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.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I scored a 44, which I guess makes me insane, I'm pretty sure it's an inaccurate result though as there were a lot of questions that would have been better served by two yes or no answers, for instance licensing on many professions such as plumber are retarded, but I'd absolutely support licensing for doctors.
here are my views in a nutshell:
Government is a necessary evil, but we do need it for a number of things, these fall into three categories:
PUBLIC:
Things that should be strictly under the government's purview, including:
-Military operations, it's find to form a militia to defend the nation if and when the time comes, but defending the nation preemptively on your own accord is called terrorism, don't do that.
-Foreign policy, no you are not an ambassador plenipotentiary, you crazy wingnut, shut the hell up.
-Trade Tariffs, we need these, really we should have more of them, they protect our people from labor outsourcing.
-Environment, we need to protect this, otherwise we're all going to die, no you can't damn the Yosemite valley, I don't care how cool you think the damn would be the valley is cooler.
-Criminal courts, we need to have laws, they are kind of what makes a society, civil laws are something else, put murder, assault, robbery, etc. need to be dealt with.
Semi Private:
Things that the government should try to provide, but it's perfectly ok for private groups to try and compete:
-Utilities, this is one of those things that needs to be available, if you can rig your own power and water, and sell it to other people go for it.
-Medical care, again this should be made available to everyone at a fair price, non salute, non si paga health is not for sale, if you think you can provide better care, and can make a profit go ahead and try.
-Roads and transit, government should be subsidizing this for the good of society, but if you can put the land together to build your own railroad/subway/monorail/airport/whatever, your welcome to it.
-Police, we need these, if only to enforce laws like don't rob banks, and don't kill other people to watch them die. Private security is already prevelant, and thats good, they should be allowed more freedom on private property then we're golden.
-Civil Courts, there should be government civil courts, however private courts and arbitration are viable if both parties agree to it, moreover this would greatly alleviate much strain on the justice system.
Private:
-Everything not above, unless I missed something.
Other caveats:
There's alot of things like specific laws and zoning which I don't address, mostly I take a libertarian view on these things, vigilante justice for instance, while I don't believe in going out and hunting down criminals, If someone tried to rob me, or commit some other violent crime against me or in my presence, I'd do my level best to kill them. There is no compromise there, if you die in the act of committing violent crime there should be no appeal, there should be no repercussions, you attempted to prey upon a productive member of society, and now your dead, thats it.
From what I've learned in my government class (note here that my government class sucks), Libertarianism can be summed up in two words: Extreme Freedom.
Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.
What level was he?
Did he have an animal companion?
From what I've learned in my government class (note here that my government class sucks), Libertarianism can be summed up in two words: Anarcho-Capitalism.
From what I've learned in my government class (note here that my government class sucks), Libertarianism can be summed up in two words: Anarcho-Capitalism.
Fixed that for you.
The problem is that in reality, those two things don't mix.
Could someone unpack the idea that government is a "necessary evil" for me? I'm afraid I don't get a lot of meaning out of the cliché when applied to something as diverse and complex as government.
Pro: Government is required for large-scale organization and limitation of the use of force in conflict resolution.
Con: Government requires power to do this, and power attracts assholes.
The fact that there are pros and cons make it a necessary evil? Everything with nuance is a necessary evil, then. Okay. I don't think there's a lot of people saying that every aspect of government is a resounding good that can never go wrong.
Pro: Government is required for large-scale organization and limitation of the use of force in conflict resolution.
Con: Government requires power to do this, and power attracts assholes.
Nice summary.
Of course, a lot of this chicanery would be avoided if we mandated term limits on all positions of federal authority. The very notion of a life-long public servant is antithetical to the entire purpose of having a civilian-run government, especially in cases such as Congressmen, wherein the lifestyle and salary inherent to that position keeps you from understanding the plight of your constituency.
In regard to my feelings towards Libertarianism, I'm a lot less sure about my affiliation now than I was just a few years ago. In many ways, I champion a lot of the tenets of Objectivism, especially the sections regarding personal liberty and the rights of one person stopping when their actions infringe upon the rights of another. Problem is, all that rhetoric is well and good and all, but practical application demands much more interpretation, and often that yields results that can actually be read as counter to libertarian ideals.
