The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
How would a Libertarian system deal with issues like corruption, insider trading and preserving free trade in a free market while reducing Government regulation and control? Not trolling, genuinely interested.
To add to that, what about media regulation? How would a Libertarian FCC deal with the limited bandwidth available to broadcasters? Would it have a right to regulate broadcast frequencies in the first place?
How would a Libertarian system deal with issues like corruption, insider trading and preserving free trade in a free market while reducing Government regulation and control? Not trolling, genuinely interested.
Any political party that wants to do away with the FDA and believes in totally free markets isn't big on my list of loves. It's the practical implementation that bites them in the ass.
Honestly, good ol fashioned federalism is all we need. If SCOTUS continues the Rehnquist Revolution, you'll start to see the return of state's rights and the lessening of the Commerce Clause (some wacky stuff). As long as Congress can reassert authority on the Federal level, then everything should be good in the future. We'll see what comes of this struggle over war powers.
But yes, true Libertarians are generally just kind of silly.
Any political party that wants to do away with the FDA and believes in totally free markets isn't big on my list of loves. It's the practical implementation that bites them in the ass.
Honestly, good ol fashioned federalism is all we need. If SCOTUS continues the Rehnquist Revolution, you'll start to see the return of state's rights and the lessening of the Commerce Clause (some wacky stuff). As long as Congress can reassert authority on the Federal level, then everything should be good in the future. We'll see what comes of this struggle over war powers.
But yes, true Libertarians are generally just kind of silly.
:roll:
States' Rights is the rallying call of the segregationist, the slave-owner, and the anti-abortionist. That's pretty much it.
Sigh. This is what I get for not camping the thread...
As for your 'LOL Taxes vs Charity' figures, look at those states again. Wow, you think that maybe the wealthier states in the nation give more to charity than the less wealthy states?
I couldn't have guessed that. Yes, I am telling you that if you pay less taxes, you'll give more to charity. It's a simple matter of having more disposable income with which to pursue altruistic ends. If you generally give $1,000 a year in total to charity and your net income after taxes is $63,000 a year, it stands to reason that if your net income after taxes were $87,000 a year you'd give a proportionate amount to charity. Of course, it isn't always an even ratio. So does that mean the impoverished are worse off? Hardly.
First of all, not that many give to charity, and I doubt it'd be enough to offset the huge loss of all that tax money. And we can regulate what we do with the tax money, and not play 'evangelizing douchebags' with it. Here's Feral's very good post, in case you just missed it.
Mister, the trick there is that the wealthy already give enormous sums of money to charity. Why would libertarianism change that? The chief libertarian ideal is every person doing what they believe is best, within the law. If people who already give to charity had higher disposable incomes, they'd give more to charity. Moreover, private charities, especially those run by unpaid volunteers, can pass more of the money on to those who need it because they are not burdened with ridiculous government overhead.
Privately-run charities, especially those run by unpaid volunteers, operating in a libertaritopia, are free to discriminate against whomever they want based on race, sexuality, or religion. They're free to demand that anybody who takes advantage of their support jump through whatever hoops they want, whether it's as simple as sitting through a church service or as complicated as joining their religion. They are free to manipulate the most vunerable members of our society with misinformation. They are free to give their support in the form of loans with onerous and burdensome terms to people who are the least equipped to understand what they're getting.
Think I'm being alarmist? Let's look at some real-world examples.
Point 1: Try getting support from a church group if you're transgendered in an area dominated by evangelicals or other fundamentalist protestants.
Point 2: The largest homeless shelter in Santa Cruz (a godless liberal hippie town if there ever was one) requires that you check in at 3pm (having a job or a job interview is no excuse) for church service. If you don't sit through church service and give at least some half-assed "amen"s and your "hallelujah"s you don't get dinner or a bed.
Point 3: Non-profit Catholic hospitals are required by law to give assistance to pregnant women regardless of income, but they're not required to give accurate information on reproductive options. If you're a pregnant teenaged runaway getting help from a Catholic hospital, abortions might as well not exist.
Point 4: "Debt consolidation" firms operate through predatory lending, giving people with poor credit and low income high-interest loans with onerous fine print.
We can mandate that government services be fair and non-discriminatory. In the real world, our ability to demand the same from private charities is much retarded. In a libertarian wonderland, it would be non-existent.
This is not an acceptable way to run a social safety net.
I wasn't twisting anything. I started talking about libertarianism back in the satire thread, you replied to me and mistook my meaning from the very first post, remember?
