libertarian paradise

Page 9 of 11 [ 162 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

18 Feb 2012, 7:00 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:

I was talking about rainforests. Rainforests are incredibly biodiverse and can't be replaced that easily. Not that anyone makes the effort to do so.

Who owns these rainforests that are being cut down?

CrazyCatLord wrote:

So, why not shift to alternatives now if we have to do it anyway? I'm not really concerned about the depletion of fossil fuels. CO2 emissions and global climate change are much more pressing matters.

Why do we need to right now? Alternatives are more expensive. There's simply no reason to forcibly make people use fuel sources other than fossil fuels at this moment.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

The point is that once a tipping point is reached, the greenhouse gas emissions will keep increasing even if we immediately stop burning fossil fuels.

I would like to see a study showing that our use of fossil fuels will result in reaching this tipping point. When I said "nonsense", I was not talking about whether there was a tipping point or not. I was talking about humans being enough of a contributing factor.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

I didn't say anything about making it illegal to have children.

Yes you did:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Burzum wrote:

As for living space, what do you suggest we do? Make having too many babies illegal?

That might be unavoidable in the long run.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Social policy changes go a long way. So does better sex education. The number of unplanned teenage pregnancies is still frighteningly high. And of course we ought to do something about religions that preach against the use of contraception. We need to combat this idiotic meme, especially in the Third World, and undo the damage that the Catholic Church has done.

I'm not going to disagree with you there. But, do you think that government subsidizing irresponsible pregnancies is a contributing factor as well?

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Quote:

The USA is a corporatocracy. Countries such as Denmark, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which some people have the hide to describe as socialist, are all more economically free than the USA.

Are they?

Yes. http://www.heritage.org/index/default

Edit: My mistake, Denmark is no longer more free than America, but one rank below it. I was going off of memory, the 2010 scores ranked Denmark higher than the USA.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

They seem to do a much better job at regulating their banking system.

Or they don't have GSE's guaranteeing a return on high risk loans.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

They also have proper welfare and universal health care systems in place (not sure about New Zealand). Since when do Libertarians agree with "redistribution of wealth" and "forced health care"?

The USA now has forced health care due to Obamacare. The USA also has redistribution of wealth, $835 billion is spent on Medicare and Medicaid and $725 billion is spent on social security.

Last edited by Burzum on 18 Feb 2012, 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

18 Feb 2012, 7:05 am

marshall wrote:

If libertarians had their way all the coastal redwoods in California would probably be logged.

Does government own the land that these redwoods are growing on? If so, then your assertion is false.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

18 Feb 2012, 8:34 am

Would I be a libertarian if I believed that a national/federal/regional government should be propped up by mostly autonomous communities?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Feb 2012, 8:42 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

I don't want to abandon the concept of individual property. We simply need to ensure that public wealth is distributed a little more evenly and that labor is fairly compensated. Labor is property too. If workers are underpaid and wages don't keep up with inflation rates, companies steal property from their employees.

1. What is "fairly"? If a person voluntarily accepted a wage for services performed than the wage is fair.

2. Labor is action. It is not an object that can be transferred from one person to another.

ruveyn

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Feb 2012, 9:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

only in an ideal system,

something the world is everything but.

thee are plenty of people that work for less than they need because they have no choice, yet whole industries are based on that work.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 Feb 2012, 9:22 pm

Burzum wrote:

marshall wrote:

If libertarians had their way all the coastal redwoods in California would probably be logged.

Does government own the land that these redwoods are growing on? If so, then your assertion is false.

Whack-job libertarians would be against government owning anything, therefore it would be privately owned. The idea of national and state parks is a socialist one.

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

18 Feb 2012, 9:27 pm

marshall wrote:

Whack-job libertarians

F**k off with your condescending BS.

marshall wrote:

therefore it would be privately owned

And therefore the tragedy of the commons is avoided.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Feb 2012, 9:28 pm

Oodain wrote:

thee are plenty of people that work for less than they need because they have no choice, yet whole industries are based on that work.

What is "need"? Are you confusing "need" and "desire" or "want"?

ruveyn

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 Feb 2012, 9:29 pm

Oodain wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

only in an ideal system,

something the world is everything but.

thee are plenty of people that work for less than they need because they have no choice, yet whole industries are based on that work.