For example, I'm in favor of state-mandated (or at least, state-suggested) population control. I work in the healthcare industry, and I can't abide when parents choose to have more children than they can remotely afford. This not only increases the liklihood of the children not recieving quality care because their parents can't afford it, but for the same reason also not being able to go to college, start businesses, compete socially with more affluent peers, so on and so on. Of course, laws listing how many children you are allowed to have are inherently anti-libertarian, as your body and your life should be your choice. However, by having a pauper's brood, not only are you making restricted life decisions for those children as their proxy until they are of age, you're infringing on the inherent rights of others in various ways, from making goods and services needlessly more scarce to (in any system with social programs) asking that the people living their lives in proper libertarian fashion oblige to pick up the slack for those who are not.
So that's the real question: at what point are rights infringed? While I support very few government-funded social programs (which, as an objectivist, I feel is the robbery of my wages in the name of things I do not support), I understand we live in a society where just as many people do support them and attempt to make them law. And as long as people live in nations in which it's legal to have dissenting opinions, I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this topic. I think personal responsibility is the greatest equalizer in the world, and both those who would gain from the disenfranchisement of others' freedom and those who would petition for assistence without sound evidence of character should be shunned in all instances.
Applied with strict adherence, Objectivism works quite well, even when applied to economic scenarios. The problem, like others here have stated in comparison to other constructs like Socialism and Communism, is that things begin to break down when people refuse to work within the system and follow the rules. Which, as a system that champions a "do whatever you want, just don't fuck with anyone else" mentality, sounds a bit ridiculous in retrospect, but hey, sometimes people just gotta piss other people off. In contrast to systems like Socialism and Communism, however, Objectivism does allow for others to participate without adherence to the laws of the dogma, but it does stipulate that you treat them as ignorant buffoons and part of an uninformed sub-class who dwell eternally in a state of consternation and disenfranchisement thanks to their life-long pursuits in the disenfranchisement (purposeful or otherwise) of others.
Of course, a lot of this chicanery would be avoided if we mandated term limits on all positions of federal authority.
No it wouldn't.
Limited duration of power just means you have a swiftly-revolving door of people doing whatever the fuck they want because they don't have future employment to risk.
See: Streakers at graduations.
Incenjucar on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Of course, a lot of this chicanery would be avoided if we mandated term limits on all positions of federal authority.
No it wouldn't.
Limited duration of power just means you have a swiftly-revolving door of people doing whatever the fuck they want because they don't have future employment to risk.
See: Streakers at graduations.
All positions in any elected post have oversight to one degree or another. If not from their peers, than from their superiors or parallel bodies.
And most decisions that carry any kind of weight demand at least a slim margin of majority at every level other than executive, which already has term limits imposed.
Mass anarchy will not ensue thanks to Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy having to find new jobs.
Pro: Government is required for large-scale organization and limitation of the use of force in conflict resolution.
Con: Government requires power to do this, and power attracts assholes.
The fact that there are pros and cons make it a necessary evil? Everything with nuance is a necessary evil, then. Okay. I don't think there's a lot of people saying that every aspect of government is a resounding good that can never go wrong.
Government doesn't limit the use of force in conflict resolution it just monopolizes the use of force.
Government is an inefficient monopoly. If it fails to meet the needs of society it is very difficult to reform or reduce in size, scope and power.
Businesses are more efficient, less monopolistic and if they fail to meet the needs of society they are replaced by one that will.
That doesn't mean all businesses are efficient, nor does it mean that they cannot monopolize, but generally when businesses fail to be quality businesses they go bankrupt and are replaced. If the government fails and goes bankrupt, it just assumes more control and takes more of your money to make up the shortfall until it eventually collapses.
and if they fail to meet the needs of society they are replaced by one that will.
False. Corporations fulfill the wants of society. Governments fulfill the needs.
Do not confuse the want of some citizens to have a slightly higher after-tax income with the need to have safe food, housing, medical care, and safety for all citizens.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Uh, yeah. Or did I miss where we were giving free movement to the other competing governments within America? The government has the monopoly on the crafting, enforcing, and interpretation of all laws. There are no private courts, no legal extra-federal militaries.
