Happened for me the first time I read Ayn Rand. And I read that because of the South Park episode where Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged.
You took that as a recommendation? I no fink i'mean what you fink i'mean.
No, I read it because I wanted to see why the South Park guys felt necessary to comment on that at the end of the episode. I figured it must have been some horrible pile of shit.
...er, because the world isn't as simple as: I think my politician is a good person therefore he is a good person. Or even better: My politician says he is a good person therefore he is a good person.
On an only minutely more complex level, where there are opposing political parties, it's quite possible for half the population to think the party of the other half, who got in, are ebil.
But largely, I would imagine it is Kafkaesque fear of the inhumanity of large bureaucratic systems. This is sometimes taken to stupid extremes, but in moderate doses pretty damn smart.
In a more concrete way, I assume that the people who think that the government is evil think that there are specific evil things that they are doing right? Well, the easy way to fix that, to make it so that the evil things are no longer being done by the government are evil, you simply elect new people to do things other than the evil things from before.
I think you're unclear on the concept of "necessary evil."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well, I got a 9. And the feeling that the creator of this test might want to seek professional help.
That is something a statist would say.
Well, if it's wrong to be a statist, then I don't wanna be right. I've never understood why libertarians think that's such an offensive thing.
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
I agree. From their perspective (I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I roomed with several in college), they feel like they are told what to do too much.
Well, I got a 9. And the feeling that the creator of this test might want to seek professional help.
That is something a statist would say.
Well, if it's wrong to be a statist, then I don't wanna be right. I've never understood why libertarians think that's such an offensive thing.
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
A consequentialist libertarian would say that it is most times not the best thing. That's where people get into arguments and pull out statistics and theories and history lessons upon which those inhabiting the poles of the debate have differing opinions.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
...for society as a whole, but not necessarily you personally. That's where the conflict arises.
At which point, you promptly fall into the prisoner's dilemma.
Which leads to games theory and reciprocal altruism and cooperation and social organization and ... the inevitable systems by which the ruling elite deprive the productive members of society the fruits of their labor (aka governments).
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
...for society as a whole, but not necessarily you personally. That's where the conflict arises.
At which point, you promptly fall into the prisoner's dilemma.
Which leads to games theory and reciprocal altruism and cooperation and social organization and ... the inevitable systems by which the ruling elite deprive the productive members of society the fruits of their labor (aka governments).
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
But the State has no differing opinions, all opinions are the same and for the good of the Ruling Parasitic Elite!
Fixeded.
Double fixed!
Seriously, now, Ikinda considered myself a liberterian (from what I heard about it) - the "as long as you harm none, do what you will" Part, but if THATs what the glorious utopia of libertarians is, no thanks, I will take my oppressive regime right here, thank you very much.
I got a 75 the first time, but after reading some of the discussion I went back through and rethought some of the questions and my stances. I have the "sorta, sometimes" attitude to a lot of the questions, and where before I would tend toward "Yeah, sure," I took it again and went for "No" if "yes" implies "always" -- ended up with a 47, which is still pretty high for most of you, it looks like.
I have strong feelings particularly about things like drug legalization, in that I do think adults should be given the benefit of the doubt as to their ability to decide on drugs and medication for themselves, but I don't think regulatory systems should be abolished. There's already things on the market (Hoodia, etc) that aren't approved by the FDA, and yet are still for sale, and adults who don't feel that substance is right for them do not use it.
I also have problems with just how restrictive zoning and employee safety laws are -- particularly the smoking ban (though that's for another thread entirely). My parents owned a small business (bar), and you wouldn't believe the hoops they had to jump through for just about everything (an example, again using the smoking ban, was the city's decision that a screened-in, closed-off area, only accessible from the bar proper, even with a double-door system, would still count as "indoors" and thus have the chance to endanger the health or pleasure of the employees and patrons. That's just stupid.). I agree, to a certain extent with this part quoted by Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud: "Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)?" but then, after reading the discussion by Feral, Derrick et al I realized that making it completely free would have more serious consequences than I'd previously thought. But do you think the government doesn't, perhaps, have a slightly too heavy hand with some of these things?
