Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

What should and shouldn't be legislated?

poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
edited August 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, it's clear that many of the regular posters in D&D have the general political view that the government should regulate a lot of things. Libertarians get, deservedly, destroyed when they post here. All fair enough.

However, a whole bunch of recent threads have me thinking - where would you lot believe we should stop. There seems to be a lot of D&D posters who believe that all we need is enough laws and then society will be sorted.

It's easy to posit a world with too few rules - anarchy, or just libertarian corporate dystopias.

It's easy to posit a world with too many rules - BNW, 1984, communism (in it's real-world and ideal varieties)

There are some classic ways that threads round here devolve, but there are some less obvious ones too. Many just become a litany of how we should make rules that everyone has to do X, without really exploring the pros and cons of having that particular rule.

So, how do we decide what's legislatable and what's not?

Factors that I reckon are interesting:

The financial costs of enforcement and it's general feasibility (e.g. you make a 55-mph speed limit to save fuel, and then waste fuel by sending police officers out to enforce the new law)

The rights of people (not just those in the American constitution e.g. free speech, which is held to be a right by many, regardless of their home nation or the legal wording of the US constitution)

The dangers of totalitarian governments (e.g. by forcing everyone to carry ID in your country, you perhaps make people more vulnerable to oppression - the innocent having plenty to fear)

The intangible benefits of freedom (learning from mistakes, moral growth, experimentation, discovery e.g. if unhealthy food additives are allowed we have to learn about health to decide what to eat)

Anyhow - what do you think?

poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
«134567

Posts

  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I agree with Ege. Thantos and his kind have theories that don't work in the real world.

  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The financial costs of enforcement and it's general feasibility (e.g. you make a 55-mph speed limit to save fuel, and then waste fuel by sending police officers out to enforce the new law)

    It would be a little disingenuous to limit an argument over speed limits solely to their economic impact.

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It's easy to posit a world with too many rules - BNW, 1984, communism (in it's real-world and ideal varieties)

    I'll post more on this in a little bit, but I wanted to address this statement really quick. Communism, in its ideal form, does not have "too many rules". In fact, in its pure form, communism is extremely close to libertarianism in that it promotes the idea of a minimal amount of government interference.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • duallainduallain Registered User
    edited July 2008
    When the positive externalities outweigh the cost of implementing the solution but the good is a common good the government should administer it. Examples, national defense and public schooling.

    The government should adjudicate disputes between individuals, and can only legislate things citizens have a natural right to. (Society can't do things an individual can't, example death penalty, because one person can't ask another to give up their life the government shouldn't be able to carry-out a death penalty.)

    Tear it apart, go!

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2008
    I think that enforcement of current laws is not well or evenly enough applied to constitute more laws regarding most issues. Take "hate crime" legislation, for example. I understand and back 100% the idea of throwing the book at people who commit hate crimes. The system is set up to enable this without additional rules. When you punch someone, you just committed like three crimes. Where typically someone would get off with community service or probation, the upper limit on the punishments could easily range into the years.

  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm a libertarian. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. I think laws should be judged on the basis of mala in se and mala prohibita. Is it wrong because its wrong? (rape, murder, assult, endangering others) or wrong because the state says it's wrong? and just who the fuck is the state to say whats good for people or not. If a government is truly run by the people then it won't mind its people deciding what they want to do on an individual level. To me unless it is hurting or putting someone in danger against their will then the government should keep their abnormally large noses out of it.

    People should be free. That's it.

    I don't care if my government can wrap me in a nice security blanket and lay me down in a nice warm safe and secure bed. I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.

    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    I'm a libertarian. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. I think laws should be judged on the basis of mala in se and mala prohibita. Is it wrong because its wrong? (rape, murder, assult, endangering others) or wrong because the state says it's wrong? and just who the fuck is the state to say whats good for people or not. If a government is truly run by the people then it won't mind its people deciding what they want to do on an individual level. To me unless it is hurting or putting someone in danger against their will then the government should keep their abnormally large noses out of it.

    People should be free. That's it.