Not that I really oppose any of that, but yes, the government is entirely monopolistic.
What if a business is a monopoly?
In a fair market, it's kind of hard to accomplish. Goods and services are supposed to be equally accessable in the market, given that the harvesting of said resources is also done fairly.
Monopolies occur when labor is not dispersed fairly, opportunities in buying and selling are not equal in the same market, and/or resources are owned by a single provider. Of course, all of these inequities can be seen in action at your local Wal-Mart or gas station.
Government doesn't limit the use of force in conflict resolution it just monopolizes the use of force.
False. Private security agencies, mercenaries, rival governments, and an armed populace also have access to deadly force.
Fine bit of doublethink from Feral there!
Nope. If two rival corporations competing in the same market space do not compose a monopoly, then two governments with open borders and a suitably mobile populace (both common assumptions of Libertarian thinking) do not compose a monopoly, either.
Nope. If two rival corporations competing in the same market space do not compose a monopoly, then two governments with open borders and a suitably mobile populace (both common assumptions of Libertarian thinking) do not compose a monopoly, either.
Which is another bit o' reality that brings Libertarianism crashing down. In a world of such disparity, advanced governments cannot permit open borders with nations that house a populace with a large contingent of people who do not follow the same rules.
Remember, that's the deal with Libertarianism: everyone has to play along. If your neighboring nations won't offer comparable living standards, analogous personal liberties, or generally would like to blow you up, any subsequent hook-ups will go poorly. Take illegal immigration in America, for example. Condoned by businesses that would rather use labor at rates that do not allow for the acceptable American standard for personal liberty than allow market forces to dictate their wages. Allowed by a people whose drastically sub-par standard of living in America is made to look positively affluent in comparison to their counterparts back in Mexico.
Nope. If two rival corporations competing in the same market space do not compose a monopoly, then two governments with open borders and a suitably mobile populace (both common assumptions of Libertarian thinking) do not compose a monopoly, either.
Which is another bit o' reality that brings Libertarianism crashing down. In a world of such disparity, advanced governments cannot permit open borders with nations that house a populace with a large contingent of people who do not follow the same rules.
Agreed.
I also think libertarians routinely significantly overestimate the mobility of the average poor/lower-middle-class laborer.
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.
Nope. If two rival corporations competing in the same market space do not compose a monopoly, then two governments with open borders and a suitably mobile populace (both common assumptions of Libertarian thinking) do not compose a monopoly, either.
Er, except the fact they have borders rather does indicate a monopoly. We have somewhat mobile populations now, but you are still subject to the laws of the land your feet are standing on, and they have the right to enforce those laws through their police / military / deathsquads.
(Anyway, I thought KevinNash was talking about how the world is, not whatever libertarian utopia he may or may not want)
Not Sarastro on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also think libertarians routinely significantly overestimate the mobility of the average poor/lower-middle-class laborer.
I think, more accurately, they overestimate the ability (or willingness?) of the lower-middle-class to transcend the tradtional excesses of upper classes in favor of a comparable level of success. Both the guy whose parents are trust-fund squatters and the guy who grew up in a trailer park have the ability (in America, anyway) to become successful and affluent members of society, but the the latter guy has to work much harder and do more with less to achieve the same thing.
The lower income classes are just as mobile as their more wealthy counterparts, just as long as they don't mind not having nice things or having too much debt or children they can't afford before they reach their goals.
Bear in mind, however, I'm not too strongly against the platitude that says anything worthwhile isn't easy to obtain. And I think there is a limit to your potential based on factors like expectations of quality, ability to successfully defer gratification, and general intellectual capacity. Sometimes people work in factories at menial jobs for low wages because they chose to have too many children or didn't want to go to college, sometimes they work in factories doing menial jobs because that's all their potential can carry them.
And maybe that's the biggest fallacy of all in Libertarianism: an assumption that those who do not fit the mold have the capaicty to know better.
The problem I have with that view point is that there are people without the talent and ability to do well.
I used to work with a woman in her late fifties at my last job. Her husband had died three years earlier and she had been floating from temp job to temp job ever since. This woman was stone cold dumb. Just dumb. She did not have capacity for work of any kind.