As to the analogy, I got your point that you believe voting Republican demonstrates libertarians care more about money than values. My point was that in a real situation (where there are tens of more variables informing how someone votes) it is impossible in a system with limited choice to be that clear cut about why someone is voting a particular way, and both unhelpful and demonstrates a distinct lack of nuanced thinking to hold them 'accountable' for that lack of choice. Personally, I believe it also contributes to exacerbated partisanship, as party affiliation becomes the first question of any political debate, and how everyone else views one's opinions is then coloured by what they expect from a Republican / Democrat. Plenty of psychology studies demonstrating how this can literally make people hear something completely different to what someone is actually saying.
My points about the Founding Fathers is not that they are great political minds, but simply that the best engineer to fix a machine is probably the guy who invented it in the first place.
By the way, though I realise that political debate has largely become more partisan over this administration, many of my personal experiences of such were 1999 or earlier, when I was in the States, and compared to Britain the two sides were still deeply entrenched and confrontational. Furthermore, the Thatcher analogy is slightly misplaced, because that was a deep personal antipathy. When she went, people stopped hating the Conservative party for those reasons (they quite easily found new ones). In the US I have always seen hatred for leaders be translated more into hatred for their party, people didn't stop hating the Democrats just because Clinton left, and currently plenty of people will still blame the Republicans when Bush goes - I suspect this is because in Britain, the leader's agenda often runs the party, in the US the party (grandees) agenda often runs the leader.
Moniker:
That may all be true, but still the voter's variety of choice to express their political views is limited to party platforms. I'm not even talking about what the vote goes towards, I'm talking about the options they have at all. That is why I meant the parliamentary/republican issue doesn't matter.
Voting principle, not electoral principle.
Celery:
No, read it again, I used the term 'fortified fundamentalism' to describe Israel / Palestine & NI. Yes, I then compared the US to them, the hyperbole was exactly the point, the very fact I've heard intelligent, sane, well-informed people make those comparisons.
I'm sorry, I really don't see where size of population comes into it. Very large countries have single/dual party systems. Very small ones have a panalopy of parties. And vica-versa. Also, almost all mature democracies have only a 50-60% turnout at elections, doesn't make you special.
Also, I'm well aware of the federal issues of US politics, and particularly the level of politics on the ground (ie city voting), which is part of what makes the system brilliant. It certainly gets people vastly more involved in political debate than any other WDC I've seen, and at that level, often acts as a pretty good metre for what I'm talking about above, a wide variety of choice on a small number of issues - people can vote for what they really want. The interesting thing is how that very quickly becomes subsumed to the two-party system at state level and up. It also provides demonstrations of how not to do variety & political choice, and how it can stymie any action (ie California's constant referenda).
Also as I've said the idea that our two-party system is highly confrontational is daft. It's highly confrontational on a small number of issues, and is incredibly similar on the rest. To boot -- due to the vagaries of our rather deeply flawed electoral system, too much power got concentrated in too few hands, which resulted in the the current Republican administration going for some bizarre neo-Conservative righteous march straight off a short plank that has left many current Republicans and conservatives wondering exactly what's going on, not to mention the rest of the country that was opposed to them to begin with.
First. Two party systems are inherently confrontational. The fact that political debate in the US is much more widespread than in other WDCs (see above), however, though a good thing, means that this confronation becomes more pervasive within society.
Second. Will people please stop assuming I am talking soley about the current US political climate. The Clinton years demonstrated huge divisions between the parties. So did Reagan. Carter & Ford just about got away with it, half a decade there, well done. Nixon, Johnson, division. Do I even need to mention Kennedy? It's not a new issue, it's a chronic one.
Third. If you honestly believe that the level of agreement between Democrats/Republicans in US politics is anywhere close to that among European countries, Britain, even Australia, you need to learn more about those places. The main political parties in those countries are buried deep inside each others holes compared to the US. I understand your point that there is more agreement than disagreement in the US, but compared to other WDCs, your political arena is still incredibly divided.
Finally, did I ever call myself an expert? No. I simply pointed out that your assumption that I'm some uninformed mouth-breather from Foreignland who automatically knows nothing about the US just because I'm not your neighbour was wrong, and since we were talking about comparing the US to other countries, could just as well be applied to yourself in the reverse.
From what I've read, Libertarianism is rooted entirely in Capitalism and self-interest. Which, while it may be a working politic, is very dangerous to society and culture on the whole. The policies they preach, which essentially say "put yourself first, do everything for yourself", would be a pretty strong statement in favour of individualism if they ever came into power.
Which would be the collapse of civil society and culture as we know it. Hell, it's already started happening.
States' Rights is the rallying call of the segregationist, the slave-owner, and the anti-abortionist. That's pretty much it.