    I don't care if my government can wrap me in a nice security blanket and lay me down in a nice warm safe and secure bed. I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.

    You just admitted to being a libertarian in D&D.

    Might as well have shot yourself in the foot. Several times.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Spelling.

    And while enforcement of legislation vs the benefits of the legislation is an interesting question, I'm dubious of your example Many of the speed enforcement techniques I've seen involved cops standing by a roadside with the parked car, burning no fuel at all. And there are also photo-radar options, which may or may not require a police officer even to be present, potentially offering even greater savings.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    So, it's clear that many of the regular posters in D&D have the general political view that the government should regulate a lot of things. Libertarians get, deservedly, destroyed when they post here. All fair enough.

    However, a whole bunch of recent threads have me thinking - where would you lot believe we should stop. There seems to be a lot of D&D posters who believe that all we need is enough laws and then society will be sorted.

    It's easy to posit a world with too few rules - anarchy, or just libertarian corporate dystopias.

    It's easy to posit a world with too many rules - BNW, 1984, communism (in it's real-world and ideal varieties)

    There are some classic ways that threads round here devolve, but there are some less obvious ones too. Many just become a litany of how we should make rules that everyone has to do X, without really exploring the pros and cons of having that particular rule.

    So, how do we decide what's legislatable and what's not?

    Factors that I reckon are interesting:

    The financial costs of enforcement and it's general feasibility (e.g. you make a 55-mph speed limit to save fuel, and then waste fuel by sending police officers out to enforce the new law)

    The rights of people (not just those in the American constitution e.g. free speech, which is held to be a right by many, regardless of their home nation or the legal wording of the US constitution)

    The dangers of totalitarian governments (e.g. by forcing everyone to carry ID in your country, you perhaps make people more vulnerable to oppression - the innocent having plenty to fear)

    The intangible benefits of freedom (learning from mistakes, moral growth, experimentation, discovery e.g. if unhealthy food additives are allowed we have to learn about health to decide what to eat)

    Anyhow - what do you think?
    I think the free market works great for a lot of things. For instance, I think we should deregulate the farming industry (i.e. get rid of subsidies) and the professional sports industries (i.e. get rid of subsidies). I think this country has an irrational fear of regulation; there are lots of great, relatively simple regulations that help far more than they hurt. For instance, the state of California instituted a system whereby you pay the disposal fee for monitors and televisions when you buy them. This means that instead of having to pay to drop off said screen at a hazardous waste disposal site, you just drop it off. For free (since you've already paid). This means that there's much less of a disincentive to drive out to the wilderness and dump it out there, which means that there's less cleanup work for the state to do. Is this regulation? Absolutely. Is it helpful? Absolutely.

    The only places I feel that regulation is necessary is when you run into a collective action problem. The one above is a good one: California has a lot of problems with people driving out to the wilderness and dumping garbage (mostly because there's a lot of wilderness in California very close by cities), so it solves this problem by removing the individual incentive to dump. Another example is the speed limit on freeways; most people know they could save gas by driving more slowly, however with it being legal to drive faster, everyone knows the amount they would save on an individual basis doesn't really make up for the increased danger and minimal savings they would get from driving more slowly; if the speed limits themselves are dropped, though, that would mean that everyone would slow down, not only saving money because they're buying less gas, but because the price of gas would go down significantly. It would have the positive externalities of reducing carbon emissions, gas consumption, reliance on foreign oil, particulate pollution, and the negative externality of increasing travel time. Any additional enforcement necessary could easily be paid for by the increase in revenue from maximum speed limit violations; there's no way that you'd need so many more cops on the road that it would make up for the savings of literally everyone else on the road.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm a libertarian. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. I think laws should be judged on the basis of mala in se and mala prohibita. Is it wrong because its wrong? (rape, murder, assult, endangering others) or wrong because the state says it's wrong? and just who the fuck is the state to say whats good for people or not. If a government is truly run by the people then it won't mind its people deciding what they want to do on an individual level. To me unless it is hurting or putting someone in danger against their will then the government should keep their abnormally large noses out of it.

    People should be free. That's it.