For all that, she was not a bad person. She struggled mightily to land a permanent job, but she had been struggling like that for years. She was trying to take classes in microsoft office programs but she couldn't get enough attention from the instructor to really make headway. Her desperation was palpable. Sometimes she would break down crying at her desk. So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
I think it's notable (enough to come out of lurking, even) that most libertarians that I've talked to would say that the question is "Does this woman deserve to have steady, adequate income, housing and health care?"
From what I've learned in my government class (note here that my government class sucks), Libertarianism can be summed up in two words: Anarcho-Capitalism.
Fixed that for you.
The problem is that in reality, those two things don't mix.
The problem I have with that view point is that there are people without the talent and ability to do well.
I used to work with a woman in her late fifties at my last job. Her husband had died three years earlier and she had been floating from temp job to temp job ever since. This woman was stone cold dumb. Just dumb. She did not have capacity for work of any kind.
For all that, she was not a bad person. She struggled mightily to land a permanent job, but she had been struggling like that for years. She was trying to take classes in microsoft office programs but she couldn't get enough attention from the instructor to really make headway. Her desperation was palpable. Sometimes she would break down crying at her desk. So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
That's a sad story. I don't think anyone likes to see another human suffer like that. How would you fix the problem?
The problem I have with that view point is that there are people without the talent and ability to do well.
I used to work with a woman in her late fifties at my last job. Her husband had died three years earlier and she had been floating from temp job to temp job ever since. This woman was stone cold dumb. Just dumb. She did not have capacity for work of any kind.
For all that, she was not a bad person. She struggled mightily to land a permanent job, but she had been struggling like that for years. She was trying to take classes in microsoft office programs but she couldn't get enough attention from the instructor to really make headway. Her desperation was palpable. Sometimes she would break down crying at her desk. So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
That's a sad story. I don't think anyone likes to see another human suffer like that. How would you fix the problem?
Remarry a rich man, join a church that would support her out of charity or become dependent on relatives who may or may not have the resources to support her of course.
I would not dream of fixing the problem with public welfare that might support her as an individual.
Because as we know, the healthy and free society is the one where the vulnerable individual must bow before the dominance of the alter, the patriarch and the extended family.
The problem I have with that view point is that there are people without the talent and ability to do well.
I used to work with a woman in her late fifties at my last job. Her husband had died three years earlier and she had been floating from temp job to temp job ever since. This woman was stone cold dumb. Just dumb. She did not have capacity for work of any kind.
For all that, she was not a bad person. She struggled mightily to land a permanent job, but she had been struggling like that for years. She was trying to take classes in microsoft office programs but she couldn't get enough attention from the instructor to really make headway. Her desperation was palpable. Sometimes she would break down crying at her desk. So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
That's a sad story. I don't think anyone likes to see another human suffer like that. How would you fix the problem?
Remarry a rich man, join a church that would support her out of charity or become dependent on relatives who may or may not have the resources to support her of course.
I would not dream of fixing the problem with public welfare that might support her as an individual.
Because as we know, the healthy and free society is the one where the vulnerable individual must bow before the dominance of the alter, the patriarch and the extended family.
I can see how expecting her to depend on members of her family that don't want to support her would be an undesirable situation. Not at all like forcing people that aren't related to her to support her, whether they want to or not.
I can see how expecting her to depend on members of her family that don't want to support her would be an undesirable situation. Not at all like forcing people that aren't related to her to support her, whether they want to or not.
I'd say spreading out the resources required to take care of her basic needs over a large number of people who don't know her is actually the best solution. Either dependency or deprivation is her lot. With public assistance she is allowed a dependence without the specter of abusive personal obligation. She may marry, worship and relate to her family as she wishes rather than being forced by necessity.
Her net gain of freedom far exceeds the the freedom lost by my inability to spend ten cents a year on a stick of bubble gum.
Were we all limitlessly capable libertarianism might make sense. But just like everything else in libertarianism, it shipwrecks on the shore of a reality that is more complex than 1+1=2.
I can see how expecting her to depend on members of her family that don't want to support her would be an undesirable situation. Not at all like forcing people that aren't related to her to support her, whether they want to or not.