Whenever I hear some anecdote about how restrictive one thing or another is, be it child adoption or zoning laws, I can't help but think that they're there for a reason. For every time they're too hard to get around, they've done enough to restrict what they're intended to restrict.
Smoking bans are a whole seperate issue to me, though.
Whenever I hear some anecdote about how restrictive one thing or another is, be it child adoption or zoning laws, I can't help but think that they're there for a reason. For every time they're too hard to get around, they've done enough to restrict what they're intended to restrict.
Smoking bans are a whole seperate issue to me, though.
Well every law on the books is there for a reason The real question is if it's there for a good one. Government is in its essence a necessary evil, we have to give up some freedom and money but the return should be far greater for everyone. However things need to be carefully and pragmatically balanced. In some cases the ends just don't justify the proposed means. That has to be decided on an issue by issue basis though.
I personally found my attraction to libertarian ideals was mostly because I feel the government is failing the nation in many areas and doing things for the wrong reasons. So then you ask yourself what can you do when typically most every politician in the republican or democratic party only agrees with you on half of your important issues and diametrically opposes you on the other. The natural conclusion is to find someone who agrees with you, and it seems that the only people in this case who did, had a heaping helping of batshit thrown in there. Of course, since they agreed where it matterd on a personal level and the idealogy is internally consistent it becomes easy to overlook the glaring flaws when they're the only people willing to tell the government to back the fuck off in areas personally perceived to be of high importance.
I can bet you if certain key libertarian ideals were adopted by other parties, their membership would vanish.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
There are some pointless laws, yes, but until you can demonstrate that a law is doing more than inconveniencing a handful of people while also being effective in other cases, the complaint isn't valid. Specularity's conclusion seems to be that there needs to be some level of reform, and that's cool. And, just like he seems to realize, a complete lack of restriction a la libertarianism is just fucking stupid.
There are some pointless laws, yes, but until you can demonstrate that a law is doing more than inconveniencing a handful of people while also being effective in other cases, the complaint isn't valid. Specularity's conclusion seems to be that there needs to be some level of reform, and that's cool. And, just like he seems to realize, a complete lack of restriction a la libertarianism is just fucking stupid.
Well yes, obviously, but sometimes it's easier to get people to argue for a lack of restriction than in general to convince a larger party to adopt several of your positions they previously opposed. We all hold our dogmatic beliefs and it's hard to argue against heavily reinforced dogma even with a dirth of evidence. For instance laws against prostitution are so culturally embedded in society that it'd be impossible to pass legislation on, despite the dirth of evidence provided by Nevada's example that legal prostitution does not spread disease, drastically increases working conditions, increases pay, and dramatically reduces the risk of violence. Most Americans oppose prostitution on a dogmatic moral level of course and would oppose this unless you slipped it under the door in a blanket plan guised as something else. This is part of why I think Libertarianism is so appealing to many people. It appears like a way to get things done when no one else will listen to you despite anything you have to say.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
There are some pointless laws, yes, but until you can demonstrate that a law is doing more than inconveniencing a handful of people while also being effective in other cases, the complaint isn't valid. Specularity's conclusion seems to be that there needs to be some level of reform, and that's cool. And, just like he seems to realize, a complete lack of restriction a la libertarianism is just fucking stupid.
Well yes, obviously, but sometimes it's easier to get people to argue for a lack of restriction than in general to convince a larger party to adopt several of your positions they previously opposed. We all hold our dogmatic beliefs and it's hard to argue against heavily reinforced dogma even with a dirth of evidence. For instance laws against prostitution are so culturally embedded in society that it'd be impossible to pass legislation on, despite the dirth of evidence provided by Nevada's example that legal prostitution does not spread disease, drastically increases working conditions, increases pay, and dramatically reduces the risk of violence. Most Americans oppose prostitution on a dogmatic moral level of course and would oppose this unless you slipped it under the door in a blanket plan guised as something else. This is part of why I think Libertarianism is so appealing to many people. It appears like a way to get things done when no one else will listen to you despite anything you have to say.
