Libertarianism

Let's talk about the libertarianism!

2get

libertarians are generally douchebags. this is a known fact. they read some shitty ayn rand book and think their fucking geniuses.

I like Libertarianism, I suppose. I don't really know a whole lot about it as a political movement, except that the general idea is less government... and that I agree with.

Ayn Rand is pretty good, in my opinion, so I suppose I might fit your stereotype. I was a Libertarian before I read it, does that make a difference?

I think Libertarianism, insofar as I am familiar with it, is generally a smarter political philosophy than the confusing philosophies espoused by the Republicans and Democrats (do they even have philosophies any more?), or really any other American political party. Certainly a better bet than Communism or Socialism, wouldn't you agree?

>>4
You admit you don't even fully understand what libertarianism is (and there's a lot of variants out there), yet you bandy the term around? You even have the gall to call yourself one?

Travel much?

Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

I find it is generally bad policy to associate myself completely with any movement, as I am not a mindless drone. I have my own opinions, and never agree with any organization 100%. Thus, I took care to distance myself from the actual political body while remaining open to discuss the philosophy.

Nobody really wants to talk with you (probably because you are anonymous and it's difficult to tell what you've said, and maybe also because you seem to be an asshole) but I indicated that I was interested in discussing Libertarianism insofar as I am familiar with it. You seem to think that you know more, but instead of talking about it or otherwise furthering the conversation, you chose to be insulting.

I assume by your command of capital letters that you are >>1 and not >>3. Did you want to talk or not?

>>6 Yes, but not to YOU.

>>6
No, that was my first post.

The tone was scathing because most "Libertarians" I've met were a dangerous bunch: they're intelligent, greedy, naive, and highly conceited. It doesn't help that libertarianism is a vague concept compared to other ideologies, thus attracting every bright rebellious shithead with an opinion. This may not be you, so I'll explain briefly why I have such problems with libertarianism:

Libertarianism is broad (it's somewhat like anarchism in that sense). In fact, it's a lot like anarchism: it sounds great on paper. Less government? Great! More power to the people? Fantastic! Individual responsibility? Right on!

The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism).

Except that power fills a vacuum.

The main gripe I have though is thoroughly economic: libertarianists appear to believe in a complete laissez-faire economy. This delves into the whole public/private issue, but I'd like to point something out: the United States. Yeah, a lot of the ideals that the founding fathers espoused were fairly libertarian. Look at the US today. Notice something?

As I said, I prefer to give precedence to systems that have been demonstrated. I've never seen a pleasant minarchist or anarchist system of any size. Yet, in my travels, I've found that the opposite is usually the case: take a look at Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other social or semi-social democracies. Pseudo-political scientists can keep their unproven systems, and I'll stick with what works. They may not be perfect, not by a long shot, but there does appear to be a general trend.

And all the ideals the libertarians like to dole out? Who says other systems can't have them too? Those ideals are used since it appeals to everyone - and therefore obviously not the sole domain of libertarianism.

The only time I'll reconsider the libertarian ideology is if I see it successfully used, preferably through a gradual evolution of the system. Until then, it's just a fantastic toy of mental masturbation.

And don't get me started about anarcho-capitalist libertarians.

With any luck lolocaust will notice this thread. If anyone knows political systems, it's him.

10GET

i just want lower taxes okay

>The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people.

The problem is that people who are attracted to libertarianism are attracted to it specifically because they do not want to accept responsiblity.

The long story short is, libertarianism is the party of people who don't want to pay taxes, full stop.

Coorporations are state sponsored apparently.
I did not know that. Nor do I know the advantages of coorporations which gives it state sponsership status.

>>11
How is giving your money to the government "accepting responsibility"?

It's the complete opposite. You accept responsibility by doing things yourself, not by giving another entity power over your life.

>>13
The logic goes like this: the government helps everyone in the state by protecting them from outside invasion, crime, building good roads, being a haven for corrupt politicians, etc. etc.

They do this regardless of whether you want them to or not, whether you give them money or not because your fellow citizens are giving the government money. Therefore you should chip in, join the bandwagon, accept responsibility, watch as your money is stolen, donate involuntarily, etc.

This seems like weird circular logic, though.

libertarianism is an alliance between social darwinists and pot-heads.

>>15
I completely agree.

