Libertarianism doesn't really exist in the UK, I'm still wrapping my head around it and trying to understand how it all works. I'm also aware that it's claimed (wrongly I'd guess) by several people I met living in central PA who were actually extremely religiously rightwing.
I agree with you on big government, of course it is not to be trusted blindly, whichever party is in charge, but accept and even laud it for it's capacity to run things that would otherwise not function and also because I am aware we do not live in a bubble, the nation exists on the world stage and must contend with rivals, to do this, it must have a sufficient administrative capability. When I'm in the playground, I want to say, with some certainty, 'my dad's bigger than your dad'.
I'm confused by this other part, the Ayn Rand part about business. Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.
Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?
Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing? It's the party of military ventures abroad, religious dictates and social conservatism, surely this is against the principals of 'true' libertarianism? Surely a libertarian would absolutely revolt against the abolition of freedom of choice and applaud the rights of gays to marriage, aren't these personal freedoms and liberties of higher principal to a libertarian than lower taxes (because you'll pay em, regardless of who's in or out).
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
I think it's sometimes helpful like my municipal government has passed a bylaw where bikers and skateboarders have to wear a helmet or you'll be punished, but I think it's a good idea I mean sure you look stupid in the helmet but it helps reduce damage to the head.
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
So, the lost of 'freedoms' you suffered under the Bush administration vs what you've lost under the Obama admin, how do they compare to you, because, for me, it would appear that due to Homeland Security and the War on Terror, a great many erosions of personal privacy were lost.
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.
Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).
Cheesecat wrote: I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.
There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.
Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.
Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).
Well it also depends how relevant the courses are like if you were focusing more on the dietary, social or economic effects of food.
Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).
My post constitutes bullying? In what fantasy make-believe world?
And if you have taken 6 classes 'in regards to that stuff', then I can't possibly understand how you could see goverment regulation on food distribution and sales as a bad thing.
''Corporations should be able to put whatever they want in what they sell me. FOR FREEDOM''
Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).
My post constitutes bullying? In what fantasy make-believe world?
And if you have taken 6 classes 'in regards to that stuff', then I can't possibly understand how you could see goverment regulation on food distribution and sales as a bad thing.
''Corporations should be able to put whatever they want in what they sell me. FOR FREEDOM''
It's a saying. Basically "good for them, but who gives a gak?"
And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever. It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance. It's not their job to wipe my ass for me. Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.
I'll chime in here. I, myself, believe the government needs regulatory power over certain things, especially things proven to cause harm to people. Just as trans fats have be proven to be, Sometimes you need to take that big-gulp out of someones hand.
We have done it with many things, drugs, medicine and even types of food.
I remember when someone in one of my classes complained that OSHA prevented him from doing a certain job because he was under age, and he complained, but it was a dangerous job and he could have gotten hurt.
The government needs to regulate things to make them safe.
To your main question about us being more with the "right wing" aka Republicans in our country:
In every belief structure or political thinking, there are some ideals that are prioritized over others. In the Libertarian mindset, the financial house is priority, once you have everything covered there, then the social issues start to fall into line more easily.
We see it as the same as your everyday life. Having trouble paying your bills and rent? Chances are your personal life with your spouse is suffering. Your personal life will not get better without ridding yourself of the stress of your financial life.
Democrats in the USA are only very moderately better, and I hesitate to say that at all, on social issues like gay marriage or any civil rights for that matter. My biggest issue with Democratic politicians, is they will give you the impression they are for gay rights, while flat out opposing it.
In our countries history when it comes to ending slavery, ending segregation, and women's rights to vote and own property, the Democratic party and Progressives opposed, and the Republicans and Libertarians fought for the rights of the people.
And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever.
Nor is it what they are doing. Putting legislation on how much a company is allowed to sell as a portion is not the same as restricting your right to consume certain quantities. At worst, it simply means that you'll have to order more units of smaller quantities.
But even if it was what they were doing, as long as the regulations were rationally established, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Only a fool rejoice in the freedom to hurt himself.
It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance.
I do not know enough about the US health care system to evaluate it's merits and it's flaws. But I can certainly agree with the rationale that universal health care is a necessity.
It's not their job to wipe my ass for me.
Have they tried?
Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.
I see my government as an extension of my people's will and mine (up to a point, I'm independentist after all), so I rarely see the goverment's legislation being a restriction on my freedom. There's no reason to value freedom as an absolute.
I found this to be an amusing image but I don't know if it really adds anything to the discussion, it may not paint the most accurate depiction of libertarianism but it makes me smile so it's going in this thread.
Here's the thing about Ayn Rand: she only shows one side of things. She wrote two science fiction books about a utopian civilization wherein priovate interests never conflict with one another. If you ever meet someone that believes in that particular dream-world, ask them to find Centralia, PA on a map. That place is the inevitable result of John Galt operating without restraint.
Cheesecat wrote:I found this to be an amusing image but I don't know if it really adds anything to the discussion, it may not paint the most accurate depiction of libertarianism but it makes me smile so it's going in this thread.
Well, with libertarians we also have to separate ourselves between what we call the "big L" Libertarians who are members of the Libertarian party and have their own definition of what libertarians should believe and the "little l" libertarians who don't belong to any particular party (or to someone else beside the Libertarian Party).
The instances of Republicans who call themselves "libertarians" doesn't help eliminate confusion either, since there are quite a few people who think that Ron Paul is a libertarian.
I throw my hat in with the libertarian socialists.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not? And at the same time there are different types of Libertarians, some models include social welfare to some degree, including provided for by taxes free universal health care.
Referring to the point raised earlier of "sometimes you have to take the big gulp out of someone's hand" I don't think that's true. If they want it, and have the means to pay for it, and someone is willing to sell it to them, then there is no reason for them not to have it. I am not my brother's keeper. I can plead with him not to buy the big gulp, I can advise him against it, I can use all of the facts and knowledge available to attempt to persuade him against that course of action, but ultimately the decision is his on how he wants to live his life. As long as he is willing and able to pay the consequences of his actions he should be allowed to do what he wants.
Ratbarf wrote: Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not?
Well, for a large majority of people libertarian = small government and they think that Ron Paul is a small government kind of guy despite the fact that he is fairly pro-government at the State level.
Ratbarf wrote: Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not?
Well, for a large majority of people libertarian = small government and they think that Ron Paul is a small government kind of guy despite the fact that he is fairly pro-government at the State level.
And he reminds me of that old uncle who has lost his marbles...
It's a saying. Basically "good for them, but who gives a gak?"
And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever. It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance. It's not their job to wipe my ass for me. Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.
When I was younger, I used to be much more black and white on the issue than I am now. Basically, after collegiate level courses (which I believe you've attended as well from your prior posts), I began to realize the impact evolutionary hard wiring has on us without proper risk evaluation--and entire industries that dedicate themselves to abuse those primal urges. Substances they place in food to entice you to eat more (Carb starve of our ancestors vs. over abundance now), the short spurts of dopamine we receive from buying an item today (on a credit card) vs. waiting, etc. There have actually been several studies that display those urges in certain individuals. The classic "I'll put a piece of candy in the room and if you wait, when I get back in 5 minutes you can have 2--if you eat it now, that's all you get". Most kids don't last 2 minutes in that experiment--and followed through life, they are the ones that display long term debt and other risky behavior.
So I guess what I'm saying is--if you are aware that certain entities are taking advantage of another group of people without them being aware of it--is it right to step in and say something? Or go by the "They made their bed, they can lie in it" when later in life they develop serious health consequences? *Shrug*, I don't know. It's unsettling to say "step in and start limiting calories in food" as it certainly feels authoritarian. On the other hand, simply letting corporations turn 5 year olds into cholesterol med popping food addicts makes me nauseous too.
Or maybe another ad absurdum (maybe?)---if you knew a group of people had a brain mass that caused them to make extremely poor health choices for themselves and for their children...AND you knew companies..knowing this, took advantage of those suffering from the brain mass by offering food in enormous quantities---would you step in? 'Food' for thought (pardon the pun, it's late).
Well, can you really blame companies for capitalizing on an advantage?
And limiting the soda size really won't decrease consumption, it just means people make more trips to the fountain for more free refills. And no, we definitly shouldn't tell anybody they can't give free refills.
Yes, people should suffer the consequences of their actions if they decided to have unhealthy eating habits. Let them foot the bill with their private insurance. Don't allow Insurance companies to turn anyone down, but do let them jack up the premiums.
In Canada we just tax unhealthy choices out the wazoo. A pack of smokes costs between 7 and 13 dollars depending on where and what brand. But the Players rep who used to deliver smokes to the store I worked at said that on the pack of smokes that cost about 11.44, 7.80 of that is government tax. Most of which goes to fund either anti smoking campaigns or the health care system.
People here are quick to proclaim the greatness of a limited government and that people should pay their own price for their stupid mistakes. But when a wildfire or tornado takes out their house that they decide to build in tornado alley and an area without any fire hydrants and FEMA decides not to pay them anything, then it's pitchfork time in the sooner state.
d-usa wrote:Speaking from my experience in Oklahoma:
People here are quick to proclaim the greatness of a limited government and that people should pay their own price for their stupid mistakes. But when a wildfire or tornado takes out their house that they decide to build in tornado alley and an area without any fire hydrants and FEMA decides not to pay them anything, then it's pitchfork time in the sooner state.
This sounds about right. This is the attitude that is bred from the "I've got mine so feth you"-Libertarian way of life. They'll always think it's unfair until they realize it's very fair. However, on the other end of the extreme, you will also get people who want to justify limiting soft drinks because of the extra burden that rampant obesity places on a socialist health care system.
Ultimately, it's just a question of moderation: let smokers have their cigarettes; just tax the crap out of them and feed those taxes into the healthcare system. Hopefully the extra revenue will balance out the lung cancer, and then everyone wins: socialist safety nets and health care, and no unreasonable infringement on personal liberties.
I've often said that anyone who believes in hardcore, you-can't-tell-me-what-I-can't-do Libertarianism should be forced to relocate to Centralia, PA.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Libertarianism doesn't really exist in the UK, I'm still wrapping my head around it and trying to understand how it all works. I'm also aware that it's claimed (wrongly I'd guess) by several people I met living in central PA who were actually extremely religiously rightwing.
Libertarianism is No True Scotsman ground like no other.
I agree with you on big government, of course it is not to be trusted blindly, whichever party is in charge, but accept and even laud it for it's capacity to run things that would otherwise not function and also because I am aware we do not live in a bubble, the nation exists on the world stage and must contend with rivals, to do this, it must have a sufficient administrative capability. When I'm in the playground, I want to say, with some certainty, 'my dad's bigger than your dad'.
Okay.
I'm confused by this other part, the Ayn Rand part about business.
Well, don't confuse Ayn Rand with someone who is representative of all libertarians. She was a chick who had serious issues with banging alpha males, and that's pretty much it.
Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.
Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?
No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.
Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing? It's the party of military ventures abroad, religious dictates and social conservatism, surely this is against the principals of 'true' libertarianism? Surely a libertarian would absolutely revolt against the abolition of freedom of choice and applaud the rights of gays to marriage, aren't these personal freedoms and liberties of higher principal to a libertarian than lower taxes (because you'll pay em, regardless of who's in or out).
I'm not sure what you're asking here. You want a laundry list of political positions that are wrong with both parties? It's not hard to come up with. In my case, the Democrats' ends up a little longer, which is why I tend to vote a little more Republican. Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and just to throw this into the mix, an article I came across in the Wall Street Journal last year:
Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing?
Because very frequently "libertarian" is a polite way of saying "I'm rich already, the rest of you" and right-wing politicians are more frequently in favor of economic and tax policies that benefit the wealthy. Sure, many of them would probably agree with "left-wing" freedom as well if you asked them, but libertarians tend to have fairly privileged lives already and don't suffer too much from the kind of things left-wing politicians want to get rid of. So it's just not much of a priority compared to things like getting rid of pesky profit-hindering regulations on business or abolishing taxes.
(And yes, there are consistent libertarians who aren't just selfish anarcho-capitalists but they don't have any real political power.)
Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.
They're a part of it, certainly.
I also mean, you know, welfare, hate crime legislation, anti-smoking legislation, and so on.
azazel the cat wrote: I've often said that anyone who believes in hardcore, you-can't-tell-me-what-I-can't-do Libertarianism should be forced to relocate to Centralia, PA.
It's a 5 hours and 15 minutes away from me... roadtrip? I feel like this would sum up my trip well:
Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.
Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?
No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.
We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.
So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.
So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.
So you'd prefer to leave lobbying only to super PACs?
Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.
Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?
No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.
We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.
So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.
True that, and not to our benefit.
As a moderate libertarian, its Interesting to see what other's view of libertarianism are.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.
So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.
So you'd prefer to leave lobbying only to super PACs?
Sure they can. Pretending that super PACs go away if you keep businesses from funding politics is hilarious, though.
Money is political influence. I'm not sure why you're comfortable with George Soros or the Koch brothers buying it.
I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?
I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?
Yes, as they were involved with funneling massive amounts of private money into the hands of politicians prior to the much-maligned "corporations are people!" fracas. Not much changed, in other words, yet somehow that ruling now means we're all living in Shadowrun and we just don't know it, apparently.
I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.
Oh, come on. You'd love to see a lot more than that.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?
Yes, as they were involved with funneling massive amounts of private money into the hands of politicians prior to the much-maligned "corporations are people!" fracas. Not much changed, in other words, yet somehow that ruling now means we're all living in Shadowrun and we just don't know it, apparently.
We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.
I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.
Oh, come on. You'd love to see a lot more than that.
Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.
Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.
I'm amused that you believe we ever left that age once it started.
Yes, that is what corporations exist for. To produce profits. Some win, some lose. It's no different among people. I think you have this hazy notion in your head that if everyone's slate was completely blank when they started out, and had the same access to everything, all would succeed equally. That's not the way it works. Never has been, never will be. Some rise, some fall.
What do you mean?
I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?
Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization, I'm betting.
Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.
Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?
I think he's referring to the "death before disco" plank. A party that can't do the hustle is just wrong.
Seaward wrote: Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization, I'm betting.
Interestingly, until the last twelve months, the Democrats opposed everything except abortion as well. But Democrats can do the funky chicken, so they're ok. Not like the Republicans, who've never even see the electric boogaloo, much less done it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.
I'm amused that you believe we ever left that age once it started.
Yes, that is what corporations exist for. To produce profits. Some win, some lose. It's no different among people. I think you have this hazy notion in your head that if everyone's slate was completely blank when they started out, and had the same access to everything, all would succeed equally. That's not the way it works. Never has been, never will be. Some rise, some fall.
I'm glad I provided you with amusement, I classify the creation of the welfare state, the removal of workhouses, healthcare, unemployment benefits, state education and improved individual rights in legislation and the market as signs that we did leave that all behind, and recent activities as worrying signs of slipping backwards into that time again.
I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.
I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe business must be monitored to ensure it practices in keeping with the morality of the nation, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.
So, less of the 'reds under the beds' from you, sunshine.
I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?
Thats not what he said or meant.
I believe what he meant is that these ideals put us at risk of slipping into a heavily socialist way of government, which is just about the worst thing that could happen. Its not an intentional conversion on the part of the proponents, but they may willfully ignore the danger they are causing.
I don't think I know more than a handful politicians that haven't done the funky chicken. Most of them say one thing, then do another once in office. All special interest groups want theirs and don't want to give anything up. I've been swarmed with "tell Obama not to negotiate on Social Security and Medicare!" emails from the same people that complain about the Republicans refusing to compromise.
Politics do what they need to do to stay elected, they serve themselves, then their donors, then the people.
But the electorate is no better than them.
I've worked with a guy who believed 100% that Federal taxation was unconstitutional and refuses to pay taxes (don't ask me how he does it), and when I asked him how he can believe that and still work for the federal government and cash his taxpayer funded pay check every week he got pissed off and called me a communist.
I worked with a Tea Party nutter who was in the Army National Guard and worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She claimed to be extremely educated in all things politics and knew everything that was going on. But somehow she thought that the Department of Veterans Affairs was an agency that belonged to the Department of Defense, didn't know that we were a cabinet level agency and argued with we that we were not, and believed that we were in a different branch of the FOUR branches of government (I do believe that is some Glenn Beck influenced ignorance there). How can you claim to be politically educated and not even know who the feth you work for?