Honestly, you're probably right about its appeals. I know that's why I was drawn to it in high school, but I became disenchanted with it when, you know, I thought about it on a deeper level than just the social "freedom" aspect.
I do wonder more about people that are continually attached to it, though. The Rondroid that passes out t-shirts at my local card shop for Friday Night Magic is so vehemently opposed to thinking rationally it's astounding. Libertarianism seems to polarize, and those that attach themselves to it don't seem to simply because of a few reasonable social reforms.
Honestly, you're probably right about its appeals. I know that's why I was drawn to it in high school, but I became disenchanted with it when, you know, I thought about it on a deeper level than just the social "freedom" aspect.
I do wonder more about people that are continually attached to it, though. The Rondroid that passes out t-shirts at my local card shop for Friday Night Magic is so vehemently opposed to thinking rationally it's astounding. Libertarianism seems to polarize, and those that attach themselves to it don't seem to simply because of a few reasonable social reforms.
Look at it like religious dogma. A lot of people are heavily religious because they need the comfort it brings in their lives to provide them with mental and emotional stability. These people would not be functional human beings on any level without that religion or some sort of serious psychological intervention. Anything that threatens their worldview is fought tooth and nail and rational, logical thought as well as evidence is denied. Even highly intelligent people fall pray to this. It's simply because when you want something badly enough and you can't seem to think of a better way that'd be more personally satisfying you do whatever you can to defend it. This includes blocking conscious realization of the situation going on in your head. I mean, why spend the rest of your life in therapy when Jesus loves you?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
So I took the test, scoring a 90, which pretty much makes me, by far, the craziest person here. Im sure some of you can rest assured that I answered "no" to pretty much everything in the final lightning round of privatization. The thing with the hard-hardcore Libertarian idealogies (which are pretty much anarchy) are that they are impossible to reapplicate to socities who have already grown up with many statist functions and mentalities. Having said that, it is important to have a balance, from Taoist philosophy of yin and yang to atomic and chemical harmony. It is also important to understand the concept and what can be adapted and applied to our modern day government to benefit everyone.
I do believe in the free markets but the problem is that it is generally a slow process. For example, over time all of humanity will see the problems with pollution and greenhouse gases and will want to keep a perserved earth. This process would obviously be too long and the Earth would suffer before the "market" (ie collective conscious) catches up. This is just one, of many, examples where government can make a solid and important difference. But the general idea behind it is important to know and utilize where appropriate, such as in corn subsidies or stem cell research where the government should allow things to develop more naturally.
I've always had this fantasy about how I would refute Libertarians. It basically boils down to me punching them in the face, and then saying something ironic like, "that was my self-interest, what was yours?"
The problem is that I've never come across Libertarians in the real world. I'm starting to think they are just a fiction created on the internet to rile up political science students.
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
...for society as a whole, but not necessarily you personally. That's where the conflict arises.
At which point, you promptly fall into the prisoner's dilemma.
Which leads to games theory and reciprocal altruism and cooperation and social organization and ... the inevitable systems by which the ruling elite deprive the productive members of society the fruits of their labor (aka governments).
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
I think it would be difficult to argue that we would be better off without a police force in this country, including the vast majority of black inner-city males (which isn't to say that they don't get fucked by the cops, because they do).
And this is coming from someone whose feelings about police officers are--to put it lightly--less than positive.
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
I think it would be difficult to argue that we would be better off without a police force in this country, including the vast majority of black inner-city males (which isn't to say that they don't get fucked by the cops, because they do).
And this is coming from someone whose feelings about police officers are--to put it lightly--less than positive.