Copy of B debate part 3
-They'd come back. You can never elimnate "anamolies". Just be careful of who you put in charge or they might come killing anyone who engages in oral sex, handjobs, mutual masturbations, or likes sex for reasons other than procreation- citing it as "unnatural".
-Why must you fuckers think that sexually active means emotionally capable? Fucking teenagers for the most part aren't even emotionally capable for sex. They end up having it and then they get fucked up over it.
-child porn involves rape yes it should be banned as should any form of "glorified rape" (thats when the woman is shown to be enjoying it) because it encourages anti-social sexuality. rape is not the same as glorified rape, murder is not the same as glorified murder. Books that teach people to kill are illegal (the terrorist handbook with poison and explosive formulas) why not books that make rape seem like a nice thing!
If we can jail a politician for inciting a lynching (you don't have to follow his orders but some will!) then we should be able to jail a lolikon artist for inciting a rape in the minority of people who don't ever understand another way of having sex.
-Yeah everyone pretty much needs to die, but sometimes I get to thinking that maybe humans can create an equilibrium where there isn't much violence/instability, and that involves removing people who would think about having sex with children among others.
-and why exactly does child porn have to be rape?
-prepubescent not preteen dumbass
I was 10 and a half when I first had my period and started thing about sex...sure I wasn't ready for any sexual activity before 16 at least.
gah after all, does it matter how old the kid is? What counts most is consent or lack thereof.
-Because it's sex with an unconesnting individual you jackass. The fact of the matter is nobody wants to teach their children about sex, so they aren't informed. You don't like that? Well too bad, cuz the majority of people don't like you, and all it boils down to in the end is the will of the majority, so keep whining.
-Avergae loss of virginity is age 17. That means a good percentage lose it before and after that age. Teenagers are in general less emtionally mature than adults sure, but not every person below the age of your choosing is totally ignorant about their bodies, desires, and feelings, and not everyone above that age are perfectly aware of theirs.
Physical and emotional sexual maturity, if most of human society over the past couple thousand years is any indication- occurs between ages 14 and 18.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone should go out and start having sex as soon as they turn X years old, but that the age at which a person can engage in a healthy sexual relationships with no ill effects is generally younger than western judo-christian culture generally gives them credit for.
But very few (not even full grown women) appreciate the sexual advances of some random 30+ year old unattractive male stranger.
-True. Many child abuse victims don't understand what happened to them and think it is either natural to be hurt by adults or that they did something bad to deserve it.
Kids need to be taught what sex is, who is it for, how it works and how to recognize someone who is touching you where he/she is not allowed to. Children need to know that they can say 'no' if they don't want to be touched/have sex...and that anything that happen to them is not their fault.
-What I love about lolicon, guro, pedophilia, rape, is not whether it's arousing or not as much as the fact that it holds nothing sacred. I see it as a nice big FUCK YOU to all the fags who whine and bitch about anything they've been taught is wrong existing.
-It actually has little to do with judeo-christian culture, as judeo-christians used to get married at younger ages in the past as well. It has more to do with advancing society and the things you need to learn to be able to survive in the world and raise a family, which take many more years to cultivate; and before you're physically, emotionally and possibly financially capable for raising a family, sexual activity is not usually promoted. It is tolerated, but ideally since sex is a reproductive act it is encouraged to be held off until such a time.
-Oh, and also, fuck you for not being content to just live your own stupid life and having to retaliate at the people who believe they should hold morals, fuckwad hypocrite.
-so if somedbody comes over and cracks your skull open with a stone, since morals are "Lo2l"O!11 FOR FUCK LAMoRRzrZZR"!!!!" that's fine too?
Morals are the little thing that differs a human from an ape.
But fucking child molester scumm like you, who tries to act tough on the internet, probably is not willing to understand that.
-I'm all for freedom of speech but by definition "my freedom stops where yours starts". The rights to be a pedophile/rapist stop when they infringe on the right of a child/person to choose to have sex and live life unharmed.
I and many others here are fine with most deviancies: BDSM, coprophilia, age-difference etc as long as both (or more) parties are consenting.
A person who says no or a child who doesn't understand sex or want it is not a consenting partner.
As for animals, I really don't know.
Anyhow what counts is that many hentai guro and lolikon/shotacon depict rape as opposed to the fetishist stuff in which tops and bottoms come together in agreement to have sex in their own albeit strange ways.
It's not about natural/unnatural or religion: it's about consent and only about consent.
Making a non consensual act seem good or enjoyable to the victim is ...i hate to use the word... well wrong.

wrongthreadGET

The people who don't accept responsability for their own business will be the ones who become poor.  Maybe they won't deserve it, but it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them. 

Thing is, it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work.  That means years of social darwinism.  Get rid of the "Gimme" crowd.

and >>16, agree.

The people who don't accept responsability for their own business will be the ones who become poor.  Maybe they won't deserve it, but it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them. 