Dude, your problem with knowing so much is that you no longer seem to distinguish between the individual belief and the cliches that generally go with it.
Knowing the relationship between the two = educated man, assuming it always exists = stupid educated man.
Any political party that wants to do away with the FDA and believes in totally free markets isn't big on my list of loves. It's the practical implementation that bites them in the ass.
Honestly, good ol fashioned federalism is all we need. If SCOTUS continues the Rehnquist Revolution, you'll start to see the return of state's rights and the lessening of the Commerce Clause (some wacky stuff). As long as Congress can reassert authority on the Federal level, then everything should be good in the future. We'll see what comes of this struggle over war powers.
But yes, true Libertarians are generally just kind of silly.
:roll:
States' Rights is the rallying call of the segregationist, the slave-owner, and the anti-abortionist. That's pretty much it.
No, it really kinda isn't. It's also the rallying call for issues ranging from medical (and recreational) marijuana use to gun rights.
Yeah, this was untrue Thanatos. It's the rallying call for every state that supports a program contrary to the political winds blowing in Washington.
Personally, I support Washington's not being able to tell Boston to knock off gay marriage/Concord opposing RealID/Hartford's eminent domain practices.
Sigh. This is what I get for not camping the thread...
As for your 'LOL Taxes vs Charity' figures, look at those states again. Wow, you think that maybe the wealthier states in the nation give more to charity than the less wealthy states?
Per capita.
He opposes the mathematical redistribution of income.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
Compared to a feudal society, it's a fanfuckingtastic.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
The problem with the property rights uber alles argument is that it draws the limits of what people can democratically choose to do too narrowly.
We value property rights because we feel that we benefit from them. People at the bottom of the economic stack do not always feel this way. Class conflict when not ameliorated by some kind of government intercession destroys social harmony and solidarity and threatens the stability of the laws and government.
Each member of society must feel that they benefit from the structure of the government. Toward the end of the guilded age when socialism was becoming increasingly popular there was a feeling that was becoming stronger and stronger that the constitution was written by the rich to protect their interests alone instead of all the members of society. It would have been a shame if the government was so inflexible in it's protection of libertarian philosophy that it was overthrown.
So moderation and flexibility that can arrive at a balance determined by the people democratically is the most stable and durable approach to maintain a liberal society and government.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
There's no fucking accountability when it comes to the government, because they handle far too much for most people to want to do something about it when they just screw up a few things. How often have you heard someone say "Oh well, I don't care for Candidate X's stance on education, but since I really like his stance on gun control, I'll vote for him". That's a fucking terrible idea, and seperating out the bulk of these functions into private entities that can be held accountable by the people contributing to them is, IMO, a much better idea than the current system.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should, and I don't think there is any system out there short of anarcho-communism which would ever be "fair" to everyone.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should, and I don't think there is any system out there short of anarcho-communism which would ever be "fair" to everyone.
Woah woah there.
"held accountable for their actions"
How the shit are you going to do that?
ed: its not about being fair to everyone, its about creating the best outcome possible.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should.
On the accountability of private charitable organizations, check Feral's post. The rest doesn't make a case for how it better serves society, just how you don't like it. There's a big difference between the two.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should, and I don't think there is any system out there short of anarcho-communism which would ever be "fair" to everyone.
Woah woah there.
"held accountable for their actions"
How the shit are you going to do that?
ed: its not about being fair to everyone, its about creating the best outcome possible.
Very good point. Wouldn't government oversight of these hypothetical private organizations be against the very nature of libertarianism? I mean, it's all about consumer choice, isn't it? And if the consumer doesn't do the research, or perhaps their choices are limited due to geography, and picks the wrong (for their overall needs) charitable organization, what right does the government have to step in and punish the organization for that consumer's bad choice?
Feral's post was anecdotal fear-mongering and means about as much as my jism on a piece of cardboard. Private organizations do a helluva lot better at helping people than the government does.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should.
On the accountability of private charitable organizations, check Feral's post. The rest doesn't make a case for how it better serves society, just how you don't like it. There's a big difference between the two.
After this, I'm bowing out, as it's too goddamn early to ruin my day arguing shit that'll never go beyond the hypothetical anyway.
As far as what best serves society, I agree, simply stopping helping people isn't the best answer. However, my opinion on the issue of private donation/charity versus forced collection via the federal/state government is tied in with all the other shit I'd like to see change. If all of those changes were to take place, I *DO* believe society as a whole would be better off, including homeless guy.
