area of the world.

That was for drug legalization, not this thread.

Who gives a flying rat's ass what his son thinks?? He lays out in that book exactly how the great depression happened.

You think you understand it better? Than a nobel prize winning economist? ...and you called ME arrogant.

I'm not saying he's right. But perhaps you could back up your arrogance...

First of all, I only mentioned his son to prove to you that I wasn't making it up -- that I actually did do my research.

I never said I understood economics better than a nobel prize winning economist... I just said I disagreed with what he had to say. There are plenty of other Nobel prize winning economists -- it's not like he's the only one.

 

[Danoff]

Do you have a right to basic health care? If not, you can't morally force everyone else to pay for it. If so, why? What gives you that right? Do you have a right to food? Do you have a right to housing?

Let's see -- yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Answer me this, is it acceptible to shoot one innocent person to save another? How about just chopping off their leg, can you chop off an innocent person's leg to save another person? Poke out an eye perhaps? Just take a finger?

No. No. No.

Now. I view forcing me to pay for someone else’s housing, food, and health care as being just as bad as cutting off my finger. You are effectively doing something to me that is just as bad as what you said you wouldn’t do to another person.
All I want is for you to think for a moment about what you’re doing. You’re allocating money that isn’t yours. You’re allocating other people’s lives. No? Not allocating their lives? They spend days and days at work earning money, and you’re taking days of their productivity every year and giving it away. You’re stealing their lives and giving it to other people.
You had better damn well have a very good reason for doing something that bad to them.
This is the rigor that taxes and government should be put to. These are the questions that should be asked. Do you want to fund that new low income housing project? How much of our taxpayers lives is it worth? Do you want to give away health care? How much of our taxpayer’s lives will be spent in slavery to the beneficiaries.
That is the nature of the moral game you play.

Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins
Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.
I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Now. I view forcing me to pay for someone else’s housing, food, and health care as being just as bad as cutting off my finger.

OK.

You are effectively doing something to me that is just as bad as what you said you wouldn’t do to another person.

OK.

All I want is for you to think for a moment about what you’re doing. You’re allocating money that isn’t yours. You’re allocating other people’s lives. No? Not allocating their lives? They spend days and days at work earning money, and you’re taking days of their productivity every year and giving it away. You’re stealing their lives and giving it to other people.

Now I'm really confused. First I'm a fascist, and now I'm a communist. OK.

So you want to cut taxes then -- that's fine. I'm all for it! However, who's responsibility is it to correct market failures? Certainly not the individual I would think. Can you correct a market failure?

You had better damn well have a very good reason for doing something that bad to them. This is the rigor that taxes and government should be put to. These are the questions that should be asked.

Do you want to fund that new low income housing project?

It depends. Have we weighed the costs and the benefits yet? One could argue that low-income housing projects increase crime. However, having people live out on the street because they can't afford to pay rent and a bank won't give them a mortgage is also a big problem too. You can't just say YES or NO without gathering the facts and weighing the pros and cons.

How much of our taxpayers lives is it worth?

You mean, "How much of our taxpayers wages is it worth?"

To which I would answer, set a flat tax rate. Cut the government WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE CUT, and increase government spending in areas that are more important.

Do you want to give away health care?

Healthcare is not "given away". The state should pay for it where individuals and insurance companies cannot. Or would you rather have a bunch of people who cannot afford health care run around with infectious diseases that could have been cured if only they had the proper health care. And before you mention private charity, historically it doesn't work -- clearly, this did not happen in Chile as governmental spending on the poor dropped even as the rich got richer.

I think I can see why so many South American countries are moving back towards left-leaning policies. If I had to deal with an unrestricted market economy, I would find socialism quite appealing as well.

How much of our taxpayer’s lives will be spent in slavery to the beneficiaries.

They can still get paid -- but if someone crawls into a hospital having had their legs blown off thanks to unsafe conditions in a factory (remember, there are no corporate regulations in a Libertarian society), I find it quite hard to imagine a doctor (who takes an oath to help people) asking for proof of insurance before they take the patient into the ER.

*edit*

Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Civilization is: An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Libertarianism is a SIMPLE political institution that wants to set up SIMPLE social instituions that benefit the wealthy and crap on the poor.

Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins

Typical rhetoric.

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

More rhetoric.

An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

Not too many honest men, are there?

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

I think I can see why Libertarians would label me a Communist and a Fascist. I've stated over and over again how I would prefer a balance between total freedom and totalitarianism. According to the anarcho-capitalist Rand:

* I'm evil
* Libertarians are right
* And everyone else is wrong.

The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.

In his humble opinion.

I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for myself, nor ask another man to live for himself.

^^ The above is the exact opposite of what Rand contends. Does what I wrote make any sense at all? No. Neither does what Rand say either. How is Libertarianism suppose to benefit everyone if everyone is looking out for themselves?

 

[Danoff]

OK.

Ok so you're fine with it then, as long as your judgement is met - you don't give a rats ass what damage I think you're doing to me . Who gave you that power over me?

However, who's responsibility is it to correct market failures?

Your definiton of a market failure is rather absurd. A poor person gets what he earns and you call it a market failure. Somebody pays for what they consume and you call it a market failure.

You mean, "How much of our taxpayers wages is it worth?"

No, I mean "How much of our taxpayers LIVES is it worth." How much of their TIME spent earning money are we going to TAKE from them and give to those of our choosing?

Or would you rather have a bunch of people who cannot afford health care run around with infectious diseases that could have been cured if only they had the proper health care.

Do you think people won't pay for immunizations? Do you think they won't pay up front for the care? They will, especially if it is law to do so for children.

They can still get paid -- but if someone crawls into a hospital having had their legs blown off thanks to unsafe conditions in a factory (remember, there are no corporate regulations in a Libertarian society), I find it quite hard to imagine a doctor (who takes an oath to help people) asking for proof of insurance before they take the patient into the ER.

You're mixing your arugments here. First you were talking about charity, now you're talking about simple proof of insurance. They aren't the same thing.

Some people's jobs are dangerous. Let them choose which jobs they're willing to work and what risks they'll take.

Civilization is: An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Yawn. That's an awfully complex society that must be met before it will be considered civilized. it must be an dvanced state of cultural development marked by progress in the arts with compelx social institutions?

No. Civilization is quite simply - at its core what Rand described "the process of setting man free from men."

Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins

Typical rhetoric.

Do you need me to explain to you what she means? I'd have thought you capable of figuring this out.

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

More rhetoric.

Ok now you're being closed minded. Remember what I was saying about the tyranny of the majority? And how rights prevented that? This is what I was talking about. Read it and think about it a little more carefully before you dismiss it offhand.

An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

Not too many honest men, are there?

I consider myself an honest man. I know that it is wrong for me to consume more than I produce, that in doing so I have taken what I have not earned - which is dishonest. (unfortunately for me our system isn't set up like that, and I may never know whether I've acheived that balance)

The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.

In his humble opinion.

This is the purpose of government, to protect man from criminals (and similarly, agressive countries) - to fascilitate civilization which, as she defined earlier, is the process of setting man free from man. Without government, anarchy exists and freedom cannot - because man will be enslaved by force in a world of anarchy. At it's core, that is what government is for - to prevent that most basic injustice.

I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for myself, nor ask another man to live for himself.

^^ The above is the exact opposite of what Rand contends. Does what I wrote make any sense at all? No. Neither does what Rand say either. How is Libertarianism suppose to benefit everyone if everyone is looking out for themselves?

Interesting argument. That if the converse of a statement is not true, the statement must not be true.... of course that's not a logically valid argument whatsoever. Try again.