Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4033
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| LKL wrote: | | Jacoby wrote: | | As bad as those are, I'd take those unfortunate accidents over the deliberate slaughter of millions. I won't bother posting pictures, you can visit those death camps made by your country and see for yourself. |
Numerically, deaths caused in war - even in the holocaust - pale beside the everyday attrition of poverty, poor health care, inadequate sanitation, lack of clean water, deliberate industrial environmental pollution, and starvation. |
Government causes their fair share of that as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | | Liberals regulate before children die; libertarians compensate (inadequately) afterward, IF the victims have enough social, political, and/or economic clout, and IF there's a public hue and cry. |
And how is that any different from punishing wrongdoers after the fact under the current regulatory system? It's not like you have a government-appointed nanny overseeing every single industry to ensure it doesn't misbehave.
Like it or not, no amount of laws are going to dissuade bad people from doing bad things. They either hide it, find ways around it through loopholes, or get in bed with the government you believe is supposed to be "protecting" you.
This is why we have civil courts and torts to ensure that victims receive compensatory damages. You can't legislate morality or social responsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Burzum
Indeed
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vexcalibur wrote: | | Go to India, get a car and try driving, you will experience how things look like when government isn't regulating anything. |
The Indian government builds and owns the roads. It is therefore their responsibility to make sure they are managed correctly. What you've just said in fact demonstrates government incompetence. If the roads were privately owned by competitive enterprise then you might have an argument.
| Declension wrote: |
Imagine that a bunch of people are playing a game of monopoly. After a while, a couple of players have outplayed the others, and have gotten most of the money in the game. Then, the players have to leave and go do something, so they abandon the game with the board still set up.
Now, a new group of people stumbles on the board. One of them, Jeff, sits himself at the place which has the most money. He says, "hey, let's play a nice, fair game of monopoly!" Jeff is a libertarian.
EDIT: Actually, it's even worse than that! You see, in the original game of monopoly, the rules were completely different. In the original game, players frequently just stole money from each other, and killed each other to take their money. But in the new, "fair" game that Jeff is proposing, these things are completely illegal! Otherwise it wouldn't be fair, you see. |
What you've just said is so nonsensical I cannot even guess at what your intended meaning was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5195
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
@LKL
DU or TP? I'm guessing DU.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Rocky Anderson for President!
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CoMF wrote: | I'll never understand why self-styled leftists always equate libertarianism with giving carte blanche to the wealthy elite to do whatever they want with impunity.
Guess they've never heard of the Non-Agression Principle. |
Uh, no, that's not the reason. They've just seen the libertarians actually apply their idealized "non-aggression principle" and have determined that libertarians define "aggression" way too narrowly.
| CoMF wrote: | | Edited to Add: Also, have they ever entertained the possibility that, through their relationship with the state, the wealthy elite perpetuate the abuse of those of lesser means? |
Uh, quite a few "self-styled leftists" (most, in fact) do believe that government is influenced and bought by a wealthy elite (hell, Karl Marx talked about how the state does the business of capital-owners back in the 19th century and more moderate leftists generally subscribe to some version of the Investment Theory of Politics). The problem, of course, is that self-styled leftists don't think getting rid of or undermining the state will eliminate the problem of concentrated private power (well, maybe anarcho-syndicalists believe that). Most moderate leftists think rules against (currently legalized in the US) bribery is the best way to go. That won't eliminate the problem of elite influence, but it sure as hell would mitigate it.
| CoMF wrote: | | What good are "regulations" when you essentially have the foxes guarding the chickens? |
Replace the foxes with hounds, then.
_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | Uh, no, that's not the reason. They've just seen the libertarians actually apply their idealized "non-aggression principle" and have determined that libertarians define "aggression" way too narrowly. |
I get really annoyed when people dismiss the entire concept of Libertarianism simply because of a few closet Republicans dragging it through the mud. I welcome allies on both sides of the political spectrum and judge them by their actions, not their words or the letter after their name, and don't subscribe to the fantasy that either side is inherently more benevolent or magnanimous than the other.
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | Uh, quite a few "self-styled leftists" (most, in fact) do believe that government is influenced and bought by a wealthy elite (hell, Karl Marx talked about how the state does the business of capital-owners back in the 19th century and more moderate leftists generally subscribe to some version of the Investment Theory of Politics). |
I was referring to leftists that embrace statism, not Anarchism.