To sum it up, I'm an anarcho-capitalist at heart, and I firmly believe the entire world working as one unified anarcho-capitalist society would be a far better place than it is now, and that the poor and downtrodden would be taken care of by the humanitarian types, and ignored by the asshole types.
That said, I know damn well that's never going to happen, and discussing it is largely a moot point. I do think the current system sucks, and doesn't help nearly as well as it should, and inevitably makes things worse than they would be otherwise.
Feral's post was anecdotal fear-mongering and means about as much as my jism on a piece of cardboard. Private organizations do a helluva lot better at helping people than the government does.
The two do pretty different things.
I'm not even sure how a charitable replacement for the social security/medicaid/medicare system would work. It probably couldn't.
Guys, seriously, it's not that libertarianism advocates stepping over homeless people to get to work, or whatever silly bullshit I saw in this thread earlier, it's that it advocates the *RIGHT* to.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should, and I don't think there is any system out there short of anarcho-communism which would ever be "fair" to everyone.
Woah woah there.
"held accountable for their actions"
How the shit are you going to do that?
ed: its not about being fair to everyone, its about creating the best outcome possible.
Very good point. Wouldn't government oversight of these hypothetical private organizations be against the very nature of libertarianism? I mean, it's all about consumer choice, isn't it? And if the consumer doesn't do the research, or perhaps their choices are limited due to geography, and picks the wrong (for their overall needs) charitable organization, what right does the government have to step in and punish the organization for that consumer's bad choice?
I never said government oversight, I meant held accountable in that all of their money comes straight from the people, and if they are not satisfying what said people expect, cutting funding/creating incentives to fix issues is far easier than writing a letter to your congressman and praying that anyone gives a shit what you think on one small issue.
I'm with Yar on this one. Feral made an excellent point that private organizations help who they want to. Great. I agree. Where's the problem? Oh no, the privately operated soup kitchen serves pork. They're discriminating against jews, muslims, and vegans! And? Let them go to the mosque, synagogue, and PETA building respectively and get help there. Why should the pork-eating homeless suffer longer lines, less food available due to higher costs to the charity, and possibly getting no food at all due to government intervention just because somebody doesn't like pork?
I think that the best definition of a libertarian is probably 'one on whom the appeal to emotions tactic inherent in social programs discussions fails to work.'
I'd really prefer to discuss the economic issues that a number of people have brought up.
Feral's post was anecdotal fear-mongering and means about as much as my jism on a piece of cardboard. Private organizations do a helluva lot better at helping people than the government does.
Not really. My jism on cardboard just sort of crusts over and leaves a slight oily residue in the cardboard itself. Feral's post did pretty much that, too.
I'm not even sure how a charitable replacement for the social security/medicaid/medicare system would work. It probably couldn't.
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
I think that the best definition of a libertarian is probably 'one on whom the appeal to emotions tactic inherent in social programs discussions fails to work.'
I never said government oversight, I meant held accountable in that all of their money comes straight from the people, and if they are not satisfying what said people expect, cutting funding/creating incentives to fix issues is far easier than writing a letter to your congressman and praying that anyone gives a shit what you think on one small issue.
Im just going to shoot you and take your stuff anyway, so it doesnt really matter.
P.S. I would love to live in this utopia where people have the power to hold corporations accountable. We dont have the power through monetary means now, to hold corporations accountable. And you want to reduce the restrictions on those same entities and then expect they will be more accountable?
I mean, how do you verify that they do what they say? How do you enforce a collective will once you find out? What about people that dont care? How do you deal with the pressure from that same organization?
I think that the best definition of a libertarian is probably 'one on whom the appeal to emotions tactic inherent in social programs discussions fails to work.'
I tend to agree. Throw out all of the emotional illogical bullshit from both sides of the spectrum and you get libertarianism. What's your stance on immigration? (rhetorical question) However, I know very well that there are many in here who have gone to great lengths to add a framework of rationality around the emotional arguments, so it isn't going to work too well just to call them bleeding hearts or racists or whatever the case may be.
I never said government oversight, I meant held accountable in that all of their money comes straight from the people, and if they are not satisfying what said people expect, cutting funding/creating incentives to fix issues is far easier than writing a letter to your congressman and praying that anyone gives a shit what you think on one small issue.
Im just going to shoot you and take your stuff anyway, so it doesnt really matter.
P.S. I would love to live in this utopia where people have the power to hold corporations accountable. We dont have the power through monetary means now, to hold corporations accountable. And you want to reduce the restrictions on those same entities and then expect they will be more accountable?
I mean, how do you verify that they do what they say? How do you enforce a collective will once you find out? What about people that dont care? How do you deal with the pressure from that same organization?
You realize corporations only fucking exist because of government regulations, no?