    I don't care if my government can wrap me in a nice security blanket and lay me down in a nice warm safe and secure bed. I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.
    There is so much crap that is put into food these days that it is literally impossible for people to know what they're eating. I mean, I consider myself fairly educated on matters of nutrition, and I couldn't tell you half of what most things on food labels are. Of course, by reducing regulation, we also lose the information we'd have to make decisions on, because without food labeling regulation, how the hell can we know what we're eating, and whether or not it's healthy? And why only talk about foods? What about drugs? Now, everyone needs a medical degree and to keep up on all of the latest medical journals in order to determine whether the over-the-counter drug they're buying is actually something helpful, or total quackery.

    Do you know what I want to do, on an individual level? I want to breathe clean air, drink clean water out of the tap, eat food that I know is safe, and that I can tell is healthy because of what's on the label, know that the drugs I take when I'm sick are going to do what they're supposed to because they've gone through clinical trials, and know what is in those drugs. I want to be able to walk in national and state parks without tripping over toxic waste. I want there to be wilderness areas that I can go to and know won't be developed. I want to drive on roads that I know are (relatively) kept up, drive on bridges that generally don't collapse, and know that other people driving on those roads and bridges are legally required to be trained, keep their cars in good mechanical condition, and carry a minimum amount of insurance so that if they hit me, I don't get totally fucked because they're broke. I want to be able to have a job without having to work 15 hours a day seven days a week, and have medical insurance so that if I get sick, I know that my life isn't pretty much over.

    And yeah, a lot of government regulation sucks (nuclear power, corn, marijuana, and professional sports come to mind), but it would suck a lot more going the other direction.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I'm a libertarian. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. I think laws should be judged on the basis of mala in se and mala prohibita. Is it wrong because its wrong? (rape, murder, assult, endangering others) or wrong because the state says it's wrong? and just who the fuck is the state to say whats good for people or not. If a government is truly run by the people then it won't mind its people deciding what they want to do on an individual level. To me unless it is hurting or putting someone in danger against their will then the government should keep their abnormally large noses out of it.

    People should be free. That's it.

    I don't care if my government can wrap me in a nice security blanket and lay me down in a nice warm safe and secure bed. I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.

    Do you have any idea just how many regulations are based on just those principles? See the food additives thread. You had libertarians arguing wildly against it, but all it is is the government saying "No, you may not slowly poison others." Literally, that's IT.

    I imagine you'd be against the EPA, FDA, etc. They. Do. The. Same. Thing. Why should it not be OK to punch someone in the nose, but it is OK to dump pollutants into their water? The later does FARM more harm to the individual. Should people have the freedom to say "This product is free from impurities and safe to eat" when in fact it isn't?

  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I first heard about libertarianism when I was in middle school, and thought it sounded like a good idea to herd government into a smaller box and away from places like the video games I wanted to play. Also there was something about freedom.

    Is there a proper term for people who recognize the utility of government but would rather them stop fucking things up trying to be an all-encompassing, all-legislating solution to all the world's problems?

  • SpielbergSpielberg Registered User
    edited July 2008
    I don't care if my government can wrap me in a nice security blanket and lay me down in a nice warm safe and secure bed. I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.

    Maybe what most people would like, individually, is to be safe and secure.

    I know I want to be secure, and I want my kids (I don't have any, but that is besides the point) to be secure, and I want my family to be secure.

    Freedom is a very nice term, but in the end you can't have total freedom, you have to give some up so that society can function.

    3dflags_smr0001-000ea.gif San Marino delegate to the United Nations
  • myvillainmyvillain __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    I wish I could sum of my views easily of pro vs against government regulation, but its really just a case by case basis that I find myself choosing what I support and what I dont. I suspect its the same for most people.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    One of the problems with libertarianism (and I really hate to use the word 'cause it's one of the most diverse political ideologies out there) is that social pressures, what your neighbors think, can be far, far more oppressive than many regulations imposed by the state.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I am reading a book (the Nudge theory) about the popular theory of the month, Libertarian Paternalism. So far it is reasonably interesting - advocating a hands off state that gives choice to citizens but seeks to shape the choices offered to maximise the chances of virtuous results for the citizen and society. Which just seems to be an updated version of Liberalism using sneaky psychological techniques.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Chaos TheoryChaos Theory Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Does this thread have libertarian socialists? I think it should have those.