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
Of course if we didn't have so many stupid laws then they wouldn't have to enforce them. We can start by repealing all of the federal drug laws, or at the very least marijuana prohibition, yesterday.
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
I think it would be difficult to argue that we would be better off without a police force in this country, including the vast majority of black inner-city males (which isn't to say that they don't get fucked by the cops, because they do).
And this is coming from someone whose feelings about police officers are--to put it lightly--less than positive.
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
Of course if we didn't have so many stupid laws then they wouldn't have to enforce them. We can start by repealing all of the federal drug laws, or at the very least marijuana prohibition, yesterday.
I don't know about cops in your state, but most of the cops in the states I've lived in have let the feds deal with federal laws, while they deal with state/county/city laws/ordinances.
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
Of course if we didn't have so many stupid laws then they wouldn't have to enforce them. We can start by repealing all of the federal drug laws, or at the very least marijuana prohibition, yesterday.
Deterrance is the best thing we can come up with, and to have effective deterrance we need to throw people in jail. Should we cut back on laws? Most definitely, I can think of a number of pointless laws that could use axing, hell, we have a website devoted to some of them. The Police also can recover stolen property and on occasions such as kidnapping or hostage situations can secure innocent lives. They exist as a great net benefit to society, what needs changing moreover is the laws they enforce. That, and they also could use some ethical overhauls to cut back on corruption and make them more accountable for their actions.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
I think it would be difficult to argue that we would be better off without a police force in this country, including the vast majority of black inner-city males (which isn't to say that they don't get fucked by the cops, because they do).
And this is coming from someone whose feelings about police officers are--to put it lightly--less than positive.
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
Of course if we didn't have so many stupid laws then they wouldn't have to enforce them. We can start by repealing all of the federal drug laws, or at the very least marijuana prohibition, yesterday.
I don't know about cops in your state, but most of the cops in the states I've lived in have let the feds deal with federal laws, while they deal with state/county/city laws/ordinances.
Pot would most likely be legal in my state if there wasn't a federal law against it. They can't legalize it because of the WOD so it continues to be used as an excuse to prosecute people they don't like.
Guys, uh, the larger point is that crime is detrimental to a healthy economy, really whatever the crime is, and the lack of a police force would common sensically lead to an increase in crime.
So the richest people actually stand to benefit the most from a healthy police force, because it insures their future riches. Look at South American countries for a counter example where rich people generally have to have large cadres of body guards due to the large number of kidnapping and ransom situations that occur.
Guys, uh, the larger point is that crime is detrimental to a healthy economy, really whatever the crime is, and the lack of a police force would common sensically lead to an increase in crime.
So the richest people actually stand to benefit the most from a healthy police force, because it insures their future riches. Look at South American countries for a counter example where rich people generally have to have large cadres of body guards due to the large number of kidnapping and ransom situations that occur.
I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
Guys, uh, the larger point is that crime is detrimental to a healthy economy, really whatever the crime is, and the lack of a police force would common sensically lead to an increase in crime.
So the richest people actually stand to benefit the most from a healthy police force, because it insures their future riches. Look at South American countries for a counter example where rich people generally have to have large cadres of body guards due to the large number of kidnapping and ransom situations that occur.
I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
Yes, I think a majority of the posters on this forum are in favor of reforming the drug laws, although truth be told many local black market drug economies in both the United States and abroad would be drastically hit by a reform in our federal regulations. That's not really here nor there, though...
The point remains that a healthy police force is an essential part of a healthy economy, which is one of the places where libertarians and their "private security forces" start to sound a little insane.
Posts
No, I read it because I wanted to see why the South Park guys felt necessary to comment on that at the end of the episode. I figured it must have been some horrible pile of shit.
Oh boy.
I think you're unclear on the concept of "necessary evil."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That is something a statist would say.
Well, if it's wrong to be a statist, then I don't wanna be right. I've never understood why libertarians think that's such an offensive thing.