In general, the amount of people I work with that think the government is evil and should be spending less money but who work for the Government and bitch when the pay freeze gets extended another year is just mind blowing.
In Oklahoma we have a lot of people who claim to be small government/libertarian and at the same time push for a socially conservative government. Those two things just don't go together. How can you claim to be small government when you want the government to regulate away things that make you feel icky?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.
Acting for the "good" is voluntary. Morality is personal. You can't control human nature through legislation. Those are three facts that stand in the way of that bright, shining utopia on your particular hill. Another inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, is that only you are responsible for you. It's not the government's job to make sure you're alright except in the strictest sense of preventing harm coming to you from others. Protecting you from your own bad choices, or lifting you up to be more than you are? Not the government's job.
So, less of the 'reds under the beds' from you, sunshine.
That's a rather ironic thing to say after a socialist screed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In Oklahoma we have a lot of people who claim to be small government/libertarian and at the same time push for a socially conservative government. Those two things just don't go together. How can you claim to be small government when you want the government to regulate away things that make you feel icky?
You can't, of course, which is why I said earlier that libertarianism can pull No True Scotsman like few other political philosophies. Unfortunately, it simply sounds good to a lot of people, so they claim to be it. Especially when Republicans are polling badly.
Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.
Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.
Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?
Anti-abortion, DOMA, Patriot Act (I'm well aware of who passed the legislation, but it was admittedly voted on out of ignorance). The difference is that the Dems don't claim to be about small government. The GOP does. That makes the Dems slightly less liars about it.
Seaward wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.
Acting for the "good" is voluntary. Morality is personal. You can't control human nature through legislation. Those are three facts that stand in the way of that bright, shining utopia on your particular hill. Another inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, is that only you are responsible for you. It's not the government's job to make sure you're alright except in the strictest sense of preventing harm coming to you from others. Protecting you from your own bad choices, or lifting you up to be more than you are? Not the government's job.
I think Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany and France would all disagree with you.
And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.
And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.
I have found that it usually is a 50/50 mix of self delusion and wishful thinking.
People pretend that they have never benefited from public institutions and got here entirely on their own, and that they will never have any problems that they cannot solve themselves without any help.
azazel the cat wrote: I think Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany and France would all disagree with you.
They're more than welcome to. I'm a libertarian, remember? I don't demand conformity.
And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.
Damn. I was hoping your amateur psychological evaluation would be more favorable. Can't win 'em all.
And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.
I have found that it usually is a 50/50 mix of self delusion and wishful thinking.
People pretend that they have never benefited from public institutions and got here entirely on their own, and that they will never have any problems that they cannot solve themselves without any help.
I realize I have benifited from some public institutions, like roads and higher education subsidies. But I don't want the Government forcing me to buy something if I can't afford it or don't want it. Nor do I want them saying I can't buy a 36 oz soda.
They can regulate harmful drugs and criminal activity, as we the people have decided to define them. They can't criminalize something the Constitution explicitly allows, but they can strip the Constitutional rights of criminals.
d-usa wrote: I have found that it usually is a 50/50 mix of self delusion and wishful thinking.
People pretend that they have never benefited from public institutions and got here entirely on their own, and that they will never have any problems that they cannot solve themselves without any help.
You really need that much government help to live your daily life? What do you find so debilitating that the only answer is trading autonomy for assistance, out of curiosity?
Apropos nothing, does anyone know what page that "what you do for a living" thread is on?
d-usa wrote: I have found that it usually is a 50/50 mix of self delusion and wishful thinking.
People pretend that they have never benefited from public institutions and got here entirely on their own, and that they will never have any problems that they cannot solve themselves without any help.
You really need that much government help to live your daily life? What do you find so debilitating that the only answer is trading autonomy for assistance, out of curiosity?
Apropos nothing, does anyone know what page that "what you do for a living" thread is on?
Cute, so just because I don't think that "every man is an island" fits and that people like to pretend that they never needed and never will need help means that I need the government to help me live my daily life?
You know when people ask you why you are scared of everything and constantly in fear for your life for you to carry a gun? Your question is just as dumb as that one.
d-usa wrote: Cute, so just because I don't think that "every man is an island" fits and that people like to pretend that they never needed and never will need help means that I need the government to help me live my daily life?
Sorry. I wasn't aware you were the only one allowed to make ridiculous hyperbole.
You know when people ask you why you are scared of everything and constantly in fear for your life for you to carry a gun? Your question is just as dumb as that one.
Not really. I was going with the trend established heretofore of deliberately misreading and exaggerating an opposing poster's claims in an effort to make my own beliefs look better, but the underlying theme is still relevant. What can you not do yourself that you need government assistance with?
Please try to make some sense.
I think that'd be considered derailing this thinly-veiled, "Let me tell you why socialism is great!" thread at this point.
You know when people ask you why you are scared of everything and constantly in fear for your life for you to carry a gun? Your question is just as dumb as that one.
Not really. I was going with the trend established heretofore of deliberately misreading and exaggerating an opposing poster's claims in an effort to make my own beliefs look better, but the underlying theme is still relevant. What can you not do yourself that you need government assistance with?
Right now this instance?
- I cannot maintain the roads leading from my house to my job. - I cannot put out my house if it is on fire while I am at work. - I cannot protect my wife while she is at home if somebody tries to break in. - I cannot inspect the factories where my wives prenatal vitamins are made, or the factory that manufactured the anti-viral drugs I took after a potential exposure to HIV at work. - I cannot inspect the slaughterhouse where the meat in my fridge came from.\ - I cannot make sure that everybody that does any work for me (from handyman to physician) is properly trained and licensed. - just some examples right there.
In the past?
- Received Pell Grants to help me pay for college. - Got my education in a State School. - Took advantage of the first time home owners tax credit. - Lived in low-income housing for a few months while I saved up money for a better place.
In the future?
- In the event I lose my job I would have unemployment and help with medical coverage for myself and my family.
You know when people ask you why you are scared of everything and constantly in fear for your life for you to carry a gun? Your question is just as dumb as that one.
Not really. I was going with the trend established heretofore of deliberately misreading and exaggerating an opposing poster's claims in an effort to make my own beliefs look better, but the underlying theme is still relevant. What can you not do yourself that you need government assistance with?
Right now this instance?
- I cannot maintain the roads leading from my house to my job.
- I cannot put out my house if it is on fire while I am at work.
- I cannot protect my wife while she is at home if somebody tries to break in.
- I cannot inspect the factories where my wives prenatal vitamins are made, or the factory that manufactured the anti-viral drugs I took after a potential exposure to HIV at work.
- I cannot inspect the slaughterhouse where the meat in my fridge came from.\
- I cannot make sure that everybody that does any work for me (from handyman to physician) is properly trained and licensed.
- just some examples right there.
In the past?
- Received Pell Grants to help me pay for college.
- Got my education in a State School.
- Took advantage of the first time home owners tax credit.
- Lived in low-income housing for a few months while I saved up money for a better place.
In the future?
- In the event I lose my job I would have unemployment and help with medical coverage for myself and my family.
What about you?
I'm confused... what are we arguing about again?
I'm sure everyone has benefitted or was impacted by government (state/federal) programs/assistants throughout their lives...
I think the discussion boils down to is by how much and where.
- I cannot maintain the roads leading from my house to my job.
- I cannot put out my house if it is on fire while I am at work.
- I cannot protect my wife while she is at home if somebody tries to break in.
- I cannot inspect the factories where my wives prenatal vitamins are made, or the factory that manufactured the anti-viral drugs I took after a potential exposure to HIV at work.
- I cannot inspect the slaughterhouse where the meat in my fridge came from.\
- I cannot make sure that everybody that does any work for me (from handyman to physician) is properly trained and licensed.
- just some examples right there.
And most of them are the proper functions of government, that do not infringe on your liberty to do as you please within the bounds of the "as long as you're not hurting anyone" principal.
- Received Pell Grants to help me pay for college.
- Got my education in a State School.
- Took advantage of the first time home owners tax credit.
- Lived in low-income housing for a few months while I saved up money for a better place.
And these are where we get into sketchier areas of government purview.
In the future?
- In the event I lose my job I would have unemployment and help with medical coverage for myself and my family.
And this is right out.
What about you?
I swallowed up government cash like a sinkhole. To be fair, it was military money, so there was a little quid pro quo involved.
The "no man is an island" thing - which is, incidentally, being heavily abused from its original intent to make a hilariously unintended point about socialism - has, in fact, little enough to do with the stuff in the first bracket. We could be here all day with the stuff in the following two, but the point is this: government has a place in providing basic services, but even in that, it should not be blindly trusted. Concentrated power is dangerous stuff, and should be avoided as much as humanly possible. We can make do without a vast amount of what we have in terms of government services.
I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?
Thats not what he said or meant.
I believe what he meant is that these ideals put us at risk of slipping into a heavily socialist way of government, which is just about the worst thing that could happen. Its not an intentional conversion on the part of the proponents, but they may willfully ignore the danger they are causing.
Right. If history's shown us anything, it's that affluent welfare states ever lead to Stalinism. China, for instance, was just a hotbed of governmental charity and benevolence, then one day BAM: Maoists everywhere. And let's not forget the Czars and their notorious social welfare system, or Cuba with its socialist revolution backed by an affluent welfare state (the USA)...
It's not hard to have a skeptical viewpoint anytime someone says "We know what's good for you... nothing to see here... move along."
Except that quite obviously wasn't what she was saying. She wasn't saying that they aren't your kids, but that they aren't solely your kids, and that people should think about children as a whole within a community, rather than just their own.
It's not hard to have a skeptical viewpoint anytime someone says "We know what's good for you... nothing to see here... move along."
Except that quite obviously wasn't what she was saying. She wasn't saying that they aren't your kids, but that they aren't solely your kids, and that people should think about children as a whole within a community, rather than just their own.
Do you have kids?
Still... no. The PRIMARY responsibility belongs to the Parents. End. Of. Story.
This idea of "shared responsibility" for these children doesn't work.
In practice, if the parent is responsible, then gak gets taken care of.
If "we're all responsible," then no one is responsible, and gak doesn't get taken care of due to the lack of accountability.
"We're all responsible" is not a slogan for increasing the responsibility of all... it's a formula for decreasing everyone's responsibility, and also reducing the responsibility of those who are actually responsible.
It's a parenting mindset that our modern society is drifting away from, imo.
I swallowed up government cash like a sinkhole. To be fair, it was military money, so there was a little quid pro quo involved.
So you worked in the military? The most socialist mechanism of the entire US government?
And you want to call me a leftie, whatever comrade. I work in corporate management, like a good and decent capitalist.
Okay... now I'm really confused (common theme today... must be monday).
How on earth can you say the US Military is equivalent to Socialism "anything"???
The closest I can come up to is maybe the VA Administrations?
It's a government run institution, if you apply the ruling that tax funded healthcare, education, eldercare, welfare or any other government owned or provided service is socialism, as seaward did in a prior response to me, then the military, existing in precisely the same way, is a qualifier as a socialist arm of the government. If you believe the government is a potential for tyranny, there is it's strong arm for all to see, the military complex, the force it would use to suppress the individual and steal away freedom. Billions of taxpayer dollars go into the military and are used to indulge in 'foreign ventures' that no libertarian would support.
The military in the US is utterly a socialist body, it's certainly not private business. If it were truly capitalist it would be a series of businesses and if it were libertarian, we'd just protect our own front doors from the enemy.
Morality is a reflection of the society around you. Heck, you have a whole bunch of laws regarding morality right there in the US.
Seaward wrote: You can't control human nature through legislation.
I'm sorry, but whaaaaaaaaat?
That is the entire purpose of laws, to control unwanted and socially unacceptable human behaviour...
Exalt.
Seaward, you are required to obey laws and display behaviors appropriate to the morality and approval of the will of those around you. The masses dictate what is right and wrong, not you.
Frazzled wrote: I think the real question is, in Libertaria, do the coconut eating TRexes taste like commie pinko chicken, or red blooded freedom loving turkey?
I eat eagle because it tastes like freedom and dreams. Delicious real eagle, not any liberal, wet falcon or buzzard, but EAGLE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlapBlapBlap wrote: I don't get what any of you do in the States. All I know is that some idiots in your country belief they deserve guns because they beat back the British from "America" (not really, just a few colonies).
Plus according to those same idiots the United Kingdom wants to control them and is full of Communists.
Ah, the joys of comments sections...
What relevance does any of that have to the topic this thread is about?
Frazzled wrote: I think the real question is, in Libertaria, do the coconut eating TRexes taste like commie pinko chicken, or red blooded freedom loving turkey?
I eat eagle because it tastes like freedom and dreams. Delicious real eagle, not any liberal, wet falcon or buzzard, but EAGLE.
I am not worthy!
Frazzled's take. Libertarians, like everyone else, come in a range. The philosophy extends from those who prefer local government control wherever possible vs. large state control and that government shouldn't be used to subsidize business, to the Ann Rynd crowd.
Personally, I'm a Bill of Rights nut, who prefers local control over state and federal control - that each have their preferred spheres. I also don't want daddy do rights telling me what to when its not harming them. But I also belive in an efficient public medical system; a 2 year welfare system that promotes getting the skills and desire to get off welfare; equal opportunity education for all; state and federal R&D; good roads and good beer. But as long as what I am doing stops before it impacts you, leave me alone, and vice versa.
Frankly most of that just used to be called being a conservative Democrat, but my party left behind a long long time ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.
Frazzled wrote: I think the real question is, in Libertaria, do the coconut eating TRexes taste like commie pinko chicken, or red blooded freedom loving turkey?
And, can they run faster than me, until I am full of beef in brandy sauce and stilton cheese?
Seaward wrote: And most of them are the proper functions of government, that do not infringe on your liberty to do as you please within the bounds of the "as long as you're not hurting anyone" principal.
I'd just like to point out that while you personally might believe these things are acceptable many libertarians do not. I can't even count the number of times I've had a self-described libertarian tell me that police/fire service should be abolished (you as a private citizen should be free to choose whether or not to purchase fire/police service from a private company of your choice, not taxed for it automatically), regulations like food safety/professional licensing/etc are oppressive and should be abolished (in a truly free market nobody will buy from businesses that don't meet reasonable standards so they will be forced to behave or go out of business), etc.
And these are where we get into sketchier areas of government purview.
I don't see how these are sketchy at all. Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging certain things (college education to provide skilled workers and advance society as a whole, home ownership, etc) and the best way to do that is through government support.
- In the event I lose my job I would have unemployment and help with medical coverage for myself and my family.
And this is right out.
So where do you think that this kind of protection should come from? Or are you a social darwinist who thinks that anyone who doesn't work should be left to die?
I swallowed up government cash like a sinkhole. To be fair, it was military money, so there was a little quid pro quo involved.
So you worked in the military? The most socialist mechanism of the entire US government?
And you want to call me a leftie, whatever comrade. I work in corporate management, like a good and decent capitalist.
Okay... now I'm really confused (common theme today... must be monday).
How on earth can you say the US Military is equivalent to Socialism "anything"???
The closest I can come up to is maybe the VA Administrations?
It's a government run institution, if you apply the ruling that tax funded healthcare, education, eldercare, welfare or any other government owned or provided service is socialism, as seaward did in a prior response to me, then the military, existing in precisely the same way, is a qualifier as a socialist arm of the government. If you believe the government is a potential for tyranny, there is it's strong arm for all to see, the military complex, the force it would use to suppress the individual and steal away freedom. Billions of taxpayer dollars go into the military and are used to indulge in 'foreign ventures' that no libertarian would support.
The military in the US is utterly a socialist body, it's certainly not private business. If it were truly capitalist it would be a series of businesses and if it were libertarian, we'd just protect our own front doors from the enemy.
I can see that sentiment... although, I'm not sure I would classify the US Military on the same wavelength as social services, such as Social Security and Medicare.
There was a time in college where I didn't want to pay for fire services...
But that's because the fethheads in my dorm building had pulled the fire alarms 6 times before the semester started (I was there early for work), and the fire department and the school said they'd start charging us 150 bucks per visit if it turned out to not be an emergency, and to make it worth it, they'd go through and do a room by room clear of every floor (7 residential floors)... The alarm wasn't pulled a single time that semester...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.
Word...
My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!
(in Gollum's voice...)