Thing is, it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work.  That means years of social darwinism.  Get rid of the "Gimme" crowd.

and >>16, agree.

it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them

And why not? Just 'cause, right? Everyone is an island, and it's a zero-sum game!

You want to take survival of the fittest? Okay, you got it, along with all the crime, violence, back-stabbing, and other things people do in order to survive. Let's not forget that diseases are often contagious, and thus a social problem.

it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work

Just like you? You can't even spell a common word properly.

>>21
But I don't want to be *forced* to help someone. That's ridculous.

Also you're a commie.

>>22
Ad Hominem attacks are the sure sign of a weak mind. Your 'smart society' fails before it even gets the first person!

>>22
Of course you don't want to be forced. Because you don't want to at all. Pure greed, nothing else. Stop trying to rationalize your way out of the obvious; you're not fooling anyone.

Are you familiar with Tragedy of the Commons? You're a prime example why Libertarianism won't work.

I think >>11 said it best.

And you want to keep supporting the people who can't pull their own weight, so that in the future they may continue to pull your society down?  If you feed laziness and stupidity, you'll grow nothing but laziness and stupidity!

God, there have to be more Libertarians here.  Come on, speak up!

>>23
I was referring to >>21's ad hominum attack on >>19

>>25
Except that people will do whatever it takes to survive. Given the choice between hurting to take your money, or starving to death, I'd hurt you. You'd do the same to me.

It's nice to take about bums pulling society down, but have you ever considered that, as a democracy, social safety nets are mandatory to prevent the society tearing itself apart? The only way you could prevent such a system from short-term destruction is a police state. But a Libertarian society is supposedly free. Ergo, contradiction. It can't exist.

Anyway, are you familiar with Tragedy of the Commons? How do you reconcile this with a Libertarianism?

>>26
a) You talk about "smart", yet you seems to lack that property. Responsibility is a common word which only a fool can't spell. If you can't fulfill what you preach, why should we listen? Think about it.
b) It's ad hominem, not ad hominum.

s/take/talk/
s/seems/seem/

>>28
b) It's ad hominem, not ad hominum.
Thanks; I was too lazy to google.

>>30
Anonymous doesn't like it when Anonymous pretends to be him.

>>28
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you please write logically.

Tragedy of the Commons is idiotic.  Wikipedia said the guy who wrote it himself misunderstood how the commons worked, so it's safe to say it was an asenine argument from the start.

To humor you, consider this; in libertarianism, you'd own your own land.  There wouldn't be some communal place where you put your livestock (to use the Tragedy of the Commons example).  Therefore, it's in your best interest to preserve the land and maintain it well, for your own interest.

When maintaining things is the government's responsability, they INEVITABLY screw it up.  Politicians don't care; it's not their money.  That's why as much should belong to individuals as possible, because individuals give a damn about how it is managed and how long it lasts.

Why can't bums live how they've always lived in the past?  Just drifting from town to town, NOT REPRODUCING? 

and >>28, shut the fuck up.

>>8


"The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism)."

That's called initiation of force, and it's one of the few situations in which Libertarianism advocates government intervention.  Read this: 

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/Two_Sides_of_Libertarianism.shtml

Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of government.  It's about redefining governments role from the great god in the sky from which all good things come, and into a passive and principaled protection scheme.

And I agree that environmental concerns should be collectivized, but not human concerns.  Humans should be able to take care of themselves.

>>23

Oh but you are. Only commies want everybodo to be forced to help, because they are too lazy to help themselves.

>>32
Just because the fellow based the model on an inaccurate assumption does not make it invalid in the real world. Why don't you read that Wikipedia entry a little more closely this time, instead of rushing off to post here the first sentence you see that supports your assertion? Besides, Tragedy of the Commons is just a smaller symptom of a larger problem: we're evolutionarily limited to short-term considerations.

Regardless, what you seem to have missed is that Tragedy of the Commons can apply to almost any human interaction. We're a social species, and must interact with each other to survive. And there will always be shared resources. Always. Even if it's just air.

Take a look at Western consumption: everyone knows they're using too much, but they figure that if they change their habits it won't make a difference (because everyone else still behaves the same). It's even a factor why there's so much voter apathy today ("what difference will my vote make?").

And I'd like to know where you came up with the "there wouldn't be some communal place where you put your livestock". People don't own everything, you know?

Ok, fine.  Yes, the government should impose limits on people dumping things into the air.  They should impose limits on people cutting up the trees, and causing dust storms.   But you know why?  Because such behaviors are an in violation with the no initiation of force principal.  Libertarianism isn't completely free of a concept of common good, you know?  They just believe the less government intervention, the less intervention of people to whom the capital and systems in question don't even belong, the better.  The less the rescources will be completely mismanaged and wasted, and the greater the quality of service will be. 