    So I'll jump in. First, simply by saying this: the present approach, as you're positing it, is extraordinarily oversimplified and dualistic. By asking about the appropriate amount and enforcement of laws, you're slipping a lot of assumptions in. Mainly, you're putting the popular Western contemporary political tradition off limits, and only allowing us to fiddle with one little knob, so to speak.

    Some of us simply don't fit, there. I would have nowhere to place myself in this dual approach. I detest the capitalist exploitation of one side and the bureaucracy and authoritarian practice of the other. The middle isn't all that great itself-- it's riddled with the arbitrary, for one thing.

    Anyway, the larger point. Human societies are extraordinarily complex and can never be described simply and completely. The political dynamic, even as we understand it, exists alongside (and meshes with) all sorts of social dynamics. And as I mentioned, our notion of politics is entirely narrow if we're going with simply the tradition we inherited.

    So what do I think? I think our ideas on property and permissiveness should be reformed. I think that communities and producers, associating in whatever manner they please, should control the direction of society by consensus. I think that individuals should feel unrestrained by social mores, that is, they should be able to do as they please to the extent of not interfering with others' rights to do as they please. And even the above aspirations should be approached without a mind to formality. So, in essence: no governing authority, maximal individual freedoms, and community/workplace decisions being made collectively by that community/workplace.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I couldn't sleep knowing I sacrificed my fundamental rights and freedoms as a human being to get there.
    Sure you could.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    This is a pretty good start.
    In general, contemporary social democrats support:

    * A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
    * Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
    * Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
    * An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
    * Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.

    Social democrats also tend to support:

    * Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens), such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.
    * Support for immigration and multiculturalism.
    * A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree.
    * A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
    * As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    @everyone: Sorry, I've just come home from work and noticed the title. I'm not sure how that happened, but I can't work out how to edit titles.

    @Chaos Theory: I think your idea sounds nice, but I can't see how it's possible. What happens when one of the communities decides to enslave or kill other communities? Or do you believe it's possible to make that aspect of our history disappear through education or somesuch? If so, wouldn't that education itself be reducing intellectual freedom greatly? I just don't see how you get to avoid the dilemma. I think you're in that 'arbitrary' middle and unwilling to admit it.

    @kakos: Can you elaborate? Your idea of communism bears no relation whatsoever to mine, and I used to be a member of the SWP, so I'm not some right-winger coming to this ignorant.

    @Thanatos: Good points. Do I take it then that you don't think there are general rules to be applied, and that each law has to be argued on it's own merits? I agree with everything you say, but there have to be some limits on legislation.

    @ProPatriaMori: I don't know of a term for that, but I think I'm one. I used to think I was a libertarian, until I realised how much of them are corporate apologists and rabidly right-wing. Now I seem to be bereft of labels, which either makes me wishy-washy or original. Possibly both.

    @Libertarians: Why do you only worry about government oppression? Does corporate oppression, military oppression, social oppression and crime not worry you? Or is just that you happen to be in a group (middle-class, white, heterosexual, male, living in a good area in a country with excellent defences) that does not usually experience these other evils?

    @PirateJon: Social Democrats sound good, except that I would expect the taxation to be high to very high. Otherwise you get a situation like the NHS in the UK, where a wonderful institution is being destroyed simply because no-one will face up to its funding needs.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I think laws should be judged on the basis of mala in se and mala prohibita. Is it wrong because its wrong? (rape, murder, assult, endangering others) or wrong because the state says it's wrong? and just who the fuck is the state to say whats good for people or not.
    First, if you have a strong way to determine what acts were fundamentally wrong (unethical) you'd have both a groundbreaking piece of philosophy and possibly a unicorn. By what metric do we prove whether something is "wrong"?