You already know that ruveyn doesn't care. He's an individual egoist. "fair" is whatever one can get away with.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Feb 2012, 10:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

thee are plenty of people that work for less than they need because they have no choice, yet whole industries are based on that work.

What is "need"? Are you confusing "need" and "desire" or "want"?

ruveyn

of course its a desire and want of the people living for less than a dollar a day, yet toiling away making your amenities, i think you forget what your own desires and wants do to others.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Feb 2012, 1:16 am

Burzum wrote:

marshall wrote:

Whack-job libertarians

F**k off with your condescending BS.

marshall wrote:

therefore it would be privately owned

And therefore the tragedy of the commons is avoided.

Show me where there exists a large area of privately owned land still populated with virgin old growth forest. If public land is plundered and raped it's more likely due to right-wing politicians who don't give a f**k about protecting it. "Tragedy of the commons" is just another one of those overstated canned arguments pulled out of the standard libertarian playbook.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Feb 2012, 1:36 am

Burzum wrote:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Libertarianism also ignores that we live on a planet with limited resources and limited living space.

No it doesn't. As resources become more scarce their prices increase, and so people will naturally ration them until a cheaper alternative is discovered.

BS. The rich (or those with some other type of access) just pay more until the last of the resource is gone, and then there's none for anyone. This has happened with at least dozens of animal species in the last few hundred years, and is happening now with dozens more.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Feb 2012, 1:43 am

Burzum wrote:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

At that point, we will already have chopped down all rainforests

No, because forests are replanted. Here's a chart of forest area in the USA over time. Notice how it isn't decreasing but remaining static despite the fact that 95-98% of forest area within the USA has been logged at least once.

A tree farm is NOT a forest, darling.

Quote:

We are never going to run out of fossil fuels. Why? Because as supply of fossil fuels decreases, the price increases and thus usage decreases, and you will eventually hit a point where it is simply too expensive to use fossil fuels as an energy source.

Thus the term 'commercially extinct.' Usually applied to animal species, but applicable here.

Quote:

Nonsense. Anyway, restricting the supply of fossil fuels would put countless numbers of people into poverty or worse.

"Nonsense" = 'I don't agree but am incapable of arguing with you.'

Quote:

Do you describe yourself as a liberal? Because making it illegal for people to have children is an authoritarian measure.

Providing access to free birth control, and the knowledge of how to use it, to anyone who wants it is a liberal measure.

Quote:

The USA is a corporatocracy. Countries such as Denmark, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which some people have the hide to describe as socialist, are all more economically free than the USA.

Can't argue with you there.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

19 Feb 2012, 1:50 am

Burzum wrote:

Countries such as Denmark, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which some people have the hide to describe as socialist, are all more economically free than the USA.

It really depends on what you mean. It is very easy to start up a small business in the named countries. So the market is "free" in the sense that it is easy to enter it.

However, it would be an exercise in sophistry to pretend that the named countries are libertarian. They have welfare states, and an emphasis on collective responsibility.

I think that the word "free" is the ultimate unexamined word in a libertarian's vocabulary. When is a society "free"? The libertarian answer is that a society is free when people are not prevented from doing whatever they like as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. This is a ridiculous answer. Everything that everyone does affects other people, whether it is easy to trace or not. The correct answer is that a society is free when people can more easily realise their goals. This is not the case in a libertarian society.

EDIT: I'm not sure if those four countries are actually very similar to each other. Denmark spends like 40% on welfare, but the other three only spend about 25%. For comparison, the U.S. spends 20%. Maybe we're not so different after all!

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

19 Feb 2012, 8:12 am

LibertarianAS wrote:

I love when leftards start the classic "bash the libertarians" topic and they discover that the vast majority of people here are libertarians because asperger--->logic---->libertarianism

so the leftard go crazies "Whoooooooooooooo you don't think about the poors" and throws a big tantrum like some 14 years old

If you are more left-wing than a blue dog democrat you are dumb like a rock and if you are anti-capitalist you should seriously consider suicide

Lovely.

Don't know what else to say. I would say more, but I would be banned.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Feb 2012, 8:47 am

LKL wrote:

It has never happened historically and it is not happening now. You just don't like rich people. Do you know why some people are poor? Because they are either lazy, stupid or unfocused.

ruveyn

Page 9 of 11 [ 162 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

libertarian paradise Post Reply New Topic

libertarian paradise