My PRECIOUS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if babies are the responsibility purely of the parents, the state has no right to butt into abortion.
Heh... just knew someone would do that.
We need to come up with some Goodwin/Drago's law to determine how quickly abortion get brought up in these threads.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.
Word...
My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!
(in Gollum's voice...)
My PRECIOUS.
Be sure we don't want your kids, I've no interest in them at all. You made them, you deal with them, just keep them fething quiet in restaurants.
But I and everyone else is very interested in how you train them to exist with the rest of us, we are concerned that you do not inspire them to behave in a way that is not conducive to being a constructive citizen. Because the rest of us will have to pay for them, either benefits, prison or asylum, if you do not do a good job.
So, we can be said to have a certain responsibility, as they will be entering the wider society after you turn them loose (you know, when they become arrogant, spotty, drunken little horny scumbags that hate you and have driven you nuts borrowing the car and you can't wait to see them spread their wings).
The rest of the village does have a vested interest in your kids, insofar as you'll be adding them to the village soon enough and we don't want you to screw them up.
The public education system is reasonable. You do have options besides the public schools and College is completely optional.
Its where you have no choice in the matter that things become bad. Having to buy health insurance, being too poor to afford it but not poor enough to have the government pay for it. Things like that.
Police and Fire are more important than Health care in my opinion. With the order being Fire, Police, and then Health. The Fire Departments are there to stop a small fire from spreading and potentially destroying massive swaths of towns(like they used to do before there were fire departments)
The Police keep order on the streets and enforce the Law, thus they are necessary. A tertiary job is to protect the citizens, but as reactionary force they are too slow to be effective. hence why being armed for self-defense is always a good idea.
Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.
Word...
My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!
(in Gollum's voice...)
My PRECIOUS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if babies are the responsibility purely of the parents, the state has no right to butt into abortion.
Heh... just knew someone would do that.
We need to come up with some Goodwin/Drago's law to determine how quickly abortion get brought up in these threads.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.
Word...
My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!
(in Gollum's voice...)
My PRECIOUS.
Be sure we don't want your kids, I've no interest in them at all. You made them, you deal with them, just keep them fething quiet in restaurants.
But I and everyone else is very interested in how you train them to exist with the rest of us, we are concerned that you do not inspire them to behave in a way that is not conducive to being a constructive citizen. Because the rest of us will have to pay for them, either benefits, prison or asylum, if you do not do a good job.
So, we can be said to have a certain responsibility, as they will be entering the wider society after you turn them loose (you know, when they become arrogant, spotty, drunken little horny scumbags that hate you and have driven you nuts borrowing the car and you can't wait to see them spread their wings).
The rest of the village does have a vested interest in your kids, insofar as you'll be adding them to the village soon enough and we don't want you to screw them up.
Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?
Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?
Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.
Interesting lottery system, right until your nearest and dearest is made unemployed and then develops cancer. Then you can enjoy getting that second mortgage to pay off the medical expenses.
In the case of state healthcare, everyone pays a bit against them being selected by the finger of doom and suffering entire financial hardship. With the insurance you are playing a lottery against being 'really' ill, because they will try to avoid paying you, not some benevolent bunch of friendly ducks, geckos and oddly haired ladies waiting to hand you free cash when you're in trouble.
We have friends who recently had a child born with cerebral palsy, born 15 weeks early, they are both reasonably well off professionals, their medical insurance would not have covered his conditions, but Obamacare did. They are now engaged with their private medical insurance over a wheelchair, because the insurance is arguing this poor little lad doesn't need one...
I worked for medical insurance for several years, it is dedicated to avoiding paying you, that's how it makes its money.
Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?
Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?
Spanking is find in my book, I was smacked when I was a gak, didn't do me any harm. Then again I've sat on a bus in Bristol and ended up 'having a word' with a woman who just smacked her child because he wouldn't sit still whilst she was texting.
I have worked in child protection, I suffered through several years of it before it burnt out my retinas, I've seen a 3yr old with a shattered jawbone and broken cheek because they wouldn't stop crying whilst mummy was trying to watch her soaps...
I think society was right to intervene in that case, don't you?
That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.
Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...
Grey Templar wrote: Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.
That's a rather selfish ideology. Just one question though: if you get cancer and can't afford the proper treatment will you accept government help or decline it and allow yourself to die in a horrible painful way?
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.
Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...
Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.
Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?
Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?
Spanking is find in my book, I was smacked when I was a gak, didn't do me any harm.
Yup.
Then again I've sat on a bus in Bristol and ended up 'having a word' with a woman who just smacked her child because he wouldn't sit still whilst she was texting.
Good for you.
I have worked in child protection, I suffered through several years of it before it burnt out my retinas, I've seen a 3yr old with a shattered jawbone and broken cheek because they wouldn't stop crying whilst mummy was trying to watch her soaps...
And that's abuse. There's a fine distinction there.
I think society was right to intervene in that case, don't you?
Absolutely...
That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.
I absolutely agree with you there.
It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).
Don't you agree that America (and rest of the Western world) have various degrees of these "ism"?
Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!
Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...
Frazzled wrote: Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!
Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...
My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.
Frazzled wrote: Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.
I'm pretty sure even they have more mental capacity than a cockroach, so no.
(And if someone was literally born without a brain, yes, I would say that it would be wrong to waste valuable medical resources on their survival just because we have machines that can keep a brainless body "alive".)
Frazzled wrote: Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!
Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...
My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.
Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...
Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?
Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.
Grey Templar wrote: Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.
That's a rather selfish ideology. Just one question though: if you get cancer and can't afford the proper treatment will you accept government help or decline it and allow yourself to die in a horrible painful way?
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.
And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.
Frazzled wrote: Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.
I'm pretty sure even they have more mental capacity than a cockroach, so no.
(And if someone was literally born without a brain, yes, I would say that it would be wrong to waste valuable medical resources on their survival just because we have machines that can keep a brainless body "alive".)
So you standard is only those who are mentally incompetent? What about alzheimers patients? Those who've had seizures? Newborns? Do you support post birth abortions as testified by Planned Parenthood at committee?
After all life is sacred and the State has a duty to protect it. In addition, as part of that protection the State can insure harzardous activities for it are prescribed. After all, what it does impacts everyone else. So remember kids, Mother (state) knows best. Now pick up that can citizen.
Frazzled wrote: Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!
Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...
My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.
Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.
Then they hit 15 and everytime you pass them its an improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match. Mmmm..good times.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.
Then they hit 15 and everytime you pass them its an improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match. Mmmm..good times.
Uh... Frazz... it's improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match now. Those little buggers are getting good.
I might need to start taking UFC training to keep up.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?
Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.
(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)
Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.
Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.
And this is why libertarianism is a broken ideology: you admit that you won't act consistently according to your supposed beliefs, but you still want to force other people to.
And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.
That's not how insurance works. If health care plans beyond a basic "fix my broken leg" are optional then the only people who will buy them are the ones who need expensive treatment. Then you're inevitably stuck with the choice to either deal with a huge financial mess, or leave people to die.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?
Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.
(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)
Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.
Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.
Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.
And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?
Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.
(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)
Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.
Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.
And this is why libertarianism is a broken ideology: you admit that you won't act consistently according to your supposed beliefs, but you still want to force other people to.
I for one will be glad when we finally have our death panels to make these complicated decisions for us
I don't wanna decide if somebody is too slowed to live. So I way bring on the death panels! All the money saving benefits of denying health care to the needy, with all the bureaucratic joy of socialism!
Can I be on a death panel? I promise I'll always wear all white. I'll just calmly sit and pet a wiener dog and say cryptic things like "Eiger Sanction" a lot.
Grey Templar wrote:They can regulate harmful drugs and criminal activity, as we the people have decided to define them. They can't criminalize something the Constitution explicitly allows, but they can strip the Constitutional rights of criminals.
Do you even think about what you say sometimes?
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.
Damn. I was hoping your amateur psychological evaluation would be more favorable. Can't win 'em all.
It's not my evaluation; it's actually drawn from Piaget. And I can assure you, he was about as professional as you can get in developmental psychology. Anyway, the standard Libertarian rhetoric is firmly rooted in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development; wherein there is a lack of a longview and only that which is concrete (such as immediate circumstances) can be considered, and the ability to work out problems in an abstract sense eludes them (such as failing to recognize the relationship between crime and poverty, or not understanding that an increase in social welfare programs costs less money than does a reactionary criminal justice system).
That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.
I absolutely agree with you there.
It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).
I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.
This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.
They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...
Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.
I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.
No, like I said, the uncertainty about the line doesn't matter. Unless you blatantly ignore science and declare "my religion said so" as your only justification there is near-certainty that the line is much later in development than the overwhelming majority of abortions (especially once you ignore out late-term abortions done because of serious medical problems and only consider voluntary ones). It doesn't matter if, say, there's uncertainty about whether higher brain functions and "personhood" occur at 30 weeks or 33 weeks when you're talking about abortions happening at 20 weeks.
And please don't ignore the life support analogy. We don't say "it's better to play it safe" and make ending life support murder, we accept that the near-certainty that brain function has ceased is enough and allow life support to end. You can't have a consistent standard for "personhood" that makes abortion murder but allows the ending of life support for brain-dead people.
And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.
Among the experts on biology and human development there is no disagreement that there is no higher-level brain function. The idea that the fetus has magic undetectable brain function has about the same credibility as the flat earth theory.
And again, the life support analogy applies: we don't say "we can't be sure there aren't undetectable brain functions" when we're talking about ending life support for someone whose brain has apparently ceased to function, so why should we do the same for a fetus with an equal lack of detectable brain function?
Grey Templar wrote:They can regulate harmful drugs and criminal activity, as we the people have decided to define them. They can't criminalize something the Constitution explicitly allows, but they can strip the Constitutional rights of criminals.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.
No, like I said, the uncertainty about the line doesn't matter. Unless you blatantly ignore science and declare "my religion said so" as your only justification there is near-certainty that the line is much later in development than the overwhelming majority of abortions (especially once you ignore out late-term abortions done because of serious medical problems and only consider voluntary ones). It doesn't matter if, say, there's uncertainty about whether higher brain functions and "personhood" occur at 30 weeks or 33 weeks when you're talking about abortions happening at 20 weeks.
And please don't ignore the life support analogy. We don't say "it's better to play it safe" and make ending life support murder, we accept that the near-certainty that brain function has ceased is enough and allow life support to end. You can't have a consistent standard for "personhood" that makes abortion murder but allows the ending of life support for brain-dead people.
And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.
Among the experts on biology and human development there is no disagreement that there is no higher-level brain function. The idea that the fetus has magic undetectable brain function has about the same credibility as the flat earth theory.
And again, the life support analogy applies: we don't say "we can't be sure there aren't undetectable brain functions" when we're talking about ending life support for someone whose brain has apparently ceased to function, so why should we do the same for a fetus with an equal lack of detectable brain function?
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.
Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.
That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.
I absolutely agree with you there.
It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).
I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.
This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.
They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...
Peregrine wrote: Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.
I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.
Can I write down "ax sharpening" as a business expense?
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.
I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.
Can I write down "ax sharpening" as a business expense?
yeah, but surely you'd prefer death by wiener dog?
Grey Templar wrote: Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.
Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.
PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?
Peregrine wrote: Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.
I'm a libertarian and I'm just fine with abortions for everyone. As long as you have the capcity for consent, go to town. Throw a party. Just stay the hell of my lawn.
Grey Templar wrote: Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.
Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.
PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?
So? I honestly do belive life begins at conception.
So what if it was originally done for political reasons? Everything elected officials do is for political reasons.
Grey Templar wrote: Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.
Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.
PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?
Its actually when life is viable. Science will make viability at conception in a few short years. Then you're going to have a problem under Roe v. Wade.
Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.
And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.
So, you do what's best for you but wish to remove the rights of others to do likewise? If the fertilized egg inside a woman cannot survive beyond the womb, it can be strongly argued that it remains a part of the woman, does the woman not have the personal freedom to have that part of her operated on?
Also, you are not forced to 'buy healthcare' with proper state healthcare, rather it simply becomes a part of the taxes you pay, much like you cannot currently 'opt out' of military protection by the US government, you have no private option, you have to pay for that august socialist construct.
Grey Templar wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.
What incendiary language. You and everyone else who wishes to make abortion illegal need to accept something, noone on the other side is in favor of abortion, no sane human being is in favor of abortion, we on the other side to you want the process of stopping the course of pregnancy to be legal and regulated, rather than the other option, which is it become illegal and continues along the lines of crackhouse coathanger specials.
Because you won't stop abortion, but you can monitor it and legislate on how early it takes place.
Grey Templar wrote: So what if it was originally done for political reasons? Everything elected officials do is for political reasons.
The point is that it wasn't a decision made because there was any evidence that a fetus is a "person", or even the sacred truth as revealed in religious texts/traditions. There was no mass support for banning abortion and demands for elected officials to adopt that ban as a policy. It was nothing more than a pragmatic decision by conservative religious leaders to create an issue "unify" the religious right around for political gain. If it hadn't been politically convenient to adopt that ideology those exact same leaders would have no problem with abortion.
What we're talking about is the equivalent of some politician deciding that the flat-earth-supporter vote is what they need to win the next election, declaring that "the earth is flat" is the sacred word of god, and winning as a result. And now mere decades later the politician's entire party has forgotten that flat-earthism was nothing more than a pragmatic political decision and genuinely thinks that it's the actual truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: No, I'm against killing a person in a coma too. But I would prefer that to killing an unborn child, if I had to make the choice.
I didn't say someone in a coma (which is a temporary pause in brain function with indisputable evidence that it can end and normal life can continue), I said someone whose brain is gone. If you feel that abortion is murder then you must also support first-degree murder charges for anyone who unplugs life support from someone whose brain function has permanently ceased.
Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.
What are you defining as "gone"?
There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.
That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.
I absolutely agree with you there.
It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).
I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.
This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.
They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...
What the hell did you just say???
Whembly and I think you also, mentioned smaller, more local 'government' vs federal or even state.
I said that when you get to smaller and smaller regions dictating their own laws, you run the risk of becoming the odd one out, the Jew living in a Catholic neighborhood, the homosexual living in a heterosexual apartment block, the Baptist living in a cul de sac of atheists... As a national voice, Baptists can leverage a deal, as two couples living in, say where I am now, where the rest of the church going public is Catholic, they don't get squat in the decision making process.
Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.
What are you defining as "gone"?
There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.
So, you are not a libertarian, you are a social conservative who wishes the government to remove freedom of choice and enforce religious doctrine yes?
Grey Templar wrote: Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.
So then how is a fetus that has an equal absence of brain more than "just a body"?
What are you defining as "gone"?
Medically-defined brain death. Brain function has ceased and can not return (at least given current knowledge/technology).
There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.
There is no difference at all. Neither has a functioning brain (at least at a level beyond a cockroach), so if you insist on "being safe" with the fetus because there's a chance there could be undetectable brain function then you must also insist on "being safe" with people who are declared brain dead but might have undetectable brain function. If one is murder so is the other.
It's not hard to have a skeptical viewpoint anytime someone says "We know what's good for you... nothing to see here... move along."
Except that quite obviously wasn't what she was saying. She wasn't saying that they aren't your kids, but that they aren't solely your kids, and that people should think about children as a whole within a community, rather than just their own.
Do you have kids?
Still... no. The PRIMARY responsibility belongs to the Parents. End. Of. Story.
This idea of "shared responsibility" for these children doesn't work.
In practice, if the parent is responsible, then gak gets taken care of.
If "we're all responsible," then no one is responsible, and gak doesn't get taken care of due to the lack of accountability.
"We're all responsible" is not a slogan for increasing the responsibility of all... it's a formula for decreasing everyone's responsibility, and also reducing the responsibility of those who are actually responsible.
It's a parenting mindset that our modern society is drifting away from, imo.
To clarify, I wasn't saying that I agreed with her, just that you were misstating her position.
Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human).
Holy gak, I can't believe you'd actually say something that silly and observably incorrect. This isn't even a philosophical discussion now, it's remedial biology.
The very definition of a functioning, living human is when its autonomic nervous system is capable of sustaining itself. I want you to tell me at how many weeks past conception you believe this occurs.
Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human).
Holy gak, I can't believe you'd actually say something that silly and observably incorrect. This isn't even a philosophical discussion now, it's remedial biology.
The very definition of a functioning, living human is when its autonomic nervous system is capable of sustaining itself. I want you to tell me at how many weeks past conception you believe this occurs.