    Second, why does the state say something is wrong (you mala prohibita)? Either it believes it to be wrong or as a means of control. Either way, you can't prove them wrong on the former unless it violates the fundamental rules that provide the basis and justification of that government (in the case of the US, the Constitution and arguably the Bill of Rights/Manga Carta/etc) and the latter has no honest justification and is invalid because of that not because its 'inherently' wrong.

    Third, you're wrong. Taxes. If there was no government, would it be wrong to not pay taxes? Clearly not because there is one to pay taxes to. Is it necessary to require payment of taxes? Yes. Therefore, no government can function in the real world under your rule.
    duallain wrote: »
    (Society can't do things an individual can't, example death penalty, because one person can't ask another to give up their life the government shouldn't be able to carry-out a death penalty.)
    Taxes again as the example. Can I demand you pay me a % of your earnings naturally? The collective will, through the form of government, by definition must have some powers an individual does not have in a 'natural' state.


    The Preamble of the Constitution :
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Declaration of Independence
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

    The Government's first job is to protect the rights of the citizens, including life and liberty. That is rarely disputed. The thing is, that isn't the government's only job. The government's full job is to protect life liberty and also to "promote the general welfare" and an individuals "pursuit of happiness".

    Building roads or libraries does not protect anyone's liberties, for instance. That is an action that can only be viewed through the lens o f economic and societal benefit. Yet from the very beginning of the Republic the question was not truly whether or not economic or societal actions were in the scope of interest of the government (either federal or state) but whether those actions would have a desirable effect.

    Now this can be viewed from the viewpoint of a living wage as a right, but these actions pre-date that concept by the better part of a century. If we are all created equal, we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the job of the government is to secure those liberties not just from external but internal threats, then it follows the job of the government is promote not only a healthy economy overall but an economy that provides for individual opportunity. Thus we have public schools, libraries, minimum wage, worker safety laws, etc.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    As usual, I think D&D has a distorted view of what a true Libertarian movement in politics would represent. Basically, take a Democrat's view of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, national IDs, etc., and combine it with a Republican (supposed) commitment to fiscal responsiblility and free markets, and you've got a Libertarian.

    The problem is that right now Democrat politicians promise a lot of personal freedoms in their campaigns, but then when they get into office they focus more on market control. Republicans promise a lot of free market fiscal responsiblity, but then they just focus on more God and more wiretappings and less gays. So in the long run we get increasongly fed up with both of them as we gradually lose more rights to the government across the board. A sensible Libertarian is not a gun-nut anarchist, it's just someone who wants to reverse this trend.

    @posh: we don't worry about those things because they don't seem as relevant. They often have no real precedent to look at, such as corporate oppression, and hence sound a lot like fear-mongering and horseshit, and they are otherwise things that ought to be solved outside of government, such as social oppression.

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    As usual, I think D&D has a distorted view of what a true Libertarian movement in politics would represent. Basically, take a Democrat's view of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, national IDs, etc., and combine it with a Republican (supposed) commitment to fiscal responsiblility and free markets, and you've got a Libertarian.

    The problem is that right now Democrat politicians promise a lot of personal freedoms in their campaigns, but then when they get into office they focus more on market control. Republicans promise a lot of free market fiscal responsiblity, but then they just focus on more God and more wiretappings and less gays. So in the long run we get increasongly fed up with both of them as we gradually lose more rights to the government across the board. A sensible Libertarian is not a gun-nut anarchist, it's just someone who wants to reverse this trend.

    Yeah.

    I think it's unfair to associate every libertarian with Ron Laul or Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is a broad political concept with different schools of thought.

    But hey, D&D makes fun of those two because it's easy to make fun of retarded kids.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yeah I'm just saying there are several actual Lib part candidates out there who are sensible and whose platforms are not about dissolving government.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I usually bow more towards liberalism (in the classical/neo/social sense) than other philosophies but I am of the opinion that sometimes the government can create a better system than free choice, in some areas. The example I like the most is personal injury.