I'd say spreading out the resources required to take care of her basic needs over a large number of people who don't know her is actually the best solution. Either dependency or deprivation is her lot. With public assistance she is allowed a dependence without the specter of abusive personal obligation. She may marry, worship and relate to her family as she wishes rather than being forced by necessity.
Her net gain of freedom far exceeds the the freedom lost by my inability to spend ten cents a year on a stick of bubble gum.
Were we all limitlessly capable libertarianism might make sense. But just like everything else in libertarianism, it shipwrecks on the shore of a reality that is more complex than 1+1=2.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Nevermind that there is a huge negative stigma that comes with being on welfare. It's not a badge of honor or something to be proud of. Also, irrationally justifying that you shouldn't work because your wife isn't working is asinine and incredibly juvenile. A popular mindset for Libertarians, but still, that doesn't make it okay.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
That point aside, you still haven't addressed the fact that a welfare state forces productive members of society to take care of those they don't want to. Why should I be forced to provide for Joe Loser? I work hard for my money, and I should have the power to decide what is done with it.
Nevermind that there is a huge negative stigma that comes with being on welfare. It's not a badge of honor or something to be proud of. Also, irrationally justifying that you shouldn't work because your wife isn't working is asinine and incredibly juvenile. A popular mindset for Libertarians, but still, that doesn't make it okay.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
You misread what I wrote above, since I never mentioned anything about my wife (and I'm not married).
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
That point aside, you still haven't addressed the fact that a welfare state forces productive members of society to take care of those they don't want to. Why should I be forced to provide for Joe Loser? I work hard for my money, and I should have the power to decide what is done with it.
Nevermind that there is a huge negative stigma that comes with being on welfare. It's not a badge of honor or something to be proud of. Also, irrationally justifying that you shouldn't work because your wife isn't working is asinine and incredibly juvenile. A popular mindset for Libertarians, but still, that doesn't make it okay.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
You misread what I wrote above, since I never mentioned anything about my wife (and I'm not married).
What proportion abuses the system though? Any credible sources to support your argument?
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
That point aside, you still haven't addressed the fact that a welfare state forces productive members of society to take care of those they don't want to. Why should I be forced to provide for Joe Loser? I work hard for my money, and I should have the power to decide what is done with it.
Nevermind that there is a huge negative stigma that comes with being on welfare. It's not a badge of honor or something to be proud of. Also, irrationally justifying that you shouldn't work because your wife isn't working is asinine and incredibly juvenile. A popular mindset for Libertarians, but still, that doesn't make it okay.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
You misread what I wrote above, since I never mentioned anything about my wife (and I'm not married).
What proportion abuses the system though? Any credible sources to support your argument?
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
Sounds like an opinion you've developed through careful research.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
That point aside, you still haven't addressed the fact that a welfare state forces productive members of society to take care of those they don't want to. Why should I be forced to provide for Joe Loser? I work hard for my money, and I should have the power to decide what is done with it.
Nevermind that there is a huge negative stigma that comes with being on welfare. It's not a badge of honor or something to be proud of. Also, irrationally justifying that you shouldn't work because your wife isn't working is asinine and incredibly juvenile. A popular mindset for Libertarians, but still, that doesn't make it okay.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
You misread what I wrote above, since I never mentioned anything about my wife (and I'm not married).
What proportion abuses the system though? Any credible sources to support your argument?
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
I surrender. Your logical prowess is too much for my small brain to handle. It's cute really. How you make claims and then present no evidence while making excuses.
Posts
here are my views in a nutshell:
Government is a necessary evil, but we do need it for a number of things, these fall into three categories:
PUBLIC:
Things that should be strictly under the government's purview, including:
-Military operations, it's find to form a militia to defend the nation if and when the time comes, but defending the nation preemptively on your own accord is called terrorism, don't do that.
-Foreign policy, no you are not an ambassador plenipotentiary, you crazy wingnut, shut the hell up.
-Trade Tariffs, we need these, really we should have more of them, they protect our people from labor outsourcing.
-Environment, we need to protect this, otherwise we're all going to die, no you can't damn the Yosemite valley, I don't care how cool you think the damn would be the valley is cooler.
-Criminal courts, we need to have laws, they are kind of what makes a society, civil laws are something else, put murder, assault, robbery, etc. need to be dealt with.