He hasn't even said at how many weeks/months/years past birth a child has had enough opportunities to quit relying on government welfare and should be allowed to die, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human).
Holy gak, I can't believe you'd actually say something that silly and observably incorrect. This isn't even a philosophical discussion now, it's remedial biology.
The very definition of a functioning, living human is when its autonomic nervous system is capable of sustaining itself. I want you to tell me at how many weeks past conception you believe this occurs.
Now its what 28 weeks. In the future it will be +1 minute. What happens then boyo?
Peregrine wrote: I'd just like to point out that while you personally might believe these things are acceptable many libertarians do not.
Again, libertarianism = haven for No True Scotsman arguments.
I don't see how these are sketchy at all. Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging certain things (college education to provide skilled workers and advance society as a whole, home ownership, etc) and the best way to do that is through government support.
Society might, but the government doesn't. It's also very hard to make the argument that we really need to be promoting college. It doesn't have much of an impact on providing skilled workers except in a few select fields. All the guys working for me have college degrees, exactly none of them need them. Hell, I don't need mine, for my job. But it's become such a requirement - due to the emphasis on sending everyone to college, whether they need it or not for their chosen path - that we've created a system wherein it's hard to get by without it.
So where do you think that this kind of protection should come from? Or are you a social darwinist who thinks that anyone who doesn't work should be left to die?
My views are a little more nuanced than that, but we're not an underpopulated, immortal species.
No its not. You are forced by law to do any amount of things for the good of society every single day of your life.
No, laws keep you, at best, neutral. They strive to keep you from doing harm. Suggesting that simply not doing harm is the equivalent of doing good is a stretch, I think, and there's still all sorts of room to "do bad" within the framework of the law. You can be a bad father, an uncharitable SOB, a lazy, non-productive member of society, etc.
Morality is a reflection of the society around you. Heck, you have a whole bunch of laws regarding morality right there in the US.
Morality's not personal? Really? Who else, do you suppose, exactly mirrors your morality? You really think you could find someone who agrees with you on every single conceivable moral issue? Of course not.
Laws are designed to allow people to live by their own lights within the "don't feth with anyone else" framework, and anything beyond that is overstepping.
Seaward wrote: You can't control human nature through legislation.
I'm sorry, but whaaaaaaaaat?
That is the entire purpose of laws, to control unwanted and socially unacceptable human behaviour...
That is the purpose of laws, yes. To limit certain human behaviors. They do nothing at all to change or control human nature.
Seaward wrote: Again, libertarianism = haven for No True Scotsman arguments.
You're right. There's an endless list of excuses for why the selfish anarcho-capitalists and social darwinists aren't "true" libertarians, but the "true" libertarian seems to be a minority of self-identified libertarians.
Society might, but the government doesn't. It's also very hard to make the argument that we really need to be promoting college. It doesn't have much of an impact on providing skilled workers except in a few select fields. All the guys working for me have college degrees, exactly none of them need them. Hell, I don't need mine, for my job. But it's become such a requirement - due to the emphasis on sending everyone to college, whether they need it or not for their chosen path - that we've created a system wherein it's hard to get by without it.
1) This problem only exists if you view college as a means to an end (a job) rather than valuing education for the sake of education. The practical purposes are obviously useful (try having a functioning society without doctors/engineers/etc) but society also has an interest in having as large a percentage of the population be well-educated. And unfortunately as high school standards get lower and lower that means college degrees for as many people as possible.
2) This isn't a problem with promoting college too much, it's a problem with promoting it and not supporting it financially. There's nothing wrong with having a surplus of college-educated people who don't use their degree every day, the over-promotion only becomes a problem when the expected degree comes with way more debt than the expected career can pay off. If college was free to anyone with the academic ability to qualify for it the problem would cease to exist.
My views are a little more nuanced than that, but we're not an underpopulated, immortal species.
1) This problem only exists if you view college as a means to an end (a job) rather than valuing education for the sake of education. The practical purposes are obviously useful (try having a functioning society without doctors/engineers/etc) but society also has an interest in having as large a percentage of the population be well-educated. And unfortunately as high school standards get lower and lower that means college degrees for as many people as possible.
That's precisely what college has become for the vast majority of those attending it - a means to an end, because a degree is required for the majority of professional career tracks, whether or not the job in question truly needs that level of education. If you want to go to college to chase an education rather than a job, fine, by all means, but pretending that everyone is capable of that, or needs it, just doesn't jive with reality.
2) This isn't a problem with promoting college too much, it's a problem with promoting it and not supporting it financially. There's nothing wrong with having a surplus of college-educated people who don't use their degree every day, the over-promotion only becomes a problem when the expected degree comes with way more debt than the expected career can pay off. If college was free to anyone with the academic ability to qualify for it the problem would cease to exist.
Well, I disagree with you there. That's simply not the state's job, for a whole host of reasons. Pushing college, trying to make it the norm, has succeeded, but nobody bothered to think about whether or not that success would actually be a good thing. It's not.
As far as debt goes, debt sucks, but no one's obliged to take it on blind. Taking out a bunch of college loans and pursuing a degree in a field that doesn't pay? Why is it the state's responsibility to bail you out of your own decision?
1) This problem only exists if you view college as a means to an end (a job) rather than valuing education for the sake of education. The practical purposes are obviously useful (try having a functioning society without doctors/engineers/etc) but society also has an interest in having as large a percentage of the population be well-educated. And unfortunately as high school standards get lower and lower that means college degrees for as many people as possible.
I agree with your overall point, but this (bolded bit) is just outright false. The modern high school curriculum includes things that would have been restricted to post-grad fifty years ago, and college twenty. For all the gloom and doom about the US education system, it's still one of the best in the world.
And the "lowering standards" line has been around at least a hundred years, probably more, and has never been true. Just like people bemoaning a decline in morality. We are better today than we have ever been, and we will be yet better tomorrow. No one should ever forget this.
Seaward wrote: That's precisely what college has become for the vast majority of those attending it - a means to an end, because a degree is required for the majority of professional career tracks, whether or not the job in question truly needs that level of education. If you want to go to college to chase an education rather than a job, fine, by all means, but pretending that everyone is capable of that, or needs it, just doesn't jive with reality.
I won't dispute that there are people going to college just because the unemployment rate is high enough that employers are free to require a college degree for no reason beyond reducing the pool of applications. However, I said that society has an interest in promoting college education, NOT that society has an interest in promoting college education for every single citizen.
Well, I disagree with you there. That's simply not the state's job, for a whole host of reasons. Pushing college, trying to make it the norm, has succeeded, but nobody bothered to think about whether or not that success would actually be a good thing. It's not.
That's a false dilemma. We don't have to choose between not supporting it at all and supporting it for every single person. For example, making college free for people who qualify but making the admission requirements more demanding might actually reduce the number of college graduates, but it would ensure that society gets the college graduates that it benefits from without the crippling debt that far too many students end up with.
As far as debt goes, debt sucks, but no one's obliged to take it on blind. Taking out a bunch of college loans and pursuing a degree in a field that doesn't pay? Why is it the state's responsibility to bail you out of your own decision?
1) I never said it was the state's responsibility to fund degrees in every single field for every single student who wants one. Society certainly has an interest in giving more funding to engineering programs than to thousands of redundant degrees in an obscure field of foreign literature, or "business" degrees which are little more than an opportunity to attend college parties for a few years.
2) You're ignoring the value of education for the sake of education. IMO having a better-educated population is a good thing, and so society has an interest in providing some support (even if not for every single person who wants it) to academic fields that aren't inherently profitable.
To quite an extent.
At least you're honest about your morally appalling beliefs.
LoneLictor wrote: From this comment alone, I can tell that you're a white Christian male of fairly good health.
And I'm going to guess you born in an upper middleclass family, though I'm not 100% sure on that spot.
I'm a white atheist in excellent health.
I was born lower middle class, and was shockingly poor for a fair amount of my 20s. If your overall point was that I'm well-off now, well, I won't lie. Sure am.
LoneLictor wrote: From this comment alone, I can tell that you're a white Christian male of fairly good health.
And I'm going to guess you born in an upper middleclass family, though I'm not 100% sure on that spot.
I'm a white atheist in excellent health.
I was born lower middle class, and was shockingly poor for a fair amount of my 20s. If your overall point was that I'm well-off now, well, I won't lie. Sure am.
Damn, I got the religion part wrong.
I mean, I've never had perfect aim when it comes to economic standing, but when it comes to religion I'm almost always right. The only subject I'm better at is gender and race (which is pretty easy).
So, regarding your social Darwinist leanings. Would you find it acceptable if a man was struck by lightning, lost his job as a result of his injuries, and starved to death in the streets? Similarly, what if a black women couldn't find a job due to discrimination, and couldn't afford to feed her kids? Most Social Darwinists, being white middle-class men, assume that life is fair and that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. You seem like you aren't that naive, and you understand that life isn't fair. So how do you justify the less fortunate being left to starve, when there's enough food to feed them if we share?
LoneLictor wrote: From this comment alone, I can tell that you're a white Christian male of fairly good health.
And I'm going to guess you born in an upper middleclass family, though I'm not 100% sure on that spot.
I'm a white atheist in excellent health.
I was born lower middle class, and was shockingly poor for a fair amount of my 20s. If your overall point was that I'm well-off now, well, I won't lie. Sure am.
Damn, I got the religion part wrong.
I mean, I've never had perfect aim when it comes to economic standing, but when it comes to religion I'm almost always right. The only subject I'm better at is gender and race (which is pretty easy).
So, regarding your social Darwinist leanings. Would you find it acceptable if a man was struck by lightning, lost his job as a result of his injuries, and starved to death in the streets? Similarly, what if a black women couldn't find a job due to discrimination, and couldn't afford to feed her kids? Most Social Darwinists, being white middle-class men, assume that life is fair and that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. You seem like you aren't that naive, and you understand that life isn't fair. So how do you justify the less fortunate being left to starve, when there's enough food to feed them if we share?
They can always sell organs to mobsters. If they're crafty, it doesn't even have to be their own!
The more I see, the more I come to think that genuine success is predicated upon personal strength, whether this strength is acquirable or randomly inherent to some people, more than it is on luck. Not corporate-ladder-climbing-parasite success, mind you.
Of course, at the same time, I fervently believe that it is the state's place to protect its citizenry from malevolent entities, be they other citizens, corporations, activist organizations, or other states, as well as to promote the general welfare of the populace, which includes doing everything possible to foster strength in individuals.
I mean, I've never had perfect aim when it comes to economic standing, but when it comes to religion I'm almost always right. The only subject I'm better at is gender and race (which is pretty easy).
So, regarding your social Darwinist leanings. Would you find it acceptable if a man was struck by lightning, lost his job as a result of his injuries, and starved to death in the streets? Similarly, what if a black women couldn't find a job due to discrimination, and couldn't afford to feed her kids? Most Social Darwinists, being white middle-class men, assume that life is fair and that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. You seem like you aren't that naive, and you understand that life isn't fair. So how do you justify the less fortunate being left to starve, when there's enough food to feed them if we share?
Don't you think a better question, though, would be how do you justify it? I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you're not part of any revolutionary movements to overthrow the majority of the Western world, which suggests, to me, that though you may not be intellectually comfortable with the notion that children are dying of starvation every day in the third world - and right here at home, for that matter - you're not overly keen on doing much beyond slacktivism and voting to correct it. Saying that you stand opposed to such unfairness is a conscience salve, I think, nothing more, because in the end, what does it really do? And, hey, fair enough. There's some realism under the idealism, and that's good enough for me.
Bad things can happen to anybody, and anybody can win the lottery. There's no "good things to good people, bad things to bad people" nonsense. It just doesn't work like that. Some people are more fit to thrive than others though, and pretending otherwise is just disingenuous.
Evolution isn't a moral process. Being "more fit to thrive" in an environment (remembering, of course, that evolution isn't a process of lesser to greater, it is a process of less adapted to the current environment to more adapted to the current environment) does not make someone or something better than something that is less "fit to thrive" in that environment.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Evolution isn't a moral process. Being "more fit to thrive" in an environment (remembering, of course, that evolution isn't a process of lesser to greater, it is a process of less adapted to the current environment to more adapted to the current environment) does not make someone or something better than something that is less "fit to thrive" in that environment.
Morality is derived in large part from fitness to the situation, though that is of course a gross oversimplification. Evolution as pertaining to humans is outmoded, however, as we may undergo greater, rationally driven change within a fraction of a percent of our lives as may be had in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The sum of human advancement in the past century dwarfs the sum of all life on earth previously, though it is of course predicated upon it. The next twenty or thirty years will see this done again.
No, laws keep you, at best, neutral. They strive to keep you from doing harm. Suggesting that simply not doing harm is the equivalent of doing good is a stretch, I think, and there's still all sorts of room to "do bad" within the framework of the law. You can be a bad father, an uncharitable SOB, a lazy, non-productive member of society, etc.
No, you have several example of laws that force you to do active good for your society.
Forcing you to pay your taxes is a law that actively forces you to redistribute your wealth amongst those that are less fortunate than you, for example.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Also, just because some or even most laws only require you to "do no harm" so to speak, doesn't mean that there aren't laws that force you to actively be a productive member of society = doing good.
Morality's not personal? Really? Who else, do you suppose, exactly mirrors your morality? You really think you could find someone who agrees with you on every single conceivable moral issue? Of course not.
Laws are designed to allow people to live by their own lights within the "don't feth with anyone else" framework, and anything beyond that is overstepping.
A person doesn't have to exactly mirror your morality for morality to be a product of society that is a false argument.
Why do you think female castration is an accepted practice in some regions of Africa but completely abhorrent to most western nations? Do you think that those Africans are worse persons, morally, than you?
Why is the stoning of women condoned in Islamic countries? Why is gay marriage allowed in most European Nations but looked down as immoral in some US States?
Your sense of morality isn't your own. It is a product of your upbringing, your religion and the people that you relate to regularly: i.e. the society that you live in.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.
Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...
Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?
Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.
Grey Templar wrote: Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.
That's a rather selfish ideology. Just one question though: if you get cancer and can't afford the proper treatment will you accept government help or decline it and allow yourself to die in a horrible painful way?
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.
And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.
Do you approve the government forcing you to pay for the highways system, the armed forces, the police and criminal justice apparatus, the border guards, fire service, schools, drug and food safety testing, and licensing for handling of nuclear and toxic chemicals?
Would it be better if all these non-essential services were organised by opt-in private companies?
So you worked in the military? The most socialist mechanism of the entire US government?
Congratulations. Dumbest thing I've ever read on Dakka.
That is neither a counter or an argument, you appear to be in retreat.
You worked for the armed services, you were paid by the government to enforce it's will.
You chime on about the ideas of public healthcare, education and other bodies being 'socialist' and that I am a 'red' for wanting them, yet you were a part of and seem to support another body that functions on the grand scale in exactly the same way.
Your argument is hypocritical. Your only counter is to claim what I've said is dumb... laughable. You've not sense enough to see that you are living by a double standard.
That is neither a counter or an argument, you appear to be in retreat.
You worked for the armed services, you were paid by the government to enforce it's will.
You chime on about the ideas of public healthcare, education and other bodies being 'socialist' and that I am a 'red' for wanting them, yet you were a part of and seem to support another body that functions on the grand scale in exactly the same way.
Your argument is hypocritical. Your only counter is to claim what I've said is dumb... laughable. You've not sense enough to see that you are living by a double standard.
This would all probably be fairly close to true if it wasn't an admitted tenet of libertarianism that providing for the common defense in the form of a military is, in fact, one of the government's intended functions.
If you genuinely don't know even the basic facts, and just want to rant on about how awesome socialism is, why even bother with the red herring thread title?
Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.
But why is it constitutional?
The point I an trying to make is that you can and should make choices about these things based on efficiency, accountability and so on. Then make laws to reflect those choices.
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.
The point I an trying to make is that you can and should make choices about these things based on efficiency, accountability and so on. Then make laws to reflect those choices.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that government is more efficient than the private sector? Because...Jesus, if so.
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.
The point I an trying to make is that you can and should make choices about these things based on efficiency, accountability and so on. Then make laws to reflect those choices.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing that government is more efficient than the private sector? Because...Jesus, if so.
The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?
WW2 was not won by the private sector.