    The usual approach in most Common Law countries is personal injury litigation/liability insurance. So, if somebody is hurt in an accident they approach the party at fault for compensation, then if compensation isn't forthcoming voluntarily then it goes to court and is settled there. It isn't the fastest of systems usually (although I'm sure some jurisdictions are faster than others) and it requires the aggrived party to have the will/determination/resources to mount such a challenge to start with, and for the party at fault to have resources/insurance sufficient enough to pay if they are found guilty. It does have the advantage that it can be used as a punishment tool against the transgressor.

    How we do it back home in NZ is a little different but in many ways a little better. We have a near universal/ comprehensive compulsory accident insurance scheme that provides compensation for medical costs or loss of income in the case of any accident. By law if an injury is caused by an accident then this regime will apply and one cannot sue through the courts instead. So there is no free choice but people do get compensated quickly and at little cost. The sole state Scheme Insurer is paid for through taxation and levies on a bunch of different things - pay-roll/car registrations etc. So we have excluded the courts from nearly all PI situations - traded off the right to sue on the basis that it is both cheaper (over-all), more efficient and more effective at compensating those who need it most. And it largely works - very few people would trade this regime for the old PI regime we once had. To preserve the punishment side of the equation we have to rely upon the Health&Safety inspectorate

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    @PirateJon: Social Democrats sound good, except that I would expect the taxation to be high to very high. Otherwise you get a situation like the NHS in the UK, where a wonderful institution is being destroyed simply because no-one will face up to its funding needs.

    Think about how many social programs we could have funded with the billions (possibly trillions!) we've spent on the Iraq war or the trillions lost due to bush's tax cuts. We could have funded so many things. Roads. Public transportation. Universal health care. Well funded schools. and on and on...

    So yes we do have the money to fund those programs without some absurdly high tax rates. Anyone that tells you different is trying to sell you something.

    What we lack is the will to demand change.

    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    As usual, I think D&D has a distorted view of what a true Libertarian movement in politics would represent. Basically, take a Democrat's view of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, national IDs, etc., and combine it with a Republican (supposed) commitment to fiscal responsiblility and free markets, and you've got a Libertarian.

    The problem is that right now Democrat politicians promise a lot of personal freedoms in their campaigns, but then when they get into office they focus more on market control. Republicans promise a lot of free market fiscal responsiblity, but then they just focus on more God and more wiretappings and less gays. So in the long run we get increasongly fed up with both of them as we gradually lose more rights to the government across the board. A sensible Libertarian is not a gun-nut anarchist, it's just someone who wants to reverse this trend.

    Yeah.

    I think it's unfair to associate every libertarian with Ron Laul or Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is a broad political concept with different schools of thought.

    But hey, D&D makes fun of those two because it's easy to make fun of retarded kids.
    Ayn Rand is the biggest influence on Libertarian* thought so I disagree with your assessment as it being unfair. Unfair would be to point out the modern libertarian movement's greatest economic influence was the Austrian school which has not only been thoroughly discredited but was riddled with outright bigots.

    Personal liberty is great, but the ideology-based/reality deficient economic policy and self-centered social outlook of Libertarianism is fatally corrupted.

    *"Libertarian" comes from the French "Libertaire" which is a synonym for anarchist. The logical conclusion of libertarianism is anarchy, so that's fitting.
    edit
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah I'm just saying there are several actual Lib part candidates out there who are sensible and whose platforms are not about dissolving government.

    Such as?


    This is getting off topic so:

    Libertarians claim the stability and prosperity of society that has ensured their social and economic freedoms demonstrates that the very government that made that stability and prosperity possible is unnecessary.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited July 2008
    I'm certainly not a fan of people attempting to legislate problems away, and failing to pay attention to the underlying causes that evade legislation. I'll give an example:

    in Quebec it is not possible for a married person (man or woman) to adopt their spouse's surname. Why? Because we all know that this was (or is) something expected of women and only women, and is a pretty obvious symbol of patriarchy (and as such, only a symptom not a cause). But this law doesn't fix it - all it does is let some self-righteous folks declare "we've made women equal!" even though it's A) extremely superficial (does anyone think Mme. Fontaine is treated any better by M. Cousteau because she kept her father's name?) and B) quite an infringement on people's liberty (which can be okay) for absolutely next to no results (which is not okay). I think this is very similar to the point Kakos was making about communism - if you're trying to bring about communism (or women's equality) by threatening people with legal censure without trying to change attitudes and relationships, you're doing it wrong.