Semi Private:
Things that the government should try to provide, but it's perfectly ok for private groups to try and compete:
-Utilities, this is one of those things that needs to be available, if you can rig your own power and water, and sell it to other people go for it.
-Medical care, again this should be made available to everyone at a fair price, non salute, non si paga health is not for sale, if you think you can provide better care, and can make a profit go ahead and try.
-Roads and transit, government should be subsidizing this for the good of society, but if you can put the land together to build your own railroad/subway/monorail/airport/whatever, your welcome to it.
-Police, we need these, if only to enforce laws like don't rob banks, and don't kill other people to watch them die. Private security is already prevelant, and thats good, they should be allowed more freedom on private property then we're golden.
-Civil Courts, there should be government civil courts, however private courts and arbitration are viable if both parties agree to it, moreover this would greatly alleviate much strain on the justice system.
Private:
-Everything not above, unless I missed something.
Other caveats:
There's alot of things like specific laws and zoning which I don't address, mostly I take a libertarian view on these things, vigilante justice for instance, while I don't believe in going out and hunting down criminals, If someone tried to rob me, or commit some other violent crime against me or in my presence, I'd do my level best to kill them. There is no compromise there, if you die in the act of committing violent crime there should be no appeal, there should be no repercussions, you attempted to prey upon a productive member of society, and now your dead, thats it.
What the fuck, I should have listened and stayed away from this abortion of a test. (Got a 7.)
The problem is that in reality, those two things don't mix.
?
Pro: Government is required for large-scale organization and limitation of the use of force in conflict resolution.
Con: Government requires power to do this, and power attracts assholes.
The fact that there are pros and cons make it a necessary evil? Everything with nuance is a necessary evil, then. Okay. I don't think there's a lot of people saying that every aspect of government is a resounding good that can never go wrong.
Especially since a lot of those assholes would have considerable power anyway.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Nice summary.
Of course, a lot of this chicanery would be avoided if we mandated term limits on all positions of federal authority. The very notion of a life-long public servant is antithetical to the entire purpose of having a civilian-run government, especially in cases such as Congressmen, wherein the lifestyle and salary inherent to that position keeps you from understanding the plight of your constituency.
In regard to my feelings towards Libertarianism, I'm a lot less sure about my affiliation now than I was just a few years ago. In many ways, I champion a lot of the tenets of Objectivism, especially the sections regarding personal liberty and the rights of one person stopping when their actions infringe upon the rights of another. Problem is, all that rhetoric is well and good and all, but practical application demands much more interpretation, and often that yields results that can actually be read as counter to libertarian ideals.
For example, I'm in favor of state-mandated (or at least, state-suggested) population control. I work in the healthcare industry, and I can't abide when parents choose to have more children than they can remotely afford. This not only increases the liklihood of the children not recieving quality care because their parents can't afford it, but for the same reason also not being able to go to college, start businesses, compete socially with more affluent peers, so on and so on. Of course, laws listing how many children you are allowed to have are inherently anti-libertarian, as your body and your life should be your choice. However, by having a pauper's brood, not only are you making restricted life decisions for those children as their proxy until they are of age, you're infringing on the inherent rights of others in various ways, from making goods and services needlessly more scarce to (in any system with social programs) asking that the people living their lives in proper libertarian fashion oblige to pick up the slack for those who are not.
So that's the real question: at what point are rights infringed? While I support very few government-funded social programs (which, as an objectivist, I feel is the robbery of my wages in the name of things I do not support), I understand we live in a society where just as many people do support them and attempt to make them law. And as long as people live in nations in which it's legal to have dissenting opinions, I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this topic. I think personal responsibility is the greatest equalizer in the world, and both those who would gain from the disenfranchisement of others' freedom and those who would petition for assistence without sound evidence of character should be shunned in all instances.
Applied with strict adherence, Objectivism works quite well, even when applied to economic scenarios. The problem, like others here have stated in comparison to other constructs like Socialism and Communism, is that things begin to break down when people refuse to work within the system and follow the rules. Which, as a system that champions a "do whatever you want, just don't fuck with anyone else" mentality, sounds a bit ridiculous in retrospect, but hey, sometimes people just gotta piss other people off. In contrast to systems like Socialism and Communism, however, Objectivism does allow for others to participate without adherence to the laws of the dogma, but it does stipulate that you treat them as ignorant buffoons and part of an uninformed sub-class who dwell eternally in a state of consternation and disenfranchisement thanks to their life-long pursuits in the disenfranchisement (purposeful or otherwise) of others.