The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.
The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?
Because efficiency alone is simply not a good enough argument. Dictatorships are often pretty efficient, for example, but I doubt you'd be clamoring for their implementation simply in the name of expediency.
WW2 was not won by the private sector.
It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.
The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.
I've been pretty happy with my results. Moreover, I'm actually happy with the results of the system in general. We're the world leader in medical research and innovation due to that privatized system. Our five year cancer survival rates are better. Etc.
The point I am trying to make is that the government may indeed be more efficient than the private sector and if it is, why not use it?
Because efficiency alone is simply not a good enough argument. Dictatorships are often pretty efficient, for example, but I doubt you'd be clamoring for their implementation simply in the name of expediency.
WW2 was not won by the private sector.
It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.
The US health system, more or less privatised, costs nearly twice as much as the social health systems in France, the UK, Japan, etc and gets worse results.
I've been pretty happy with my results. Moreover, I'm actually happy with the results of the system in general. We're the world leader in medical research and innovation due to that privatized system. Our five year cancer survival rates are better. Etc.
Well one could make the argument, that private industry gearing up and outproducing the rest of the planet DID win WWII for the US. We built 31 aircraft carriers in WWII. Not the fascists, the communists, or the imperialists. No "ist" came close in production to us.
I brought up many examples and you fastened on military. You seem to think it is an either/or proposition, which is incorrect. Though when you think about it, the Soviet Union did a bang up job in WW2 without any private industry at all.
I am happy with my results in the National Health Service.
Most medical research is carried out in universities rather than private hospitals.
Kilkrazy wrote: I brought up many examples and you fastened on military. You seem to think it is an either/or proposition, which is incorrect. Though when you think about it, the Soviet Union did a bang up job in WW2 without any private industry at all.
Well, us giving them the overwhelming majority of their rail cars, the overwhelming majority of their logistical materiel, and 20% of their military aircraft certainly played a part.
I am happy with my results in the National Health Service.
Awesome.
Most medical research is carried out in universities rather than private hospitals.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.
That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?
Seaward wrote:
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.
Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.
It wasn't won without it, either. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing up military examples, though.
Yes it was. the USSR didn't have a private sector, and they were responsible for defeating the Nazis.
Frazzled wrote:Well one could make the argument, that private industry gearing up and outproducing the rest of the planet DID win WWII for the US. We built 31 aircraft carriers in WWII. Not the fascists, the communists, or the imperialists. No "ist" came close in production to us.
One could make that argument. However, one would be laughed out of any academic context very quickly, because action movies about American efforts during WWII are not historical documents. The US did not "win" WWII; at least not in Europe. That was the USSR, and any claim otherwise is pretty laughable. Germany lost on the Eastern front. The American efforts in Europe were a distraction, or putting pressure on Germany at best. But is was the USSR that broke Germany's back with massive waves of soldiers being thrown at them in sheer volume, not unlike that scene from the World War Z trailer.
Germany's 2k of Grey Knights just couldn't handle Stalin's 6k Green Tide list.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.
That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?
The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...
azazel the cat wrote: Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.
Nope, sure doesn't.
Yes it was. the USSR didn't have a private sector, and they were responsible for defeating the Nazis.
You should probably educate yourself regarding Lend-Lease sometime. The Soviets' lack of a private sector left them hilariously under-equipped to defeat the Nazis. Without American industry, they literally wouldn't have been able to move what materiel they did have.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.
That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?
The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...
Frazzled wrote:Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.
Oh good. Not only has your History education failed you, but your Geography as well. Japan isn't in Europe.
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.
Nope, sure doesn't.
Yup. Sure does.
See? Look how useless a post like that is. You made a bad post and should feel bad.
Picking up your own examples, if you are a bad enough father, the law will take away your children and even send you to prison for it, so you could say that the law is forcing you to be a good father.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but putting someone in prison for being a bad father doesn't make him a good father, it just makes him in prison.
That doesn't make any sense. What exactly is your point?
The point he is trying to make is that the government doesn't force you to be a good father, the government tells you what happens if you're a bad father...
Only for sufficiently extreme values of "bad." Just because you're not going to jail for your parenting doesn't make you a good parent. Want to divorce mom before the kid's born and drink yourself to death while verbally abusing your kid? As long as you pay your child support, the state considers you an acceptable father. The law in no way forces you to be good.
Not according to any remotely serious constitutional scholar, nor any Supreme Court justice I'm aware of.
See? Look how useless a post like that is. You made a bad post and should feel bad.
I'm afraid I don't take aspersions cast by someone who's never heard of Lend-Lease all that seriously. You can go back to spouting off psychology you read about on Wikipedia if you like, though. That at least piqued my curiosity.
Seaward wrote:I'm afraid I don't take aspersions cast by someone who's never heard of Lend-Lease all that seriously. You can go back to spouting off psychology you read about on Wikipedia if you like, though. That at least piqued my curiosity.
Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.
However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Evidently either the Canadian education system failed to mention Europe was only one theater of the war; or you were a sleep. Which is it?
I think you should go back and read my post again. I think you'll find there are additional words following a semicolon.
azazel the cat wrote: Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.
However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.
Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.
azazel the cat wrote: Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.
However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.
Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.
Probably more alive though.
Ever had the crazy desire to lay down in a slit trench? Tired of taking crap from the Hitlerites? Ever wanted to travel, and see Berlin in person? If so, then the Red Army has a job for you!
Because the military's constitutional, for one. It's also something that can't be handled by the private sector.
Well, the Air Force isn't even in the constitution but we still have all those pesky planes flying around.
You do know that's a silly retort.
That's like saying we don't have freedom of speech/press via Television and internet.
With regards to the Air Force... It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an "arm" of the Navy, could be excepted... and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense dude... the Framers certainly did NOT intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an "arm" of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship.
Frazzled wrote: Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.
Private industry didn't think to itself, "This war is good business", let's get in there. The government paid them to produce the weapons using taxes levied on the population, and the weapons were carried by conscripted men.
Seaward wrote:
Because it's explicitly stated in the Constitution that providing for the common defense is part of the government's job.
Technically, doesn't "life, liberty and..." imply that it is the government's responsiblity to provide health care? I mean, "life" is the very first part of that.
Nope... that's referenced in the Declaration of Independence... not the Constitution itself.
The 5th, does offerprotections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law
Frazzled wrote: Sure we did. Thats why there are US troops in Japan right now. We kicked the crap out of them.
Private industry didn't think to itself, "This war is good business", let's get in there. The government paid them to produce the weapons using taxes levied on the population, and the weapons were carried by conscripted men.
But they were produced more efficiently and more cheaply under the good old capitalist model.
Frazzled wrote: But they were produced more efficiently and more cheaply under the good old capitalist model.
Yeah, it was entirely the capitalist model (or at least as much as you can apply 'capitalism' to massive government contracts) that did it, not the sheer size of the US combined with geographical isolation making our industry completely immune to disruption by the enemy.
Yep, up until the formation of the modern nation-state military action was conducted almost entirely by mercenaries. It was only the sheer expense of fielding heavy cannon that did away with the practice.
Seaward wrote: You don't see any problems with having nuclear arms in the hands of folks who work for the highest bidder? How about aircraft carriers?
Of course I do, just like I see a problem with a lot of other government functions being in the hands of people who work for the highest bidder. The point here isn't that mercenaries are good, it's that your ideology consists of "the government should do exactly the things I benefit from and no others".
Peregrine wrote: Of course I do, just like I see a problem with a lot of other government functions being in the hands of people who work for the highest bidder. The point here isn't that mercenaries are good, it's that your ideology consists of "the government should do exactly the things I benefit from and no others".
The trouble with that is, there's plenty the government could do that I'd benefit from. I don't want them doing it.
It's incorrect, in other words, and not for that reason alone.
Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.
Seaward wrote: The trouble with that is, there's plenty the government could do that I'd benefit from. I don't want them doing it.
Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others. This isn't about some fundamental valuing of rights and freedom and private industry above all else (since you want the government to provide unnecessary services that could be handled by private industry), you just want to get rid of the parts of government that you don't personally agree with. Your desire to have the government handle the military instead of allowing the free market and private businesses to provide one (if there is enough demand for that service) is no different from my desire to have the government provide college education/welfare for the poor/etc instead of leaving it to the free market and private charity.
So, all I see here is the complaining of someone who doesn't like that they aren't the only person making decisions about what the government will do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.
Of course this is not a truly free market for mercenary services since it is supported by government contracts funded by taxation of private citizens. I'd like to see the average salary for mercenaries in a libertarian utopia where funding for the military is left to private citizens who decide to purchase military services.
Going to an all-mercenary military would, for that matter, benefit me greatly. 360K for 18 months of work? Happily.
There isn't much difference between a professional military and a mercenary one. The entire concept of a professional military grew out of mercenarism. What the US, and other Western nation-states, have effectively done is compensate their soldiers in a way that isn't (directly) monetary.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others.
Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.
This isn't about some fundamental valuing of rights and freedom and private industry above all else (since you want the government to provide unnecessary services that could be handled by private industry), you just want to get rid of the parts of government that you don't personally agree with.
Nope. That's exactly what it's about. The military is not an unnecessary service, and private industry couldn't provide it.
Your desire to have the government handle the military instead of allowing the free market and private businesses to provide one (if there is enough demand for that service) is no different from my desire to have the government provide college education/welfare for the poor/etc instead of leaving it to the free market and private charity.
It's actually quite a bit different. We can start with the fact that health care is an individual service.
So, all I see here is the complaining of someone who doesn't like that they aren't the only person making decisions about what the government will do.
Statistically speaking, you should be coming upon a correct conclusion purely by chance at some point...
Of course this is not a truly free market for mercenary services since it is supported by government contracts funded by taxation of private citizens. I'd like to see the average salary for mercenaries in a libertarian utopia where funding for the military is left to private citizens who decide to purchase military services.
...but the statistics haven't swung in your favor yet. A "libertarian utopia" would not privatize the military. That's one of the few things libertarians can agree on.
dogma wrote: There isn't much difference between a professional military and a mercenary one.
Yeah, there is. For one thing, mercenaries aren't protected under the laws of war that most other nations subscribe to, so we'd run into some interesting difficulties if we ever actually used a wholly privatized military to do anything.
The entire concept of a professional military grew out of mercenarism.
Alright, time for a little Socratic method. Maybe this will work better than simply stating facts and having you ignore them. Why'd states start switching from mercenaries to standing armies in the first place?
Peregrine wrote: Ok, then let me modify that slightly: you want the government to provide the things you value and want it to provide, and no others.
Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.
Isn't the constitution mutable? I was under the impression it could be changed, I thought it was even set out in the constitution that the constitution can be amended and added to?
You are alluding to it being cast in stone, you may be confusing it with the 10 commandments.
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't see any problems with having health care in the hands of folks who work for the highest bidder?
I'm not terribly worried about the local HMO attempting a coup, no.
How about criminal justice?
What about it? Are you suggesting that the Constitution doesn't put criminal justice within the government's purview?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Isn't the constitution mutable? I was under the impression it could be changed, I thought it was even set out in the constitution that the constitution can be amended and added to?
You are alluding to it being cast in stone, you may be confusing it with the 10 commandments.
It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.
Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?
It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.
Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?
Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.
It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.
Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?
Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.
It's been amended 27 times in 224 years. It's been amended once in the last 40 years, and that had to do with congressional salaries. Suggesting it's "constantly in a state of flux" is a bit much.
Better start boning up if you want to pass that test, man.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.
d-usa wrote: So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.
It might seem that way, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, per Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
The government isn't empowered by the preamble to form a military either, for that matter. The preamble's held as having zero legislative effect in constitutional law.
Seaward wrote: I'm not terribly worried about the local HMO attempting a coup, no.
Yeah, because the only way private-run health care could possibly harm anyone is by attempting a coup...
Oh wait, you're a social darwinist. Never mind.
Seaward wrote: Wrong again. I want the government to provide the things it's mandated by the Constitution to provide.
Fortunately the constitution approves of pretty much everything the government currently does, so I don't see how this is a very relevant statement.
Nope. That's exactly what it's about. The military is not an unnecessary service, and private industry couldn't provide it.
A government-run military is an unnecessary service since private mercenaries could provide it (if there's actually a sufficient market for military services).
Now, you might argue that mercenaries might not provide it very well, but I'd say the same about a lot of other government services that you want to get rid of. If taxation to fund health care/college education/etc without any way to opt out of it is wrong, so is taxation to fund a better military with no way to opt out of it.
It's actually quite a bit different. We can start with the fact that health care is an individual service.
Health care is NOT just an individual service. Better health care means stopping the spread of disease, reducing the economic damage caused by unhealthy and/or dead workers, etc. Though I guess since you're a social darwinist you don't put any value on the collective benefit of living in a society where people aren't just left to die (often in really horrible ways) if they're too poor to afford treatment.
...but the statistics haven't swung in your favor yet. A "libertarian utopia" would not privatize the military. That's one of the few things libertarians can agree on.
Well, except for the libertarians who want to get rid of the military. Except for those people, who aren't "true" libertarians, all libertarians agree on this.
d-usa wrote: So if the "common defense" bit covers everything military, it would seem that the next four words would cover all this nanny-state business and stuff like healthcare.
It might seem that way, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, per Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare. To quote the court:
"The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."
The government isn't empowered by the preamble to form a military either, for that matter. The preamble's held as having zero legislative effect in constitutional law.
What about Article 8 then?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Peregrine wrote: Fortunately the constitution approves of pretty much everything the government currently does, so I don't see how this is a very relevant statement.
Only if you read it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.
A government-run military is an unnecessary service since private mercenaries could provide it (if there's actually a sufficient market for military services).
Once again, no, they could not. I've still yet to hear anyone propose a method of getting around the determination of one or another of the Geneva Conventions that mercenaries are unlawful combatants.
Now, you might argue that mercenaries might not provide it very well, but I'd say the same about a lot of other government services that you want to get rid of. If taxation to fund health care/college education/etc without any way to opt out of it is wrong, so is taxation to fund a better military with no way to opt out of it.
Unfortunately for your argument, providing a military is one of the few enumerated powers in the Constitution.
Health care is NOT just an individual service. Better health care means stopping the spread of disease, reducing the economic damage caused by unhealthy and/or dead workers, etc.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand what was said. Health care is an individual service because an individual is capable of providing for it on his or her own. Defending the country is not something that an individual is capable of.
Well, except for the libertarians who want to get rid of the military. Except for those people, who aren't "true" libertarians, all libertarians agree on this.
Could you find me some of those people?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare.
Yup. "Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
What about Article 8 then?
Do some research on it. It's never been held as a general grant of federal legislative power.
Seaward wrote: Only if you read it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.
So, let me get this straight:
Supreme court cases that go in favor of your ideology are evidence that the constitution doesn't allow X.
Supreme court cases that go against your ideology are just reading it with the assumption that words don't mean what they actually mean.
Ok, if you say so.
Once again, no, they could not. I've still yet to hear anyone propose a method of getting around the determination of one or another of the Geneva Conventions that mercenaries are unlawful combatants.
Why should anyone care about the Geneva Conventions? That's just more unnecessary government intervention in the free market.
Unfortunately for your argument, providing a military is one of the few enumerated powers in the Constitution.
Ok, so now we've gone from having a coherent set of beliefs about how government should function to nothing more than "the constitution says so" legalism?
Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand what was said. Health care is an individual service because an individual is capable of providing for it on his or her own. Defending the country is not something that an individual is capable of.
I would love to live in your fantasy world in which health care is something an individual can provide on his or her own.
Could you find me some of those people?
Given that they're people I talked to offline, no.
d-usa wrote: Are you sure you are thinking of Jacobson v. Massachusetts? Because it seems like the decision in that case was that the states has the power to enforce the general welfare.
Yup. "Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from? Article 8?
Like I quoted earlier, the Supreme Court finds that general welfare is a constitutional power of the government: "The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety."
What about Article 8 then?
Do some research on it. It's never been held as a general grant of federal legislative power.
So let me get this straight: Article 8 of the constitution, the section that specifically tells congress what it has the power to do, has never been held as a general grant of legislative power?
So if the preamble doesn't make something constitutional, and Article 8 doesn't mean that something is authorized by the constitution. Then where does the constitution back up this statement of yours:
Peregrine wrote: Why should anyone care about the Geneva Conventions? That's just more unnecessary government intervention in the free market.