    Also related to one of the OP's last points, I'm kind of a fan of this quote:
    Eisenhower wrote:
    There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.



    All of that said, dangerous additives in food and the vast harms of urban sprawl and vehicle dependancy are precisely the kinds of issues that need to be and can be (but not always are) dealt with through legislation and government action.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    As usual, I think D&D has a distorted view of what a true Libertarian movement in politics would represent. Basically, take a Democrat's view of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, national IDs, etc., and combine it with a Republican (supposed) commitment to fiscal responsiblility and free markets, and you've got a Libertarian.

    The problem is that right now Democrat politicians promise a lot of personal freedoms in their campaigns, but then when they get into office they focus more on market control. Republicans promise a lot of free market fiscal responsiblity, but then they just focus on more God and more wiretappings and less gays. So in the long run we get increasongly fed up with both of them as we gradually lose more rights to the government across the board. A sensible Libertarian is not a gun-nut anarchist, it's just someone who wants to reverse this trend.

    @posh: we don't worry about those things because they don't seem as relevant. They often have no real precedent to look at, such as corporate oppression, and hence sound a lot like fear-mongering and horseshit, and they are otherwise things that ought to be solved outside of government, such as social oppression.

    Thanks for the sound post. I think most Libertarians are far more interested in Jeffersonian political philosophy than they are anarchy. Unfortunately, this forum is far too left leaning to take an honest look at the proficiencies and deficiencies of both major parties. I've seen some centrists though, I believe they exist. :)

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    As usual, I think D&D has a distorted view of what a true Libertarian movement in politics would represent. Basically, take a Democrat's view of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, national IDs, etc., and combine it with a Republican (supposed) commitment to fiscal responsiblility and free markets, and you've got a Libertarian.

    The problem is that right now Democrat politicians promise a lot of personal freedoms in their campaigns, but then when they get into office they focus more on market control. Republicans promise a lot of free market fiscal responsiblity, but then they just focus on more God and more wiretappings and less gays. So in the long run we get increasongly fed up with both of them as we gradually lose more rights to the government across the board. A sensible Libertarian is not a gun-nut anarchist, it's just someone who wants to reverse this trend.

    Yeah.

    I think it's unfair to associate every libertarian with Ron Laul or Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is a broad political concept with different schools of thought.

    But hey, D&D makes fun of those two because it's easy to make fun of retarded kids.
    Basically if you take any political belief far enough in one direction, it becomes a joke. That said, libertarians more concerned with economic policy than social freedoms never made much sense to me.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    and they are otherwise things that ought to be solved outside of government, such as social oppression.
    Social oppression should be solved outside of government? wow.

    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yeah, I'm a big believer in those freedom-related intangibles. It's why I think democracy is so important. Not democracy in the subverted, 'hey you get to vote for one of two shitty options every four years, GOD are you lucky', but democracy as an impossible ideal that we aim for: That the government (local and not) should be as close to what the people want as possiible. I love that Swiss direct democracy where they have referenda on whether they should build that bridge down the street. Hell, I want referenda on what books to put in the library. I don't mind the government deciding a lot of things if they actually represent what we think. That's one of the reasons I worry about the authoritarian bent of, say, the UK government (I'm British) - the UK system just isn't very democratic.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Is this going to become one of those threads where Libertarians get shouted at? I would love it if it didn't.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm a big believer in those freedom-related intangibles. It's why I think democracy is so important. Not democracy in the subverted, 'hey you get to vote for one of two shitty options every four years, GOD are you lucky', but democracy as an impossible ideal that we aim for: That the government (local and not) should be as close to what the people want as possiible. I love that Swiss direct democracy where they have referenda on whether they should build that bridge down the street. Hell, I want referenda on what books to put in the library. I don't mind the government deciding a lot of things if they actually represent what we think. That's one of the reasons I worry about the authoritarian bent of, say, the UK government (I'm British) - the UK system just isn't very democratic.