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
I don't see how my word "work" is any less subjective than your phrase "helping people". Charity organizations could not provide the same value/type of services to the same people that government programs now provide for. That's the end result.
Charity and government programs do different things. Comparing them is like comparing sports cars to tractor trailors. You're point is like saying that sports cars engines can do 0 to 60 faster, my point is that they can't haul 40 tons of cargo.
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
I don't see how my word "work" is any less subjective than your phrase "helping people". Charity organizations could not provide the same value/type of services to the same people that government programs now provide for. That's the end result.
Charity and government programs do different things. Comparing them is like comparing sports cars to tractor trailors. You're point is like saying that sports cars engines can do 0 to 60 faster, my point is that they can't haul 40 tons of cargo.
Why do you think a private organization is incapable of handling something like social security? What exactly is unique about the demands of such a service that only a bloated, mismanaged, marginally-accountable government can handle it?
I never said government oversight, I meant held accountable in that all of their money comes straight from the people, and if they are not satisfying what said people expect, cutting funding/creating incentives to fix issues is far easier than writing a letter to your congressman and praying that anyone gives a shit what you think on one small issue.
Im just going to shoot you and take your stuff anyway, so it doesnt really matter.
P.S. I would love to live in this utopia where people have the power to hold corporations accountable. We dont have the power through monetary means now, to hold corporations accountable. And you want to reduce the restrictions on those same entities and then expect they will be more accountable?
I mean, how do you verify that they do what they say? How do you enforce a collective will once you find out? What about people that dont care? How do you deal with the pressure from that same organization?
You realize corporations only fucking exist because of government regulations, no?
Incorrect. Corporations exist because government regulation, which previously limited the scope of corporations was relaxed.
I mean, how can you argue that a bunch of people getting togother and doing stuff is "allowed by government regulations". I get togother with people every saturday and play football. Now if we were making toiletries using pooled resources in an entity we shared ownership of we would be called a corporation. But the government does not allow people to get togother and pool resources and make toiletries. If the government were not there it would have no effect on my ability to go togother with my friends and play football, just as it would have no effect on my ability to pool resources in an entity a group of people claim ownership in and make and/or sell stuff.
Basically, the corporation is a set of specific legal exceptions to regulatory laws dealing with shared ownership and rights. Without the regulatory laws there can be no exceptions yes, but that is akin to saying "without gravity, nothing can fly". While flying is defined by defying gravity, the lack of gravity doesnt mean no one can fly, it just means anyone can.
Without a regulation setting the standard of whom can claim legal rights as a person, and without a regulation about what legal rights as a person are, how can you restrict someone or something from claiming those rights?
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
I don't see how my word "work" is any less subjective than your phrase "helping people". Charity organizations could not provide the same value/type of services to the same people that government programs now provide for. That's the end result.
Charity and government programs do different things. Comparing them is like comparing sports cars to tractor trailors. You're point is like saying that sports cars engines can do 0 to 60 faster, my point is that they can't haul 40 tons of cargo.
Why do you think a private organization is incapable of handling something like social security? What exactly is unique about the demands of such a service that only a bloated, mismanaged, marginally-accountable government can handle it?
Wow, adjectives. You've won the day there.
I don't think any charity or combination of charities is going to be able to pay out the 500 billion dollars in benefits to 48 million people with a regularity and stability that allows them make secure and stable financial plans.
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
I don't see how my word "work" is any less subjective than your phrase "helping people". Charity organizations could not provide the same value/type of services to the same people that government programs now provide for. That's the end result.
Charity and government programs do different things. Comparing them is like comparing sports cars to tractor trailors. You're point is like saying that sports cars engines can do 0 to 60 faster, my point is that they can't haul 40 tons of cargo.
Why do you think a private organization is incapable of handling something like social security? What exactly is unique about the demands of such a service that only a bloated, mismanaged, marginally-accountable government can handle it?
Nothing really that a bloated, mismanaged, even less accountable private entity couldnt handle worse. Why are only government entities bloated, mismanaged and marginally accountable?
How do you make corporations accountable? With a government, especialy a republican government like the one we have, we have the opportunity to replace the CEO and the Board of Directors every couples years. What accountability like that do we have in a corporation? Especialy without regulations to state what corporations can and cannot do?
How does the corprations interest for itself and itself only promote the greater good in a system containing externalities? How is the governments interest for itself and itself only, when itself is a group made up of the entire population, serve the group interest worse than a personal interest?
These are only the tip of the iceburg, it gets better.