No it wouldn't.
Limited duration of power just means you have a swiftly-revolving door of people doing whatever the fuck they want because they don't have future employment to risk.
See: Streakers at graduations.
All positions in any elected post have oversight to one degree or another. If not from their peers, than from their superiors or parallel bodies.
And most decisions that carry any kind of weight demand at least a slim margin of majority at every level other than executive, which already has term limits imposed.
Mass anarchy will not ensue thanks to Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy having to find new jobs.
Government doesn't limit the use of force in conflict resolution it just monopolizes the use of force.
Government is an inefficient monopoly. If it fails to meet the needs of society it is very difficult to reform or reduce in size, scope and power.
Businesses are more efficient, less monopolistic and if they fail to meet the needs of society they are replaced by one that will.
That doesn't mean all businesses are efficient, nor does it mean that they cannot monopolize, but generally when businesses fail to be quality businesses they go bankrupt and are replaced. If the government fails and goes bankrupt, it just assumes more control and takes more of your money to make up the shortfall until it eventually collapses.
Businesses are less monopolistic?
What if a business is a monopoly?
False. Private security agencies, mercenaries, rival governments, and an armed populace also have access to deadly force.
False. Many government services face competition from private organizations.
False. Any citizen can vote against an incumbent President. Only shareholders can vote against an incumbent CEO.
For many markets, this is false. Fire protection is the obvious example.
Only if anti-competitive practices are explicitly prohibited by the government.
False. Corporations fulfill the wants of society. Governments fulfill the needs.
Do not confuse the want of some citizens to have a slightly higher after-tax income with the need to have safe food, housing, medical care, and safety for all citizens.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Uh, yeah. Or did I miss where we were giving free movement to the other competing governments within America? The government has the monopoly on the crafting, enforcing, and interpretation of all laws. There are no private courts, no legal extra-federal militaries.
Not that I really oppose any of that, but yes, the government is entirely monopolistic.
In a fair market, it's kind of hard to accomplish. Goods and services are supposed to be equally accessable in the market, given that the harvesting of said resources is also done fairly.
Monopolies occur when labor is not dispersed fairly, opportunities in buying and selling are not equal in the same market, and/or resources are owned by a single provider. Of course, all of these inequities can be seen in action at your local Wal-Mart or gas station.
Fight to the death.
No thanks, I've had a little too much amaretto tonight to post anything more substantial than glib one-liners.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ah, the only contradiction regards my phrasing of "entirely monopolistic." In which I was wrong. But not in principle.
Still, I'll concede the point if Feral will send me some of the Amaretto.
Fine bit of doublethink from Feral there!
Nope. If two rival corporations competing in the same market space do not compose a monopoly, then two governments with open borders and a suitably mobile populace (both common assumptions of Libertarian thinking) do not compose a monopoly, either.
Done.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Which is another bit o' reality that brings Libertarianism crashing down. In a world of such disparity, advanced governments cannot permit open borders with nations that house a populace with a large contingent of people who do not follow the same rules.
Remember, that's the deal with Libertarianism: everyone has to play along. If your neighboring nations won't offer comparable living standards, analogous personal liberties, or generally would like to blow you up, any subsequent hook-ups will go poorly. Take illegal immigration in America, for example. Condoned by businesses that would rather use labor at rates that do not allow for the acceptable American standard for personal liberty than allow market forces to dictate their wages. Allowed by a people whose drastically sub-par standard of living in America is made to look positively affluent in comparison to their counterparts back in Mexico.
Agreed.
I also think libertarians routinely significantly overestimate the mobility of the average poor/lower-middle-class laborer.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Er, except the fact they have borders rather does indicate a monopoly. We have somewhat mobile populations now, but you are still subject to the laws of the land your feet are standing on, and they have the right to enforce those laws through their police / military / deathsquads.