Cute. The laws of war are actually pretty important.
Ok, so now we've gone from having a coherent set of beliefs about how government should function to nothing more than "the constitution says so" legalism?
Not at all. I've explained the rationale behind my own beliefs several times, and your response of, "Nuh uh!", while endlessly compelling, was just getting repetitive.
I would love to live in your fantasy world in which health care is something an individual can provide on his or her own.
I'm certainly capable of providing for health care on my own. Note: reading carefully is important. Providing for, not providing.
Given that they're people I talked to offline, no.
Thanks for just ignoring the part where I pointed out how the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution apparently only matters when it agrees with you. I like it when people allow such a decisive argument to stand uncontested.
Seaward wrote: Cute. The laws of war are actually pretty important.
So what if they're important? I don't think you're going to suddenly decide that you don't want to get rid of a bunch of other government regulations just because they're currently important.
Not at all. I've explained the rationale behind my own beliefs several times, and your response of, "Nuh uh!", while endlessly compelling, was just getting repetitive.
So then why do you have to answer with the fact that providing a military is specifically enumerated instead of providing a reason for why it SHOULD be enumerated? Unless you believe that the constitution is the sacred word of god establishing the perfect system of government saying "the constitution says so" is just legalism.
I'm certainly capable of providing for health care on my own. Note: reading carefully is important. Providing for, not providing.
Only because you live in a society that values collective services like having health care. You're only providing it "yourself" in the sense that a small business owner does everything "himself" while using public services like roads/schools/etc.
I didn't think so.
Yeah, how horrible that I actually engage in political debates offline and don't feel like digging through online sources to find someone with similar beliefs (who you'll inevitably reject as not being a "true" libertarian).
d-usa wrote: So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from?
This is such wildly conflated concepts that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. If you're interpreting what you just said as, "the government can use police powers to provide free health care if it wants to," I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Fortunately, nobody on the Supreme Court has ever agreed with that.
So let me get this straight: Article 8 of the constitution, the section that specifically tells congress what it has the power to do, has never been held as a general grant of legislative power?
No. You're thinking of the wrong Article, by the way. It's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. To quote, in its entirety: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". That's it. That's the only mention of "general welfare" outside the preamble, and that particular clause has never been held as general legislative power, simply as a modifier on its parent section, the taxing and spending clause.
Where in the constitution does it say that providing for the common defense is a function of the government?
The very same clause, of course. Which would mean exactly the same as the "general welfare" bit if the raising of armies and navies weren't specifically listed within the enumerated powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: So what if they're important? I don't think you're going to suddenly decide that you don't want to get rid of a bunch of other government regulations just because they're currently important.
You're aware that the Geneva Conventions aren't something that applies only internally in the United States, right?
You see, when two countries choose to go to war, they're, generally speaking, obliged to comply with the Geneva Conventions - and, theoretically, a few UN conventions - regarding the conduct of the war. Prisoners of war, for example, cannot be mistreated, and should be repatriated at the end of the war. Unlawful combatants, on the other hand, which mercenaries are defined as? You can do whatever you like with them, should you capture them, subject to a general admonishment to "treat them humanely." Lock 'em up for life, if you like.
As we cannot unilaterally force all other nations on earth to disown these conventions, ignoring them is simply not an option.
So then why do you have to answer with the fact that providing a military is specifically enumerated instead of providing a reason for why it SHOULD be enumerated? Unless you believe that the constitution is the sacred word of god establishing the perfect system of government saying "the constitution says so" is just legalism.
Scroll back. That wasn't my initial answer. My initial answer - and it remains my primary answer - is that providing an unbiased military, loyal to the country, is something that no individual is capable of doing.
Honestly, dude, if you're not going to bother to read before hitting Reply and facerolling your keyboard, let me know and I'll bow out.
Only because you live in a society that values collective services like having health care. You're only providing it "yourself" in the sense that a small business owner does everything "himself" while using public services like roads/schools/etc.
I doubt even you know what that meant.
Yeah, how horrible that I actually engage in political debates offline and don't feel like digging through online sources to find someone with similar beliefs (who you'll inevitably reject as not being a "true" libertarian).
Nah. I'm genuinely curious if you can find any evidence of anyone who self-identifies as a libertarian and wants to completely get rid of the military. I don't care either way if they do, I simply doubt that such an animal exists. Sort of like socialists who've done hard work before.
Seaward wrote: As we cannot unilaterally force all other nations on earth to disown these conventions, ignoring them is simply not an option.
Sure we can. The free market will account for things like the fact that mercenaries can be subject to summary execution by setting their salary at a level sufficient to compensate for the risk. People had no problem recruiting mercenaries back when things like safety for POWs was just wishful thinking, so there should be no problem finding enough mercenaries to meet the demand of the market.
In fact, this would be even easier in your social darwinist "utopia" since there would be plenty of poor people facing a horrible death by disease and/or starvation who would eagerly volunteer for mercenary duty because a high risk of death is better than certain death. And hey, at least summary execution for being an unlawful combatant is probably less painful than the alternative ways of dying, and being locked up in prison forever would be paradise compared to your "utopia".
Scroll back. That wasn't my initial answer. My initial answer - and it remains my primary answer - is that providing an unbiased military, loyal to the country, is something that no individual is capable of doing.
Great. Then you should post that as your reply instead of pointless legalism.
And you still haven't done anything to show how the military is any different than the government services you want to get rid of. Nobody is disputing that an all-mercenary military would suck, but so would an all-individual health care system, all-individual universities, etc. You can't insist that we need government to provide the best possible military while simultaneously arguing that even low-quality services are good enough for everything else.
Nah. I'm genuinely curious if you can find any evidence of anyone who self-identifies as a libertarian and wants to completely get rid of the military. I don't care either way if they do, I simply doubt that such an animal exists. Sort of like socialists who've done hard work before.
You can use google as well as I can. And I'm not making this up, I've encountered multiple self-identified libertarians who wanted to abolish even basic government functions like the military/fire department/etc and allow the free market to provide them for anyone who is willing to pay.
d-usa wrote: So when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government did in fact have the power to use police powers to enforce the general welfare, where do you think that power came from?
This is such wildly conflated concepts that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. If you're interpreting what you just said as, "the government can use police powers to provide free health care if it wants to," I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Fortunately, nobody on the Supreme Court has ever agreed with that.
Where do you think that quote came from?
All together, you posted the wrong Supreme Court decision when it comes to backing up your point. Jackobson v. Massachusetts seems to be the exact opposite of every argument you have been trying to make.
Some quotes from your own links:
The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'
If the mode adopted by the commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient, or objectionable to some,—if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question,—the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort, and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few
It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease.
Peregrine wrote: Sure we can. The free market will account for things like the fact that mercenaries can be subject to summary execution by setting their salary at a level sufficient to compensate for the risk. People had no problem recruiting mercenaries back when things like safety for POWs was just wishful thinking, so there should be no problem finding enough mercenaries to meet the demand of the market.
And those mercenaries tended to be rather unreliable when it looked like they might actually have a tough time of it, which is one of the many reasons everyone switched to a national army. It's simply not a viable solution.
Great. Then you should post that as your reply instead of pointless legalism.
Already did. You ignored it. Again, if you're not interested in actually reading what's said, what's the point of all this? If you just want to rant, go nuts, but quit involving me.
And you still haven't done anything to show how the military is any different than the government services you want to get rid of. Nobody is disputing that an all-mercenary military would suck, but so would an all-individual health care system, all-individual universities, etc. You can't insist that we need government to provide the best possible military while simultaneously arguing that even low-quality services are good enough for everything else.
On the contrary. Private universities and private healthcare tend to be pretty good.
For, seriously, the last time: the argument has never been that government is empowered to do absolutely nothing. There are certain services that it is, in fact, government's role to provide. Military, police, basic infrastructure, judiciary, and so forth.
You can use google as well as I can. And I'm not making this up, I've encountered multiple self-identified libertarians who wanted to abolish even basic government functions like the military/fire department/etc and allow the free market to provide them for anyone who is willing to pay.
Seaward wrote: And those mercenaries tended to be rather unreliable when it looked like they might actually have a tough time of it, which is one of the many reasons everyone switched to a national army. It's simply not a viable solution.
And, again, the same is true of having private businesses handling other government functions. You can't demand the perfect military (and therefore government) while simultaneously arguing that the bare minimum is adequate for everything but the military (and therefore no need for government).
On the contrary. Private universities and private healthcare tend to be pretty good.
If you can afford it. If you aren't a social darwinist that's a pretty big "if".
And of course we'll just pretend that private universities and health care don't receive any support from the government...
For, seriously, the last time: the argument has never been that government is empowered to do absolutely nothing. There are certain services that it is, in fact, government's role to provide. Military, police, basic infrastructure, judiciary, and so forth.
In other words, the services that you personally require help with. Things that other people require help with, like not starving to death, are not necessary.
d-usa wrote: Where do you think that quote came from?
All together, you posted the wrong Supreme Court decision when it comes to backing up your point. Jackobson v. Massachusetts seems to be the exact opposite of every argument you have been trying to make.
Nope. It's actually perfectly in line with every argument I've been making.
You're massively overshooting from the finding of the case - that the state can indeed intervene in a specific public health crisis that threatens the safety of the whole - and leaping right on ahead to, "The government has a mandate to provide healthcare!"
No. That's not what it is. It's narrowly defined, and the clause in question regarding the "general welfare" is not taken to mean a general legislative mandate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And, again, the same is true of having private businesses handling other government functions. You can't demand the perfect military (and therefore government) while simultaneously arguing that the bare minimum is adequate for everything but the military (and therefore no need for government).
Good, because that isn't the argument. But you're not going to read this in any way but, "Nothing but the military!" so why bother?
If you can afford it. If you aren't a social darwinist that's a pretty big "if".
Yep. Some things cost money. Hope you're not majoring in liberal arts, kiddo.
In other words, the services that you personally require help with. Things that other people require help with, like not starving to death, are not necessary.
Oh, no. If it was only things I required help with, I'd be advocating for a whole lot more to go.
Seaward wrote: Good, because that isn't the argument. But you're not going to read this in any way but, "Nothing but the military!" so why bother?
Ok, military and a few other functions. The basic point remains: you're happy to have big government providing the finest possible military (including socialist things like free health care), but it's the end of the world if we have big government preventing people from starving to death. It's completely inconsistent to say that anything less than the best possible military is not a viable solution but not hold other things to that same standard.
Yep. Some things cost money. Hope you're not majoring in liberal arts, kiddo.
Right, I keep forgetting that you're a social darwinist and don't see any problem with limiting education to those lucky enough to have parents who can afford it.
It can certainly be changed. None of the things we're discussing have been amended.
Are you under the impression that it changes on its own or something?
Obviously not, I'm suggesting that you've touted it for a couple of pages as gospel and it's not, it's something constantly in a state of flux and can be changed as society changes.
It's been amended 27 times in 224 years. It's been amended once in the last 40 years, and that had to do with congressional salaries. Suggesting it's "constantly in a state of flux" is a bit much.
Better start boning up if you want to pass that test, man.
Has a time ever existed when alteration or amendment was prohibited?
Peregrine wrote: Ok, military and a few other functions. The basic point remains: you're happy to have big government providing the finest possible military (including socialist things like free health care), but it's the end of the world if we have big government preventing people from starving to death. It's completely inconsistent to say that anything less than the best possible military is not a viable solution but not hold other things to that same standard.
If you really think military healthcare's free, I encourage you to experience getting it for yourself sometime.
Numerous libertarians, incidentally, don't want the best possible military. Most are in favor of a much smaller one, in fact.
Right, I keep forgetting that you're a social darwinist and don't see any problem with limiting education to those lucky enough to have parents who can afford it.
I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?
Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?
Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.
Tell you what, we'll wait for you guys to privatize the military to see how it goes. All's well in fifty years, I'll be on board.
As for the Constitution...yeah, I'm not sure why it's so much in the mix at the moment. I may very well have brought it up, for all I know. Libertarianism certainly doesn't depend on it, and though it has many libertarian aspects, it's not entirely a libertarian document, so it's not entirely relevant.
Seaward - true, most of us Libertarians are most interested in State run Military, ala National Guard,Coast Guard whose main mission is to NOT be deployed anywhere overseas, but to defend the borders, and protect the country from threats both from outside and within.
Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.
For instance, the government is involved in pretty much every aspect of our lives right now, what type of toilet you can install in your house, what kind of light bulbs you can manufacture or purchase, what blend of fuel you can get for your car on any given day. etc etc etc.
Most of us will agree doing drugs is stupid and you should not do it, but you should have the right to do so.
A lot of Republicans while not advocating for Gay marriage, aside from prominent members of the party like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, will tell you they would rather not have Government involved in regulating marriage, and know full well once the Government is no longer involved in handing out marriage certificates, gay marriage will be de facto legalized except in places that passed a law expressly forbidding it.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I don't really see the problem with privatising the military. Surely the magic of the market would provide a large range of different, competitive mercenary companies, each kept in check by the knowledge that if they tried to seize power then the others would immediately be paid to destroy them? Besides, the US spends a ridiculous amount on the armed forces right now. Maybe some competition could reduce overheads a great deal?
Tell you what, we'll wait for you guys to privatize the military to see how it goes. All's well in fifty years, I'll be on board.
You might be waiting a long time. I don't know if Libertarians even exist here. I guess someone must be, but there's no general awareness of it like in the US.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Also, I have to admit I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with anything. Shouldn't your philosophy be able to stand without reference to the Constitution, the Constitution being a natural product of the implementation of that philosophy rather than its genesis? When you handwave and say but the Constitution! it sounds very much like it's the other way around.
As for the Constitution...yeah, I'm not sure why it's so much in the mix at the moment. I may very well have brought it up, for all I know. Libertarianism certainly doesn't depend on it, and though it has many libertarian aspects, it's not entirely a libertarian document, so it's not entirely relevant.
It should not depend on it, but many of your arguments have been appeals to its authority. "This is okay because it's in the Constitution; this is not okay because it's not in the Constitution or maybe it is but the Supreme Court says it doesn't count or at least doesn't say that it does count and that's just as good" etc.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: You might be waiting a long time. I don't know if Libertarians even exist here. I guess someone must be, but there's no general awareness of it like in the US.
Why would they need to? Privatizing the military isn't a tenet of libertarianism.
Seaward wrote: It should not depend on it, but many of your arguments have been appeals to its authority. "This is okay because it's in the Constitution; this is not okay because it's not in the Constitution or maybe it is but the Supreme Court says it doesn't count or at least doesn't say that it does count and that's just as good" etc.
Not really, no. We got into the weeds on the fething Taxing and Spending clause, for reasons that I can't entirely explain, but the basic points have been pretty clearly stated. As little government intrusion as possible = good. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.
Since when is the republican party concerned with small government? The only real "small government" ideology it stands for is "fewer regulations so our wealthy corporate donors can make as much money as possible".
For instance, the government is involved in pretty much every aspect of our lives right now, what type of toilet you can install in your house, what kind of light bulbs you can manufacture or purchase, what blend of fuel you can get for your car on any given day. etc etc etc.
And you know why those regulations exist? Because otherwise you have water shortages, wasted energy and pollution from people who don't understand how high-efficiency light bulbs work, and unethical gas stations selling cheap ethanol blends that will destroy your engine (without any appropriate warning labels).
A lot of Republicans while not advocating for Gay marriage, aside from prominent members of the party like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman, will tell you they would rather not have Government involved in regulating marriage, and know full well once the Government is no longer involved in handing out marriage certificates, gay marriage will be de facto legalized except in places that passed a law expressly forbidding it.
Oh yes, "a lot of republicans" want government out of marriage instead of blatantly arguing for government recognition of only christian-approved marriage. Let's not forget that it's the republican party that is passing additional laws specifically banning gay marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Numerous libertarians, incidentally, don't want the best possible military. Most are in favor of a much smaller one, in fact.
Best in quality, not quantity. If we can settle for a health care system that leaves people to die because they aren't rich enough to afford treatment then we can settle for a mercenary military that isn't as good as you might like.
There's always loans.
Oh good, so if you aren't lucky enough to have wealthy parents you can get a degree and graduate with crippling debt (take a look at the tuition prices for universities that aren't subsidized by the government). This is obviously a much better idea than having affordable government-run universities available.