Without formal government, corporations are government, wealth is government, power is government. You simply go back to a system where might makes right.
edit:
If you cannot influence the corporation through its pocketbook now, what makes you think that by reducing regulations you will be able to have any more of an effect on its behaviour?
I mean, how can you argue that a bunch of people getting togother and doing stuff is "allowed by government regulations".
A corporation is a business whose owners are not responsible for its debts if it goes under. It's a specal legally protected catagory created to encourage investment by taking away the threat that your house will be reposessed because you bought some stock in GM and they went under.
Posts
To add to that, what about media regulation? How would a Libertarian FCC deal with the limited bandwidth available to broadcasters? Would it have a right to regulate broadcast frequencies in the first place?
It doesnt. That is the pont.
Honestly, good ol fashioned federalism is all we need. If SCOTUS continues the Rehnquist Revolution, you'll start to see the return of state's rights and the lessening of the Commerce Clause (some wacky stuff). As long as Congress can reassert authority on the Federal level, then everything should be good in the future. We'll see what comes of this struggle over war powers.
But yes, true Libertarians are generally just kind of silly.
States' Rights is the rallying call of the segregationist, the slave-owner, and the anti-abortionist. That's pretty much it.
First of all, not that many give to charity, and I doubt it'd be enough to offset the huge loss of all that tax money. And we can regulate what we do with the tax money, and not play 'evangelizing douchebags' with it. Here's Feral's very good post, in case you just missed it.
I wasn't twisting anything. I started talking about libertarianism back in the satire thread, you replied to me and mistook my meaning from the very first post, remember?
As to the analogy, I got your point that you believe voting Republican demonstrates libertarians care more about money than values. My point was that in a real situation (where there are tens of more variables informing how someone votes) it is impossible in a system with limited choice to be that clear cut about why someone is voting a particular way, and both unhelpful and demonstrates a distinct lack of nuanced thinking to hold them 'accountable' for that lack of choice. Personally, I believe it also contributes to exacerbated partisanship, as party affiliation becomes the first question of any political debate, and how everyone else views one's opinions is then coloured by what they expect from a Republican / Democrat. Plenty of psychology studies demonstrating how this can literally make people hear something completely different to what someone is actually saying.
My points about the Founding Fathers is not that they are great political minds, but simply that the best engineer to fix a machine is probably the guy who invented it in the first place.
By the way, though I realise that political debate has largely become more partisan over this administration, many of my personal experiences of such were 1999 or earlier, when I was in the States, and compared to Britain the two sides were still deeply entrenched and confrontational. Furthermore, the Thatcher analogy is slightly misplaced, because that was a deep personal antipathy. When she went, people stopped hating the Conservative party for those reasons (they quite easily found new ones). In the US I have always seen hatred for leaders be translated more into hatred for their party, people didn't stop hating the Democrats just because Clinton left, and currently plenty of people will still blame the Republicans when Bush goes - I suspect this is because in Britain, the leader's agenda often runs the party, in the US the party (grandees) agenda often runs the leader.
Moniker:
That may all be true, but still the voter's variety of choice to express their political views is limited to party platforms. I'm not even talking about what the vote goes towards, I'm talking about the options they have at all. That is why I meant the parliamentary/republican issue doesn't matter.
Voting principle, not electoral principle.
Celery:
No, read it again, I used the term 'fortified fundamentalism' to describe Israel / Palestine & NI. Yes, I then compared the US to them, the hyperbole was exactly the point, the very fact I've heard intelligent, sane, well-informed people make those comparisons.
I'm sorry, I really don't see where size of population comes into it. Very large countries have single/dual party systems. Very small ones have a panalopy of parties. And vica-versa. Also, almost all mature democracies have only a 50-60% turnout at elections, doesn't make you special.
Also, I'm well aware of the federal issues of US politics, and particularly the level of politics on the ground (ie city voting), which is part of what makes the system brilliant. It certainly gets people vastly more involved in political debate than any other WDC I've seen, and at that level, often acts as a pretty good metre for what I'm talking about above, a wide variety of choice on a small number of issues - people can vote for what they really want. The interesting thing is how that very quickly becomes subsumed to the two-party system at state level and up. It also provides demonstrations of how not to do variety & political choice, and how it can stymie any action (ie California's constant referenda).
First. Two party systems are inherently confrontational. The fact that political debate in the US is much more widespread than in other WDCs (see above), however, though a good thing, means that this confronation becomes more pervasive within society.
Second. Will people please stop assuming I am talking soley about the current US political climate. The Clinton years demonstrated huge divisions between the parties. So did Reagan. Carter & Ford just about got away with it, half a decade there, well done. Nixon, Johnson, division. Do I even need to mention Kennedy? It's not a new issue, it's a chronic one.