(Anyway, I thought KevinNash was talking about how the world is, not whatever libertarian utopia he may or may not want)
I think, more accurately, they overestimate the ability (or willingness?) of the lower-middle-class to transcend the tradtional excesses of upper classes in favor of a comparable level of success. Both the guy whose parents are trust-fund squatters and the guy who grew up in a trailer park have the ability (in America, anyway) to become successful and affluent members of society, but the the latter guy has to work much harder and do more with less to achieve the same thing.
The lower income classes are just as mobile as their more wealthy counterparts, just as long as they don't mind not having nice things or having too much debt or children they can't afford before they reach their goals.
Bear in mind, however, I'm not too strongly against the platitude that says anything worthwhile isn't easy to obtain. And I think there is a limit to your potential based on factors like expectations of quality, ability to successfully defer gratification, and general intellectual capacity. Sometimes people work in factories at menial jobs for low wages because they chose to have too many children or didn't want to go to college, sometimes they work in factories doing menial jobs because that's all their potential can carry them.
And maybe that's the biggest fallacy of all in Libertarianism: an assumption that those who do not fit the mold have the capaicty to know better.
I used to work with a woman in her late fifties at my last job. Her husband had died three years earlier and she had been floating from temp job to temp job ever since. This woman was stone cold dumb. Just dumb. She did not have capacity for work of any kind.
For all that, she was not a bad person. She struggled mightily to land a permanent job, but she had been struggling like that for years. She was trying to take classes in microsoft office programs but she couldn't get enough attention from the instructor to really make headway. Her desperation was palpable. Sometimes she would break down crying at her desk. So the question I was presented with was "does this graying woman deserve a life of constant insecurity and near poverty? As she moves into the failing years of her life does she deserve to have intermittent, inadequate income, housing and health care?"
I think it's notable (enough to come out of lurking, even) that most libertarians that I've talked to would say that the question is "Does this woman deserve to have steady, adequate income, housing and health care?"
Thus, Libertarianism?
That's a sad story. I don't think anyone likes to see another human suffer like that. How would you fix the problem?
Remarry a rich man, join a church that would support her out of charity or become dependent on relatives who may or may not have the resources to support her of course.
I would not dream of fixing the problem with public welfare that might support her as an individual.
Because as we know, the healthy and free society is the one where the vulnerable individual must bow before the dominance of the alter, the patriarch and the extended family.
I can see how expecting her to depend on members of her family that don't want to support her would be an undesirable situation. Not at all like forcing people that aren't related to her to support her, whether they want to or not.
I'd say spreading out the resources required to take care of her basic needs over a large number of people who don't know her is actually the best solution. Either dependency or deprivation is her lot. With public assistance she is allowed a dependence without the specter of abusive personal obligation. She may marry, worship and relate to her family as she wishes rather than being forced by necessity.
Her net gain of freedom far exceeds the the freedom lost by my inability to spend ten cents a year on a stick of bubble gum.
Were we all limitlessly capable libertarianism might make sense. But just like everything else in libertarianism, it shipwrecks on the shore of a reality that is more complex than 1+1=2.
Well, how does this sound. We can spread the burden over society, but I'm going to count myself in the incapable camp, so can you cover my financial responsibility? If she shouldn't have to work then I don't want to either.
Using public resources to take care of people sounds like a great idea until it shipwrecks on the shore of reality -- the fact that people are lazy and will take any free handouts they can get.
Are you on welfare right now?
No, neither am I.
And yet it would be available to us if we cared to shape our lives toward the end of receiving it. But we do not shape our lives in that direction.
I submit that you have made another sloppy generalization with the aim of providing a simplistic view of the world.
Just because you or I choose not the exploit welfare doesn't mean there aren't countless others doing so. The opinion that "everyone will abuse the system" is just as simplistic as the opinion "only those truly in need will use the system". The point is that a significant portion of the population exploits the system.
That point aside, you still haven't addressed the fact that a welfare state forces productive members of society to take care of those they don't want to. Why should I be forced to provide for Joe Loser? I work hard for my money, and I should have the power to decide what is done with it.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
You misread what I wrote above, since I never mentioned anything about my wife (and I'm not married).
What proportion abuses the system though? Any credible sources to support your argument?
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
Sounds like an opinion you've developed through careful research.