Back onto topic about why Libertarians are more aligned with Republicans, I think someone else summed it up. We generally want as little Government involvement in our day to day lives.
And yet I see the anti-gay, prolife stance of the republican party as being more intrusive than democrats, democrats just want to build infrastructure and tax me towards that. Republicans want to tell me who I can marry, refuse me medical procedure (well, my wife), that seems more controlling to me.
Seaward wrote: Why would they need to? Privatizing the military isn't a tenet of libertarianism.
Only because libertarianism as an ideology pretty much consists of "I'm rich already, the rest of you". If you apply the fundamental arguments of libertarianism consistently the inevitable consequence is a military composed of private mercenary corporations paid for by those who wish to purchase military services. The fact that most libertarians don't want this is really just a concession that libertarianism as an ideology is broken.
As little government intrusion as possible = good. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Except you don't apply that principle consistently. You're happy to accept more government intrusion than is strictly necessary if it accomplishes a goal that you value.
Peregrine wrote: Best in quality, not quantity. If we can settle for a health care system that leaves people to die because they aren't rich enough to afford treatment then we can settle for a mercenary military that isn't as good as you might like.
Nope. The country could very well cease to exist without effective defenses.
Oh good, so if you aren't lucky enough to have wealthy parents you can get a degree and graduate with crippling debt (take a look at the tuition prices for universities that aren't subsidized by the government). This is obviously a much better idea than having affordable government-run universities available.
Oh, you want a completely free ride? Of course, what was I thinking.
ROTC, service academy, GI Bill. Hey, you'll even get some of that military healthcare that you think is free!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Only because libertarianism as an ideology pretty much consists of "I'm rich already, the rest of you". If you apply the fundamental arguments of libertarianism consistently the inevitable consequence is a military composed of private mercenary corporations paid for by those who wish to purchase military services. The fact that most libertarians don't want this is really just a concession that libertarianism as an ideology is broken.
Again, simply saying the country doesn't need effective defenses doesn't make it so.
Except you don't apply that principle consistently. You're happy to accept more government intrusion than is strictly necessary if it accomplishes a goal that you value.
Not at all. Providing for the defense of the nation is strictly necessary. We've covered multiple times now why mercenaries can't do it. That you refuse to accept it hasn't gotten less amusing, but it hasn't changed the fact.
Seaward wrote: Nope. The country could very well cease to exist without effective defenses.
It could. Or it could continue to exist just fine. But I thought we value freedom? If people wish to live in a country where they trade security for lower taxes then why should they be forced to pay taxes to fund the military that you want to have? Shouldn't the libertarian answer be to let the market decide whether there's enough demand for high-quality military services to have a military composed of loyal professional soldiers?
Oh, you want a completely free ride? Of course, what was I thinking.
I didn't say that. The simple fact is that even "full price" tuition at state universities is subsidized by the government, and if you remove that support it's going to mean a huge increase in student debt.
ROTC, service academy, GI Bill. Hey, you'll even get some of that military healthcare that you think is free!
Oh good. So socialism is good, as long as it's part of the military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: We've covered multiple times now why mercenaries can't do it.
No we haven't . We've covered how mercenaries can't do it to your satisfaction. However, the libertarian answer is to let the free market decide what level of defense is desired, not to impose unwanted taxes to provide an arbitrary level of defense that you personally want to have. Just like in your social darwinist utopia my desire to not have people starving to death does not mean that the government should impose unwanted taxes to pay for it.
Peregrine wrote: It could. Or it could continue to exist just fine. But I thought we value freedom? If people wish to live in a country where they trade security for lower taxes then why should they be forced to pay taxes to fund the military that you want to have? Shouldn't the libertarian answer be to let the market decide whether there's enough demand for high-quality military services to have a military composed of loyal professional soldiers?
No. Libertarianism is not anarchism. I realize you're having a tough time in understanding that, but maybe pure, rote repetition will do the trick.
I didn't say that. The simple fact is that even "full price" tuition at state universities is subsidized by the government, and if you remove that support it's going to mean a huge increase in student debt.
Sure would. Maybe we'd have fewer people incurring it. I mean, seriously, I like a bartender with a BA as much as the next guy, but c'mon.
Oh good. So socialism is good, as long as it's part of the military.
Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: No we haven't . We've covered how mercenaries can't do it to your satisfaction.
Or to anyone else's, at least if we count those who have even a remote idea what they're talking about.
However, the libertarian answer is to let the free market decide what level of defense is desired, not to impose unwanted taxes to provide an arbitrary level of defense that you personally want to have.
No, it definitely isn't. The fact that you're unable to produce any mainstream libertarian ideology espousing this notion should have told you you're barking up the wrong tree a long, long time ago. All of them, from the Cato Institute to the random bloggers, acknowledge that it's the government's job to provide a military. The only guys you've got in your corner are those two dudes you claim to have talked to. When even the internet doesn't want a piece of your crazy theory, it's time to pack it in.
Seaward wrote: No. Libertarianism is not anarchism. I realize you're having a tough time in understanding that, but maybe pure, rote repetition will do the trick.
Of course it's not anarchism. We all know that anarcho-capitalists who call themselves libertarians are not "true" libertarians. A "true" libertarian is one who stops applying libertarian ideology at a specific level of government rather than abolishing even more of it.
Sure would. Maybe we'd have fewer people incurring it. I mean, seriously, I like a bartender with a BA as much as the next guy, but c'mon.
1) This still applies to "useful" degrees. If the price of getting an engineering degree increases by 5x (or more) because of the end of government support then anyone who isn't lucky enough to have wealthy parents that can pay the higher tuition costs will be facing a crippling level of debt and likely be forced to abandon their hope of getting one. The end result is that even "useful" degrees will become more and more restricted to the children of the wealthy. And I think even a social darwinist like you can see how it's a bad thing when talented people with valuable things to contribute to society are forced into low-end jobs because their parents failed.
2) I know you're a social darwinist, but try to imagine how a better-educated population is a desirable thing and how education for the sake of education can be good even if it isn't directly useful in a job.
Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.
Socialism seems to be defined as "anything I, as a conservative/libertarian, don't like", considering how many times I've heard things like free tuition labeled as socialism.
Or to anyone else's, at least if we count those who have even a remote idea what they're talking about.
So what you're saying is that individual freedom should be limited to those you decide are qualified to exercise it? I thought you were in favor of libertarianism, not a big-government conservativism?
No, it definitely isn't. The fact that you're unable to produce any mainstream libertarian ideology espousing this notion should have told you you're barking up the wrong tree a long, long time ago. All of them, from the Cato Institute to the random bloggers, acknowledge that it's the government's job to provide a military. The only guys you've got in your corner are those two dudes you claim to have talked to. When even the internet doesn't want a piece of your crazy theory, it's time to pack it in.
Sorry, I can't get beyond this idea that there's such a thing as "mainstream libertarian ideology". You do realize that the libertarian party is a about as "mainstream" and relevant in US politics as the communist party, right?
(And, TBH, if you exclude the 'libertarians' whose sole political goal is legalizing pot, the communists are probably a lot more relevant.)
Peregrine wrote: Of course it's not anarchism. We all know that anarcho-capitalists who call themselves libertarians are not "true" libertarians. A "true" libertarian is one who stops applying libertarian ideology at a specific level of government rather than abolishing even more of it.
Again, you seem to believe that libertarianism is about removing all government, everywhere. Until you can acknowledge that's not the case, there's simply no point in talking to you.
Liberalism, by the way? It's about resurrecting Stalin so he can run the country right. See? We can both make stupid-ass claims without the slightest hint of truth to them.
1) This still applies to "useful" degrees. If the price of getting an engineering degree increases by 5x (or more) because of the end of government support then anyone who isn't lucky enough to have wealthy parents that can pay the higher tuition costs will be facing a crippling level of debt and likely be forced to abandon their hope of getting one. The end result is that even "useful" degrees will become more and more restricted to the children of the wealthy. And I think even a social darwinist like you can see how it's a bad thing when talented people with valuable things to contribute to society are forced into low-end jobs because their parents failed.
You're leaving out the part where useful degrees become more rare and thus command a higher premium on the job market, resulting in increased wages to pay off that debt with. I work with plenty of guys who financed their entire ride to expensive private schools. They're not crippled by the debt. It's almost like they figured out what they were getting into and had a reasonable plan to handle it.
Your debt's going to be crippling if you're getting a worthless degree. You know that. Whining about it after the fact and expecting the rest of us to mitigate your bad decisions isn't the answer.
Do you even know what socialism is? I'm starting to think that may be the problem here.
Socialism seems to be defined as "anything I, as a conservative/libertarian, don't like", considering how many times I've heard things like free tuition labeled as socialism.
I'll take that as a no.
So what you're saying is that individual freedom should be limited to those you decide are qualified to exercise it? I thought you were in favor of libertarianism, not a big-government conservativism?
We'll try rote repetition one more time: libertarianism is not about the abolition of all government functions. Just let me know when that sinks in so we can move on.
Sorry, I can't get beyond this idea that there's such a thing as "mainstream libertarian ideology". You do realize that the libertarian party is a about as "mainstream" and relevant in US politics as the communist party, right?
Yep. Does that mean you believe there is no such thing as a mainstream to communist ideology, or is this just yet another reading comprehension problem on your part?
Let us not forget most of the define marriage is only between one man and one woman have been state ballot initiatives. The most famous being Prop 8 from California that recently made it to the supreme court. The majority of people who turned out to vote in California 2008 were Democrats. So you can not really go about saying that Democrats are really better on this issue.
Libertarians are really for the party of the misunderstood. Don't worry MGS, even our own fellow citizens don't get it as this thread clearly shows.
Seaward wrote: Again, you seem to believe that libertarianism is about removing all government, everywhere. Until you can acknowledge that's not the case, there's simply no point in talking to you.
It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.
You're leaving out the part where useful degrees become more rare and thus command a higher premium on the job market, resulting in increased wages to pay off that debt with.
You mean the part where labor costs become too high and the company moves to China?
I work with plenty of guys who financed their entire ride to expensive private schools. They're not crippled by the debt. It's almost like they figured out what they were getting into and had a reasonable plan to handle it.
Yes, it's possible. That doesn't change the fact that ending state-subsidized universities would mean either a crippling increase in debt (don't forget that student loan debt is already a big problem) or an even greater divide between people lucky enough to have wealthy parents and people who don't.
I'll take that as a no.
Yeah, because I'm clearly talking about the dictionary definition of socialism rather than the habit of conservatives/libertarians declaring any random thing they don't like (such as state-funded tuition) to be socialism...
Yep. Does that mean you believe there is no such thing as a mainstream to communist ideology, or is this just yet another reading comprehension problem on your part?
No, I don't think there's any kind of "mainstream" communist ideology, just a bunch of irrelevant factions arguing over what the ideal fantasy world is. The term "mainstream" implies unity and relevance to society as a whole, not just having a blog with the most page views out of all the irrelevant fringe groups.
Peregrine wrote: It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.
There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.
You mean the part where labor costs become too high and the company moves to China?
I'm also leaving out the part where the zipzorps take on the waggleworms in the Uberdome, because I thought we were sticking to practical reality.
Yes, it's possible. That doesn't change the fact that ending state-subsidized universities would mean either a crippling increase in debt (don't forget that student loan debt is already a big problem) or an even greater divide between people lucky enough to have wealthy parents and people who don't.
Or people smart enough to figure out other ways to finance their college education.
No, I don't think there's any kind of "mainstream" communist ideology, just a bunch of irrelevant factions arguing over what the ideal fantasy world is. The term "mainstream" implies unity and relevance to society as a whole, not just having a blog with the most page views out of all the irrelevant fringe groups.
That's not what mainstream implies, actually. You're close with the unity, at least.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of libertarians - I'm leaving out those two totally real guys you know, obviously - believe that one of the roles of government is to provide for the common defense makes it a mainstream libertarian tenet.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: Let us not forget most of the define marriage is only between one man and one woman have been state ballot initiatives.
State ballot initiatives led, supported, and funded by the republican party and groups associated with the republican party.
The majority of people who turned out to vote in California 2008 were Democrats. So you can not really go about saying that Democrats are really better on this issue.
Sorry, but that's just insane. Let's do some basic math here.
Assume for the sake of simplicity that everyone who voted R in the presidential election in California also voted for proposition 8, and that all voters completed their entire ballot (the vote totals are roughly the same for each). That's 37% of all voters, compared to 52% in favor of proposition 8, so we need 15% of the population to defect from "democrat" to "republican". Since 60% of the population voted D, that means that 25% of democrats in California voted for prop 8. IOW, 75% of democrats voted against it.
Yes, this is an approximation, but it's just laughably wrong to say that a party where the majority votes in favor of gay marriage is no better than one where the majority votes against it and invests huge amounts of effort and money into opposing it.
I don't get it. Are we just listing theoretical concepts? Am I doing it right?
No, you have to provide a libertarian supported and proposed replacement for the socialist military arm of the tyranny of government, that thing you worked for, remember...?
Seaward wrote: There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.
The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.
I'm also leaving out the part where the zipzorps take on the waggleworms in the Uberdome, because I thought we were sticking to practical reality.
Yeah, because companies leaving a country to go somewhere with cheaper labor costs is just as unrealistic as your pointless gibberish...
Or people smart enough to figure out other ways to finance their college education.
Given that a college education is most effective when it happens as early in life as possible (not much point in getting an engineering degree when you're 75 and too old to use it) that's a pretty unrealistic plan. The overwhelming majority of college funding is always going to come from either student loans or the student's parents.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: No, you have to provide a libertarian supported and proposed replacement for the socialist military arm of the tyranny of government, that thing you worked for, remember...?
No, I don't. Libertarians support the establishment of the military.
Yet another guy who doesn't know what socialism actually is. Man, this is becoming an epidemic.
Peregrine wrote: The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.
Nope. Libertarian ideology says that the government is responsible for providing for the common defense.
Yeah, because companies leaving a country to go somewhere with cheaper labor costs is just as unrealistic as your pointless gibberish...
The assumption that labor costs go up because fewer people are getting paid more is pretty amusing.
Given that a college education is most effective when it happens as early in life as possible (not much point in getting an engineering degree when you're 75 and too old to use it) that's a pretty unrealistic plan. The overwhelming majority of college funding is always going to come from either student loans or the student's parents.
As I said before, you're always free to enlist at 18. You'll be out with nearly full tuition by 22. You'll also shed a fair amount of the kumbaya crap, so, double bonus.
Otherwise, choose your loans and your major carefully. Think before making a decision. I know it's a tough concept, but...better get used to it.
Peregrine wrote: It isn't, but only because libertarians refuse to apply their ideology consistently and insist on preserving certain government functions that they personally feel are necessary even when it contradicts their ideology.
There's nothing inconsistent about saying the government's job is to take on the roles that the private sector or the individual cannot.
"Cannot" is a strong word. Leaving aside the military, would you say the private sector cannot perform a traditionally public task such as maintenance of the roads? What about, say, removing the cadavers of people who couldn't afford health care from the streets, or vaccination/treatment of infectious diseases (a matter of public good, as even if I am a good citizen with plenty of money to pay for my own healthcare I can still catch a disease from some pleb dying on the sidewalk as I go about my day). What about fire departments? It's certainly in my best interest to have a fire near my house stopped before it gets out of control and can threaten my property, but surely I shouldn't have to pay to protect someone else's house from fire? Is that something that cannot be performed by the private sector?
I am just wondering how you define "cannot be performed by the private sector or the individual."
Peregrine wrote: The private sector can take on the defense role. It just can't do it to your satisfaction. However, libertarian ideology says to let the free market and voluntary choices decide what level of military protection people want to fund, not to impose taxes on everyone regardless of their opinion.
Nope. Libertarian ideology says that the government is responsible for providing for the common defense.
No, that is simply the stance of the libertarian party of the United States, of which a great many libertarians in the US do not approve, not libertarian ideology.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: "Cannot" is a strong word. Leaving aside the military, would you say the private sector cannot perform a traditionally public task such as maintenance of the roads? What about, say, removing the cadavers of people who couldn't afford health care from the streets, or vaccination/treatment of infectious diseases (a matter of public good, as even if I am a good citizen with plenty of money to pay for my own healthcare I can still catch a disease from some pleb dying on the sidewalk as I go about my day). What about fire departments? It's certainly in my best interest to have a fire near my house stopped before it gets out of control and can threaten my property, but surely I shouldn't have to pay to protect someone else's house from fire? Is that something that cannot be performed by the private sector?
