Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/04/10 01:12:42
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the 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..."
2013/04/10 01:12:49
Subject: Re:Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/10 01:13:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/04/10 01:14:21
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
2013/04/10 01:19:37
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/04/10 01:21:52
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/10 01:22:34
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2013/04/10 01:22:00
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/04/10 01:26:34
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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?
Who are those people?
EDIT: Oh wait... following you now...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/10 01:30:38
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/04/10 01:28:29
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
2013/04/10 01:29:54
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/04/10 01:31:30
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/10 01:32:26
2013/04/10 01:34:33
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/04/10 01:35:21
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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!"
2013/04/10 01:36:09
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/04/10 01:36:24
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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?
2013/04/10 01:36:44
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/10 01:38:33
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2013/04/10 01:37:54
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
2013/04/10 01:39:03
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
Seaward wrote: Everyone? No, thanks. I don't want to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at 85 year-olds, for example.
At least you're honest about your social darwinist ideology.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/04/10 01:42:09
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
It alienates.
2013/04/10 01:51:43
Subject: Re:Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
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.
2013/04/10 01:51:54
Subject: Question for Libertarians. Brit living in the States.