    I think direct democracy is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard outside of very local government.

    Your other post was a proper ad-hom (for once) - 'D&D is too left-wing to debate this issue properly' and now a simple attack without any explanation given?

    You could probably manage to post a whole lot more constructively.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    Yeah.

    I think it's unfair to associate every libertarian with Ron Laul or Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is a broad political concept with different schools of thought.

    But hey, D&D makes fun of those two because it's easy to make fun of retarded kids.

    That's pretty much it. I really don't like Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, or Bob Barr (even though I'll end up voting for him... more on that in the spoiler). But I still identify myself as a libertarian. Remember, Ron Paul and Bob Barr believe abortion should be illegal, aren't big fans of immigration, are for the "war on drugs," and hate the idea of gay marriage/adoption... not all of us agree.
    Spoiler:

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    @everyone: Sorry, I've just come home from work and noticed the title. I'm not sure how that happened, but I can't work out how to edit titles.

    @PirateJon: Social Democrats sound good, except that I would expect the taxation to be high to very high. Otherwise you get a situation like the NHS in the UK, where a wonderful institution is being destroyed simply because no-one will face up to its funding needs.[/


    What exactly do you mean by the bolded bit? Not enough funding/too much? Its my understanding that in real terms NHS funding has substantially increased over the last decade - and the Exchequer would have to increase its already heavy borrowing further to give any further substantial funding

    According to a quick search "total NHS funding has risen in real terms from £35 billion in 1997/98 and will reach £110 billion in 2010/11". This to me suggests that the goverment has been very generous in giving the NHS more funding in the last decade. This doesn't mean to say that the outcomes delivered are 3x better or anything like that, but annecdotal evidence I heard/saw from the recent Anniversary celebrations indicates that things were pretty dire in the early 1990s, before the massive surge in funding.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm a big believer in those freedom-related intangibles. It's why I think democracy is so important. Not democracy in the subverted, 'hey you get to vote for one of two shitty options every four years, GOD are you lucky', but democracy as an impossible ideal that we aim for: That the government (local and not) should be as close to what the people want as possiible. I love that Swiss direct democracy where they have referenda on whether they should build that bridge down the street. Hell, I want referenda on what books to put in the library. I don't mind the government deciding a lot of things if they actually represent what we think. That's one of the reasons I worry about the authoritarian bent of, say, the UK government (I'm British) - the UK system just isn't very democratic.

    I think direct democracy is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard outside of very local government.

    Your other post was a proper ad-hom (for once) - 'D&D is too left-wing to debate this issue properly' and now a simple attack without any explanation given?

    You could probably manage to post a whole lot more constructively.

    Direct democracy turns into majority oppression. That's why we (in America) are supposed to be a Republic. I edited my post because I figured it wasn't worth discussing with someone who didn't realize the obvious. You unfortunately caught my edit and so I have to respond, in kind.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm a big believer in those freedom-related intangibles. It's why I think democracy is so important. Not democracy in the subverted, 'hey you get to vote for one of two shitty options every four years, GOD are you lucky', but democracy as an impossible ideal that we aim for: That the government (local and not) should be as close to what the people want as possiible. I love that Swiss direct democracy where they have referenda on whether they should build that bridge down the street. Hell, I want referenda on what books to put in the library. I don't mind the government deciding a lot of things if they actually represent what we think. That's one of the reasons I worry about the authoritarian bent of, say, the UK government (I'm British) - the UK system just isn't very democratic.

    I think direct democracy is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard outside of very local government.

    Your other post was a proper ad-hom (for once) - 'D&D is too left-wing to debate this issue properly' and now a simple attack without any explanation given?

    You could probably manage to post a whole lot more constructively.

    Direct democracy turns into majority oppression. That's why we (in America) are supposed to be a Republic. I edited my post because I figured it wasn't worth discussing with someone who didn't realize the obvious. You unfortunately caught my edit and so I have to respond, in kind.

    You have a really odd idea of what 'in kind' means. If I'm too retarded to understand your wisdom, then don't bother posting at all.

    I figure I could take a bear.
«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.