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | The problem, of course, is that self-styled leftists don't think getting rid of or undermining the state will eliminate the problem of concentrated private power (well, maybe anarcho-syndicalists believe that). Most moderate leftists think rules against (currently legalized in the US) bribery is the best way to go. That won't eliminate the problem of elite influence, but it sure as hell would mitigate it. |
How about we just remove the perverse incentives for misbehavior that currently exist instead of enacting more laws that will only be corrupted, sidestepped, or ignored?
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | Replace the foxes with hounds, then. |
What will you do when the hounds start preying on the chickens? Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5380
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Burzum wrote: | | Vexcalibur wrote: | | Go to India, get a car and try driving, you will experience how things look like when government isn't regulating anything. |
The Indian government builds and owns the roads. It is therefore their responsibility to make sure they are managed correctly. What you've just said in fact demonstrates government incompetence. If the roads were privately owned by competitive enterprise then you might have an argument.
|
ha ha lol hah.
No, I am not talking about road maintenance. I am talking about regulating driving and cars. Which last time I checked is not privately lead in the US or... anywhere.
_________________
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TeaEarlGreyHot
Your Maya
Joined: Jul 05, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 28106
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | Y'all do realize Libertarian is a very broad scope, right? It encompasses everything from near Anarchism to what's essentially a Republican that's socially liberal. |
Indeed - some mild libertatrians just want a smaller welfare state, but they don't want to abolish it completely. They just want it to be far more effective for those that do need help and assistance.
It's correct to say that libertarianism is extremely broad, and many libertarians would be completely alienated by other kinds of libertarianism. |
I love how this is being ignored. 
_________________
Do you bury me when I'm gone?
Do you teach me while I'm here?
Just as soon as I belong
Then it's time I disappear |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26056
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | I love how this is being ignored. |
I consider myself a libertarian. I've known libertarians who favour keeping the NHS, for instance, and retaining the welfare state (although in nothing like its present form). |
|
| Back to top |
|
TeaEarlGreyHot
Your Maya
Joined: Jul 05, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 28106
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | I love how this is being ignored. |
I consider myself a libertarian. I've known libertarians who favour keeping the NHS, for instance, and retaining the welfare state (although in nothing like its present form). |
I'm one of those Libertarians that would rather see major reform concerning the social programs over them being abolished altogether.
_________________
Do you bury me when I'm gone?
Do you teach me while I'm here?
Just as soon as I belong
Then it's time I disappear |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26056
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | I'm one of those Libertarians that would rather see major reform concerning the social programs over them being abolished altogether. |
You might better be considered a classical liberal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: libertarian paradise |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
There is a difference between a minimal government and just plain social chaos. Libertarian means society under a minimal government who function is to protect lives, protect property, secure rights and provide a peaceful means of settling disputes. It does NOT mean gang rule.
ruveyn |
The problem is that "minimum government" is quite a lot these days, just the bare minimums would be:
- Law enforcement.
- Military
- Courts.
- Some form of assembly of democratically elected representatives to come up with laws or a direct democracy solution.
- A tax collector of some sort to pay for the former things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TeaEarlGreyHot
Your Maya
Joined: Jul 05, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 28106
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | I'm one of those Libertarians that would rather see major reform concerning the social programs over them being abolished altogether. |
You might better be considered a classical liberal. |
Hardly. I hold more Conservative views than Liberal ones.
_________________
Do you bury me when I'm gone?
Do you teach me while I'm here?
Just as soon as I belong
Then it's time I disappear |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26056
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | Hardly. I hold more Conservative views than Liberal ones. |
Do you believe in civil and economic freedom whilst believing in a small welfare state? Classical liberalism (which is nothing at all like U.S. "liberalism") is your bag. In Europe classical liberalism is considered a right-wing ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TeaEarlGreyHot
Your Maya
Joined: Jul 05, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 28106
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | TeaEarlGreyHot wrote: | | Hardly. I hold more Conservative views than Liberal ones. |
Do you believe in civil and economic freedom whilst believing in a small welfare state? Classical liberalism (which is nothing at all like U.S. "liberalism") is your bag. In Europe classical liberalism is considered a right-wing ideology. |
Sorta. I actually don't like welfare at all but acknowledge it's usefulness. Reluctantly.
Most of my political views are centered around 2 things:
1) Smaller government
2) Money management
Welfare is a bad financial move and makes government larger.
_________________
Do you bury me when I'm gone?
Do you teach me while I'm here?
Just as soon as I belong
Then it's time I disappear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