I get the impression they don't like being told what to do.
Well, none of us do. But we also realize that it's sometimes the best thing.
I agree. From their perspective (I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I roomed with several in college), they feel like they are told what to do too much.
...for society as a whole, but not necessarily you personally. That's where the conflict arises.
Laws should be privatized? Does this quiz-maker not understand what a law is?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
We don't want no state-made rocket launchers we don't.
At which point, you promptly fall into the prisoner's dilemma.
Fixeded.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Which leads to games theory and reciprocal altruism and cooperation and social organization and ... the inevitable systems by which the ruling elite deprive the productive members of society the fruits of their labor (aka governments).
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
In general, I've found that police forces tend to guarantee you the fruits of your labor more than the opposit. Maybe it's just me.
Well I was being ironic. Like pretty much every -ism, libertarianism fails the reality test.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Double fixed!
Seriously, now, Ikinda considered myself a liberterian (from what I heard about it) - the "as long as you harm none, do what you will" Part, but if THATs what the glorious utopia of libertarians is, no thanks, I will take my oppressive regime right here, thank you very much.
Also, 11 points.
Obviously, you had not heard much. :P
I have strong feelings particularly about things like drug legalization, in that I do think adults should be given the benefit of the doubt as to their ability to decide on drugs and medication for themselves, but I don't think regulatory systems should be abolished. There's already things on the market (Hoodia, etc) that aren't approved by the FDA, and yet are still for sale, and adults who don't feel that substance is right for them do not use it.
I also have problems with just how restrictive zoning and employee safety laws are -- particularly the smoking ban (though that's for another thread entirely). My parents owned a small business (bar), and you wouldn't believe the hoops they had to jump through for just about everything (an example, again using the smoking ban, was the city's decision that a screened-in, closed-off area, only accessible from the bar proper, even with a double-door system, would still count as "indoors" and thus have the chance to endanger the health or pleasure of the employees and patrons. That's just stupid.). I agree, to a certain extent with this part quoted by Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud: "Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)?" but then, after reading the discussion by Feral, Derrick et al I realized that making it completely free would have more serious consequences than I'd previously thought. But do you think the government doesn't, perhaps, have a slightly too heavy hand with some of these things?
Smoking bans are a whole seperate issue to me, though.
Well every law on the books is there for a reason The real question is if it's there for a good one. Government is in its essence a necessary evil, we have to give up some freedom and money but the return should be far greater for everyone. However things need to be carefully and pragmatically balanced. In some cases the ends just don't justify the proposed means. That has to be decided on an issue by issue basis though.
I personally found my attraction to libertarian ideals was mostly because I feel the government is failing the nation in many areas and doing things for the wrong reasons. So then you ask yourself what can you do when typically most every politician in the republican or democratic party only agrees with you on half of your important issues and diametrically opposes you on the other. The natural conclusion is to find someone who agrees with you, and it seems that the only people in this case who did, had a heaping helping of batshit thrown in there. Of course, since they agreed where it matterd on a personal level and the idealogy is internally consistent it becomes easy to overlook the glaring flaws when they're the only people willing to tell the government to back the fuck off in areas personally perceived to be of high importance.
I can bet you if certain key libertarian ideals were adopted by other parties, their membership would vanish.
Well yes, obviously, but sometimes it's easier to get people to argue for a lack of restriction than in general to convince a larger party to adopt several of your positions they previously opposed. We all hold our dogmatic beliefs and it's hard to argue against heavily reinforced dogma even with a dirth of evidence. For instance laws against prostitution are so culturally embedded in society that it'd be impossible to pass legislation on, despite the dirth of evidence provided by Nevada's example that legal prostitution does not spread disease, drastically increases working conditions, increases pay, and dramatically reduces the risk of violence. Most Americans oppose prostitution on a dogmatic moral level of course and would oppose this unless you slipped it under the door in a blanket plan guised as something else. This is part of why I think Libertarianism is so appealing to many people. It appears like a way to get things done when no one else will listen to you despite anything you have to say.