I am just wondering how you define "cannot be performed by the private sector or the individual."
"Cannot" involves more than simple capability. Can a private company go around putting out fires? Absolutely. Can a private company go around putting out fires where needed regardless of profit? No. Libertarianism's about freedom, not anarchy. There is absolutely a certain level of security and safety that the government is responsible for providing.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It seems you are the last man standing who 'truly' knows then, like charlton heston in the omega man.
So, enlighten us to your definition of socialism then chum.
Socialism's putting production under social ownership.
Now, let's hear why you believe the military's socialist.
Putting production under social ownership is one (and only one, but possibly the most important) of the processes that socialism tend to want to apply on society. Generally speaking, socialism is a political theory which aims at implementing a social progress toward a specific ideal of justice. Public possession of production must be accompanied by a democratic direction of those means and the general aim at satisfying the individual and collective needs of the members of society.
Saying that the military is a socialist entity is wrong. But it does seems like the military allows itself many benefits which are, in the States, associated with a certain definition of socialism, while the rest of the people are not provided with them. I think this all boils down to Americans (and perhaps the anglo saxon world) using terms with specific definitions too loosely.
The only things I'm interested in libertarianism is why the fixation on freedom? Why go over and above liberalism? Why the obsession with the Constitution?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: No, that is simply the stance of the libertarian party of the United States, of which a great many libertarians in the US do not approve, not libertarian ideology.
I've been begging for some established counterpoints, because I'd honestly like to read the perspective. You sound like you've read some libertarians who disagree. Can you point me to them?
Also, the title of the thread, and your initial post, led me to believe you were asking about libertarianism in the United States.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: "Cannot" is a strong word. Leaving aside the military, would you say the private sector cannot perform a traditionally public task such as maintenance of the roads? What about, say, removing the cadavers of people who couldn't afford health care from the streets, or vaccination/treatment of infectious diseases (a matter of public good, as even if I am a good citizen with plenty of money to pay for my own healthcare I can still catch a disease from some pleb dying on the sidewalk as I go about my day). What about fire departments? It's certainly in my best interest to have a fire near my house stopped before it gets out of control and can threaten my property, but surely I shouldn't have to pay to protect someone else's house from fire? Is that something that cannot be performed by the private sector?
I am just wondering how you define "cannot be performed by the private sector or the individual."
"Cannot" involves more than simple capability. Can a private company go around putting out fires? Absolutely. Can a private company go around putting out fires where needed regardless of profit? No. Libertarianism's about freedom, not anarchy. There is absolutely a certain level of security and safety that the government is responsible for providing.
Oh look:
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
If only people age 30 and older could vote, Mitt Romney would be president today. In the last election, Romney beat Obama among voters age 30 and over by two points. But he still managed to lose the election because Obama dominated among younger voters, 60%-36%. Republicans have been decimated by young voters in the last three elections, even though young people basically voted the same way as their elders in every election from 1976 to 2000. To explain this divergence, we need to revisit a brief political phenomenon from a decade ago: the “South Park Republican.”
In 2001, political writer Andrew Sullivan coined the term “South Park Republican” to describe young conservatives like himself who loved Comedy Central’s iconic show about four foul-mouthed fourth graders, especially its skewering of liberal causes like multiculturalism, pacifism, and extreme environmentalism. According to Sullivan, “South Park” gave voice to young Republican-leaning voters (the average viewer’s age is 28) who “believe we need a hard-a** foreign policy and are extremely skeptical of political correctness,” but would describe themselves as moderate on social issues, especially abortion and gay marriage.
In 2005, Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal, ran with the “South Park” idea, publishing a whole book about it, titled South Park Conservatives. Columnist Michael Barone praised the book’s inside look at how “today’s young people are rebelling against the left-wing dominance of the established media” and predicted these kids would “build quite a different America from what we have been led to expect.”
Today, the South Park Republicans aren’t building a “different America.” They are extinct. Even though they were heralded as a rising political force just a few years ago, today they are the political equivalent of the dodo bird — gone and probably gone for good. So what happened to them? Basically, the South Park Republicans became liberals — starting with Sullivan himself, who as late as 2006 was publishing a book called The Conservative Soul, but today can be found bashing Republicans and praising Obama every chance he gets.
Sullivan is a perfect case study of why the South Park Republicans evolved from conservative to liberal. There were three key reasons they abandoned the GOP: Iraq, gay marriage, and then, finally, Obamamania.
Sullivan was once a vocal cheerleader for the Iraq War. But starting in 2004, he grew disillusioned with it. And it wasn’t just because the war turned out to be tougher and bloodier than the “cakewalk” the administration promised. It was because of a whole host of issues: perceptions that the administration misled the public about WMDs, torture, Abu Ghraib, Scooter Libby, and the total ostracizing of critics.
Sullivan voted for Bush in 2000, but four years later, he reluctantly voted for Kerry. Young people also abandoned Bush. Even though Bush’s share of the popular vote rose from 48% to 51% from 2000 to 2004, among those age 29 and under, it fell from 48% to 45%. And Iraq was the biggest reason.
The other big reason was gay marriage. Sullivan, who is openly gay, obviously knew that Bush opposed gay marriage when he voted for him in 2000. But four years later, Sullivan was turned off by what he perceived as the GOP’s deliberate efforts to vilify gay Americans in order to bolster turnout among “values voters.” Indeed, the GOP did want to make gay marriage a wedge issue during the campaign, and, for the most part, it succeeded. But not among young people. Even in 2004, a majority of young people favored gay marriage, even while the rest of the country opposed it. Today, 81% of young people favor it. And so does a majority of everyone else.
For the South Park Republicans, gay marriage wasn’t just about, well, gay marriage. It was about the principle that all Americans should be tolerated and respected. And by not showing that respect, the GOP played into the hands of all those university professors and TV actors and “concerned” journalists who had been warning young people for years that if you scratch a Republican, you find a bigot. And bigots are bad people. And if you vote for a bigot, you’re a bad person too.
2008 marked the end of the South Park Republicans. By then, young people weren’t just disillusioned with the GOP; they had fallen in love with a politician who embodied their highest hopes and aspirations: Barack Obama. No, they didn’t agree with Obama on things like big government, vilifying the wealthy, abortion on demand, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc. But those things didn’t matter. Because Obama was “cool.” And his message — of “hope” and “change” and “yes, we can” — expressed their dreams in a way McCain and the Republicans never could. By 2012, Obamamania had worn off a bit, but for young Americans, a contest between Obama and Romney was no contest at all. And Obama once again swept young people overwhelmingly.
Looking ahead to 2016 and beyond, the GOP will no longer have to worry about having Obama on the ballot. But they will definitely need candidates who can appeal to (or at least not repel) young voters. They will also need candidates who can articulate the “language of America,” which is one of unity, not division. And they will need to develop a foreign policy that isn’t just Bush Redux, but reflects a more subdued public opinion in the wake of the Iraq War.
The rise and fall of the South Park Republicans is a powerful symbol of the catastrophe the GOP has suffered among young voters. But it may also be a roadmap to recovery. Today’s young people value freedom and opportunity. That is where the GOP is strong. But young people also value diversity and progress. That is where the GOP is weak. And yet there is no reason why Republicans — if they put their minds to it and learn the right lessons — can’t once again be the party of national unity, positive change, and victory.
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
If you think anarchy is synonymous with libertarianism, then you're beyond help.
Enjoy the country, though. Hope you came in legally.
Seaward wrote: Nope. Libertarian ideology says that the government is responsible for providing for the common defense.
Only because libertarian ideology is inherently contradictory and makes a special exception to its general principles.
The assumption that labor costs go up because fewer people are getting paid more is pretty amusing.
Sigh. I guess business isn't your strong point? If your company needs X engineers to get the job done you can't just magically reduce the number of engineers you employ without failing to keep the company operating. If the average salary of an engineer increases massively then you have two choices: either accept the vastly increased labor costs, or move the company somewhere that isn't your social darwinist "utopia".
Now, there will be fewer people getting paid those salaries, but that just means that some companies will go out of business entirely because they can't find any qualified engineers to hire.
As I said before, you're always free to enlist at 18. You'll be out with nearly full tuition by 22. You'll also shed a fair amount of the kumbaya crap, so, double bonus.
Yep, the military magically solves everything. I'm sure it's so much more efficient to maintain a completely disproportionate military (to keep enough 'free tuition' opportunities open to people who want to enlist) than to cut the size of the military and fund education directly.
Otherwise, choose your loans and your major carefully. Think before making a decision. I know it's a tough concept, but...better get used to it.
Or just have wealthy parents. Even a social darwinist like you should be able to see why it's a bad thing to have an even greater divide between "has parents rich enough to afford private school tuition" and "has to make careful choices about absurd levels of debt, will be crippled by loans if they fail to graduate, and probably has to give up on college as a result".
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
If you think anarchy is synonymous with libertarianism, then you're beyond help.
Enjoy the country, though. Hope you came in legally.
American libertarianism is directly descended/is a specific form of anarcho-capitalism. That's not even possible to dispute.
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
If you think anarchy is synonymous with libertarianism, then you're beyond help.
I merely provide the alternatives, in print, to your claims.
Seaward wrote: "Cannot" involves more than simple capability. Can a private company go around putting out fires? Absolutely. Can a private company go around putting out fires where needed regardless of profit? No. Libertarianism's about freedom, not anarchy. There is absolutely a certain level of security and safety that the government is responsible for providing.
So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
Seaward wrote: "Cannot" involves more than simple capability. Can a private company go around putting out fires? Absolutely. Can a private company go around putting out fires where needed regardless of profit? No. Libertarianism's about freedom, not anarchy. There is absolutely a certain level of security and safety that the government is responsible for providing.
So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
Peregrine wrote: So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.
Peregrine wrote: So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.
And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
You provided the "alternative" that antediluvian anarchists called themselves libertarians at one point. Political ideology changes over time. African-Americans once predominantly voted Republican.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
If you're seeking immortality, I'm afraid socialized healthcare isn't going to provide it, either.
Seaward wrote: If you're seeking immortality, I'm afraid socialized healthcare isn't going to provide it, either.
Nice straw man. I'm sure you could try avoiding fallacies and think of a middle ground between social darwinism and being immortal regardless of the fact that the technology doesn't exist to provide it. You know, like a system of government-run health care where everyone is given access to all realistic treatments instead of being left to die of things that would easily be treatable if they had more money?
You provided the "alternative" that antediluvian anarchists called themselves libertarians at one point. Political ideology changes over time. African-Americans once predominantly voted Republican.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
If you're seeking immortality, I'm afraid socialized healthcare isn't going to provide it, either.
Turns out everything kills you, eventually.
L. Oh. fething. L.
Bundle of cells with no brain function? We must protect it at all costs!
Actual human being dying of cancer? "LOL, oh well, should've thought about that before you decided to be poor, scumbag!"
Peregrine wrote: So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.
And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
What makes you think Universal Health Care is better though? For all the problems the US Healthcare has... I can find equal numbers of issues in Canada or UK...
Peregrine wrote: So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.
And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
What makes you think Universal Health Care is better though? For all the problems the US Healthcare has... I can find equal numbers of issues in Canada or UK...
Kovnik Obama wrote: American libertarianism is directly descended/is a specific form of anarcho-capitalism. That's not even possible to dispute.
It's certainly possible to dispute that it is a form of anarcho-capitalism. As for being descended from...so what, frankly. Ideologies evolve.
It is, and for some reason I feel the only reason you try to avoid an association with a political tendency you feel is leftist.
Here are the strains of libertarianism ;
Minarchism ; close to classical liberalism Anarcho-capitalism ; wishes to suppress the powers of the State Paleo-libertarianism ; socially conservative anarcho-capitalism Georgism ; wishes a single tax system based on land ownership units Left-wing libertarianism ; weird mix of socialism and liberalism Christian libertarianism ; self explanatory Agorism ; anarcho-capitalism through peaceful counter-economy. - Translation from Wiki (the american wiki is sorely lacking)
Notice how often anarcho-capitalism pops up in there? What unite all those strains is the principle of individual sovereignty, which is also the founding principle of individualist anarchism.
The relation between the two is simply undeniable.
Peregrine wrote: Nice straw man. I'm sure you could try avoiding fallacies and think of a middle ground between social darwinism and being immortal regardless of the fact that the technology doesn't exist to provide it. You know, like a system of government-run health care where everyone is given access to all realistic treatments instead of being left to die of things that would easily be treatable if they had more money?
Everyone? No, thanks. I don't want to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at 85 year-olds, for example.
We can compare charitable contributions and volunteer time in this or any of the last five fiscal years any time you like, my friend. I won't even use the different effective tax rates as a handicap.
Peregrine wrote: So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?
If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.
And we'll just conveniently ignore the many things that can kill you in the long run (for example, untreated cancer) that you can't deal with at the emergency room.
What makes you think Universal Health Care is better though? For all the problems the US Healthcare has... I can find equal numbers of issues in Canada or UK...
Such as?
Google-fu that bro!
But, since I said "I can find"... here's some:
Spoiler:
An Ontario woman did not rate timely care despite a cancer diagnosis and a huge tumor. Per the Globe & Mail:
Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada.
So, where do you suppose she had to go to get treatment? She was, of course, forced to seek care south of the border:
Fighting for her life, the Windsor woman headed to the United States. In Pontiac, Mich., a surgeon excised the tumour - 35 centimetres at its longest - along with her ovaries, appendix, fallopian tubes, uterus and cervix.
A happy ending? Not quite. Canada’s vaunted health care system decided to add insult to injury:
The Ontario Health Insurance Plan says it won’t pay for the $60,000 cancer treatment because Ms. de Vries did not fill out the correct form seeking preapproval for out-of-country care.
This is typical of Canadian health care folks: lousy care, long waits, and bureaucratic paperwork.
Spoiler:
The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became “medically unfit for surgery.” The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that “109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.”
Spoiler:
Its fairly common that Canadiasn seek treatment in the United States, as do Canadians in need of intensive care and emergency cardiac care.
Spoiler:
Also, this: “As Canada’s Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging.”
Spoiler:
And more recently...there's a Web site for Canadians to check on wait times for surgeries. It's an interesting site... You simply click on the body part, and a list of hospitals appears showing the average wait times
whembly wrote: MGS... aren't you more like the elusive "South Park Republican"?? (hint: this closely aligns to me)
To wit:
stuff
I sympathize with aspects of that political stance, I can relate to fiscal conservatism to a degree, I call for it myself on certain things. I simply value a well funded infrastructure is all, I think it reduces crime, enables citizens and produces a better quality of living overall for all, rather than a elevated state of living for a tiny minority, I gave a little list of my beliefs a few pages back, it's basically a healthy education, health and support/care system, paid with a fairer balance of taxation, Seaward then started rattling about me being a commie, so, again, with folks like that so vocal and apparently claiming the banner of the right over here, it means I become warier of the moderate claiming that same standard to stand behind.
The wife and I would both have given Huntsman, for example, a good degree of our time to sit and listen to, but a man like that can't get past his own party's primaries because he's 'worked with the enemy - the other half of the American people...) and believes in evolution. That's fething nuts, you get eliminated because you agree with the scientists over the clergy.
Nope. I rattled about you being all up with the poor, downtrodden worker.
The wife and I would both have given Huntsman, for example, a good degree of our time to sit and listen to, but a man like that can't get past his own party's primaries because he's 'worked with the enemy - the other half of the American people...) and believes in evolution. That's fething nuts, you get eliminated because you agree with the scientists over the clergy.
It alienates.
Huntsman couldn't get past his own party's primaries because he was a weak candidate. And I say that despite him being the only two party guy I gave money to this cycle.
the rest of you" and right-wing politicians are more frequently in favor of economic and tax policies that benefit the wealthy. Sure, many of them would probably agree with "left-wing" freedom as well if you asked them, but libertarians tend to have fairly privileged lives already and don't suffer too much from the kind of things left-wing politicians want to get rid of. So it's just not much of a priority compared to things like getting rid of pesky profit-hindering regulations on business or abolishing taxes.