Third. If you honestly believe that the level of agreement between Democrats/Republicans in US politics is anywhere close to that among European countries, Britain, even Australia, you need to learn more about those places. The main political parties in those countries are buried deep inside each others holes compared to the US. I understand your point that there is more agreement than disagreement in the US, but compared to other WDCs, your political arena is still incredibly divided.
Finally, did I ever call myself an expert? No. I simply pointed out that your assumption that I'm some uninformed mouth-breather from Foreignland who automatically knows nothing about the US just because I'm not your neighbour was wrong, and since we were talking about comparing the US to other countries, could just as well be applied to yourself in the reverse.
Which would be the collapse of civil society and culture as we know it. Hell, it's already started happening.
Dude, your problem with knowing so much is that you no longer seem to distinguish between the individual belief and the cliches that generally go with it.
Knowing the relationship between the two = educated man, assuming it always exists = stupid educated man.
Yeah, this was untrue Thanatos. It's the rallying call for every state that supports a program contrary to the political winds blowing in Washington.
Personally, I support Washington's not being able to tell Boston to knock off gay marriage/Concord opposing RealID/Hartford's eminent domain practices.
He opposes the mathematical redistribution of income.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's ok for a government that's difficult to hold responsible for any one particular thing to steal your money and give it to other people. If you choose to be a humanitarian (as many do), that's awesome, but being forced at what is effectively gunpoint to do so is not awesome.
Compared to a feudal society, it's a fanfuckingtastic.
What is the difference between the right to step over a homless person to get to work and advocating it?
What is the differene between the right to murder somone for any reason what-so-ever and advocating it?
The answer to each is the same.
The very act of living nessesarily imposes ones self on others. Goverment simply limits the ways in which people may impose and assert the right of the common to produce communal goods.
The problem with the property rights uber alles argument is that it draws the limits of what people can democratically choose to do too narrowly.
We value property rights because we feel that we benefit from them. People at the bottom of the economic stack do not always feel this way. Class conflict when not ameliorated by some kind of government intercession destroys social harmony and solidarity and threatens the stability of the laws and government.
Each member of society must feel that they benefit from the structure of the government. Toward the end of the guilded age when socialism was becoming increasingly popular there was a feeling that was becoming stronger and stronger that the constitution was written by the rich to protect their interests alone instead of all the members of society. It would have been a shame if the government was so inflexible in it's protection of libertarian philosophy that it was overthrown.
So moderation and flexibility that can arrive at a balance determined by the people democratically is the most stable and durable approach to maintain a liberal society and government.
What's the difference? The difference is between "You can help that guy who's down on his luck if you want" and "Help that guy, or else". I, for one, believe people will be better served by the former, rather than the latter.
There's no fucking accountability when it comes to the government, because they handle far too much for most people to want to do something about it when they just screw up a few things. How often have you heard someone say "Oh well, I don't care for Candidate X's stance on education, but since I really like his stance on gun control, I'll vote for him". That's a fucking terrible idea, and seperating out the bulk of these functions into private entities that can be held accountable by the people contributing to them is, IMO, a much better idea than the current system.
How is it better for the homeless person?
Because as I mentioned elsewhere, I firmly believe private charitable organizations held accountable for their actions will far better serve the needy than the government currently does. Of course, maybe it doesn't work out that way, and his life isn't better that way, but should I be required to worry about that? Should it be my job to do things that make his life better? I don't think it should, and I don't think there is any system out there short of anarcho-communism which would ever be "fair" to everyone.
Woah woah there.
"held accountable for their actions"
How the shit are you going to do that?
ed: its not about being fair to everyone, its about creating the best outcome possible.
Do you think he should be required to abide by the law?
Why? What's in it for him?
Why would he view laws that only hurt him as legitimate? Why would anyone sympathetic to him view laws that hurt him as legitimate?
On the accountability of private charitable organizations, check Feral's post. The rest doesn't make a case for how it better serves society, just how you don't like it. There's a big difference between the two.
Very good point. Wouldn't government oversight of these hypothetical private organizations be against the very nature of libertarianism? I mean, it's all about consumer choice, isn't it? And if the consumer doesn't do the research, or perhaps their choices are limited due to geography, and picks the wrong (for their overall needs) charitable organization, what right does the government have to step in and punish the organization for that consumer's bad choice?
After this, I'm bowing out, as it's too goddamn early to ruin my day arguing shit that'll never go beyond the hypothetical anyway.