Honestly, you're probably right about its appeals. I know that's why I was drawn to it in high school, but I became disenchanted with it when, you know, I thought about it on a deeper level than just the social "freedom" aspect.
I do wonder more about people that are continually attached to it, though. The Rondroid that passes out t-shirts at my local card shop for Friday Night Magic is so vehemently opposed to thinking rationally it's astounding. Libertarianism seems to polarize, and those that attach themselves to it don't seem to simply because of a few reasonable social reforms.
Look at it like religious dogma. A lot of people are heavily religious because they need the comfort it brings in their lives to provide them with mental and emotional stability. These people would not be functional human beings on any level without that religion or some sort of serious psychological intervention. Anything that threatens their worldview is fought tooth and nail and rational, logical thought as well as evidence is denied. Even highly intelligent people fall pray to this. It's simply because when you want something badly enough and you can't seem to think of a better way that'd be more personally satisfying you do whatever you can to defend it. This includes blocking conscious realization of the situation going on in your head. I mean, why spend the rest of your life in therapy when Jesus loves you?
So I took the test, scoring a 90, which pretty much makes me, by far, the craziest person here. Im sure some of you can rest assured that I answered "no" to pretty much everything in the final lightning round of privatization. The thing with the hard-hardcore Libertarian idealogies (which are pretty much anarchy) are that they are impossible to reapplicate to socities who have already grown up with many statist functions and mentalities. Having said that, it is important to have a balance, from Taoist philosophy of yin and yang to atomic and chemical harmony. It is also important to understand the concept and what can be adapted and applied to our modern day government to benefit everyone.
I do believe in the free markets but the problem is that it is generally a slow process. For example, over time all of humanity will see the problems with pollution and greenhouse gases and will want to keep a perserved earth. This process would obviously be too long and the Earth would suffer before the "market" (ie collective conscious) catches up. This is just one, of many, examples where government can make a solid and important difference. But the general idea behind it is important to know and utilize where appropriate, such as in corn subsidies or stem cell research where the government should allow things to develop more naturally.
The problem is that I've never come across Libertarians in the real world. I'm starting to think they are just a fiction created on the internet to rile up political science students.
Unless you're a black male in the inner city. Or a Muslim in France. Or an insurgent in Iraq. Or Darfur. Or Kosovo. Or the Ukraine. Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Or pretty much anyone near Germany in the Thirties. Other than that it's not just you.
And this is coming from someone whose feelings about police officers are--to put it lightly--less than positive.
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
Of course if we didn't have so many stupid laws then they wouldn't have to enforce them. We can start by repealing all of the federal drug laws, or at the very least marijuana prohibition, yesterday.
Deterrance is the best thing we can come up with, and to have effective deterrance we need to throw people in jail. Should we cut back on laws? Most definitely, I can think of a number of pointless laws that could use axing, hell, we have a website devoted to some of them. The Police also can recover stolen property and on occasions such as kidnapping or hostage situations can secure innocent lives. They exist as a great net benefit to society, what needs changing moreover is the laws they enforce. That, and they also could use some ethical overhauls to cut back on corruption and make them more accountable for their actions.
Pot would most likely be legal in my state if there wasn't a federal law against it. They can't legalize it because of the WOD so it continues to be used as an excuse to prosecute people they don't like.
So the richest people actually stand to benefit the most from a healthy police force, because it insures their future riches. Look at South American countries for a counter example where rich people generally have to have large cadres of body guards due to the large number of kidnapping and ransom situations that occur.
I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
Yes, I think a majority of the posters on this forum are in favor of reforming the drug laws, although truth be told many local black market drug economies in both the United States and abroad would be drastically hit by a reform in our federal regulations. That's not really here nor there, though...
The point remains that a healthy police force is an essential part of a healthy economy, which is one of the places where libertarians and their "private security forces" start to sound a little insane.