As far as what best serves society, I agree, simply stopping helping people isn't the best answer. However, my opinion on the issue of private donation/charity versus forced collection via the federal/state government is tied in with all the other shit I'd like to see change. If all of those changes were to take place, I *DO* believe society as a whole would be better off, including homeless guy.
To sum it up, I'm an anarcho-capitalist at heart, and I firmly believe the entire world working as one unified anarcho-capitalist society would be a far better place than it is now, and that the poor and downtrodden would be taken care of by the humanitarian types, and ignored by the asshole types.
That said, I know damn well that's never going to happen, and discussing it is largely a moot point. I do think the current system sucks, and doesn't help nearly as well as it should, and inevitably makes things worse than they would be otherwise.
The two do pretty different things.
I'm not even sure how a charitable replacement for the social security/medicaid/medicare system would work. It probably couldn't.
I never said government oversight, I meant held accountable in that all of their money comes straight from the people, and if they are not satisfying what said people expect, cutting funding/creating incentives to fix issues is far easier than writing a letter to your congressman and praying that anyone gives a shit what you think on one small issue.
I think that the best definition of a libertarian is probably 'one on whom the appeal to emotions tactic inherent in social programs discussions fails to work.'
I'd really prefer to discuss the economic issues that a number of people have brought up.
not really, no.
One-for-one identical replacement isn't necessarily the way it ought to work. But your word "work" there is highly subjective, and many would say the current government system doesn't "work" either.
Im just going to shoot you and take your stuff anyway, so it doesnt really matter.
P.S. I would love to live in this utopia where people have the power to hold corporations accountable. We dont have the power through monetary means now, to hold corporations accountable. And you want to reduce the restrictions on those same entities and then expect they will be more accountable?
I mean, how do you verify that they do what they say? How do you enforce a collective will once you find out? What about people that dont care? How do you deal with the pressure from that same organization?
You realize corporations only fucking exist because of government regulations, no?
I don't see how my word "work" is any less subjective than your phrase "helping people". Charity organizations could not provide the same value/type of services to the same people that government programs now provide for. That's the end result.
Charity and government programs do different things. Comparing them is like comparing sports cars to tractor trailors. You're point is like saying that sports cars engines can do 0 to 60 faster, my point is that they can't haul 40 tons of cargo.
Why do you think a private organization is incapable of handling something like social security? What exactly is unique about the demands of such a service that only a bloated, mismanaged, marginally-accountable government can handle it?
Incorrect. Corporations exist because government regulation, which previously limited the scope of corporations was relaxed.
I mean, how can you argue that a bunch of people getting togother and doing stuff is "allowed by government regulations". I get togother with people every saturday and play football. Now if we were making toiletries using pooled resources in an entity we shared ownership of we would be called a corporation. But the government does not allow people to get togother and pool resources and make toiletries. If the government were not there it would have no effect on my ability to go togother with my friends and play football, just as it would have no effect on my ability to pool resources in an entity a group of people claim ownership in and make and/or sell stuff.
Basically, the corporation is a set of specific legal exceptions to regulatory laws dealing with shared ownership and rights. Without the regulatory laws there can be no exceptions yes, but that is akin to saying "without gravity, nothing can fly". While flying is defined by defying gravity, the lack of gravity doesnt mean no one can fly, it just means anyone can.
Without a regulation setting the standard of whom can claim legal rights as a person, and without a regulation about what legal rights as a person are, how can you restrict someone or something from claiming those rights?
Wow, adjectives. You've won the day there.
I don't think any charity or combination of charities is going to be able to pay out the 500 billion dollars in benefits to 48 million people with a regularity and stability that allows them make secure and stable financial plans.
Nothing really that a bloated, mismanaged, even less accountable private entity couldnt handle worse. Why are only government entities bloated, mismanaged and marginally accountable?
How do you make corporations accountable? With a government, especialy a republican government like the one we have, we have the opportunity to replace the CEO and the Board of Directors every couples years. What accountability like that do we have in a corporation? Especialy without regulations to state what corporations can and cannot do?
How does the corprations interest for itself and itself only promote the greater good in a system containing externalities? How is the governments interest for itself and itself only, when itself is a group made up of the entire population, serve the group interest worse than a personal interest?
These are only the tip of the iceburg, it gets better.
Without formal government, corporations are government, wealth is government, power is government. You simply go back to a system where might makes right.
edit:
If you cannot influence the corporation through its pocketbook now, what makes you think that by reducing regulations you will be able to have any more of an effect on its behaviour?
A corporation is a business whose owners are not responsible for its debts if it goes under. It's a specal legally protected catagory created to encourage investment by taking away the threat that your house will be reposessed because you bought some stock in GM and they went under.