Libertarianism doesn't define a Utopia.

Ever wonder why Mc. Donald's serves such a tasty burger?  Because they want to!  They want your money!  More specifically, they want to be in business, and do business. They've won through the hardships and challenges of getting that burger to you so tastily, so they  stand to be able to do it most effectively.  The government, on the other hand, just decides, "This is what we'll do," and then does it, usually in a misguided and imbecillic way.  Instead of trying every method and seeing what works best, akin to the free market, (they wouldn't be able to even if they tried, not enough rescources or  ambition... Ever notice how when something doesn't work the government just rolls over on it?) they just try what "sounds best". 

I mean, if we put the government in charge of imposing limits according to what "they thought was best", they'd start doing crazy, misguided things.   Like the left wing in the USA.  They'd stop progress in favor of dumb things which have no consequence in the long run.  They're kicking people out of their houses now for the sake of a tiny blue shrimp that lives 100s of meters underground.  And then that land is going to go to waste, it'll jjust grow tall grass.

;See?  We basically have the same problem with human nature.  People can't make long term decisions because they base everything on extremes.

>>36
Ah, so you acknowledge the need for government? And how do you plan to fund it? Donations?

What I get a particular kick out of is the "private does it better" matra. No, private does some things better. If this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this. Look to the US power grid, telephone system, or health care for a fine example of the wonders of privitization. Hell, look at any Western society that is increasing privitization, like New Zealand, Australia, and parts of western Europe.

"But wait!" you cry, "Those are government-enforced monopolies!" Bullshit. Power fills a vacuum. If there's non-initiation of force, how do you plan to prevent de facto monopolies from taking over the market? The entire power of government is based on force. If there's no force, it's useless. And if those monopolies control the market, what's to stop them from setting up their own government?

Libertarianism is full of logical inconsistencies. It's a fucking joke.

s/matra/mantra

Why would we want to prevent these "De-Facto monopolies" from taking over the market?  That's part of the game, buddy.  The strongest thrive.  And they can't set up their own government because the government will prevent that. 

My idea of Libertarianism doesn't define an entire system.  It's a reworking of the current system to increase privitization as much as possible.  Power grid?  Good thing.  Maybe a little on the collectivist side, but at least it's being managed by someone whose future depends on it's success.

Your argument is full of logical fallacies. Like, "IIf this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this." or that assertion that I should immediately hate these "monopolies".   I can see I've pissed you off.

Monopolies are bad because they stifle competition and could eventualy bring down the market for that good.

As >>39 said, government is all about power and having a corporation that is more powerful than the government is bad.

Libertarianism doesn't say that monopolies are good. There are many different philosophies in libertarianism, some moderate, some extreme.

Why would we want to prevent these "De-Facto monopolies" from taking over the market?

Are you completely stupid? Think about it. Use the fucking wikipedia if you have to, since it seems to do all your thinking for you.

"IIf this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this."

Of everything I've argued, that's the best you can come up with (ie, if you can't even agree on a fundamental premise, what's the point continuing)? Hey, wait, how's that a logical fallacy? Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

I should immediately hate these "monopolies".

Where'd I say that?

And they can't set up their own government because the government will prevent that.

plz to be rereading:

If there's non-initiation of force, how do you plan to prevent de facto monopolies from taking over the market?

Oh, and you think US health care is bad?  Hah!  Waiting a fucking year for a clinical visit in canada is a GOOD thing?

Oh, and you think US health care is bad?  Hah!  Waiting a fucking year for a clinical visit in canada is a GOOD thing?  And doctors don't get paid anything on a government's salary.  All the good ones are fleeing south, no?

Libertarianism doesn't call for the government to have no power...  Libertarianism calls for the government to only have reactive power.  That's one of the biggest misconceptions of the day. If any entity started fucking things up, and started screwing aroudn with people, they would meet with consequences that would make using such power a bad idea in the first place, just like today.  Libertarianism doesn't just hand corporations the keys to the city and say "Go to town,"  get <I>that</I> through your head.  Government would have all the powers necessary to bring a corporation down. 

You're just crazy.  I don't know what you were talking about earlier with the systems increasing privitization up there earlier, but I haven't had any problems with the US power grid, or as >>46 said the medical system either as long as I pay my health insurance, it's a voluntary tax.  I'm probably paying as much for it as I would be in taxes, plus I get better medical service. 

And the issue of taxes, which I'll admit I haven't addressed yet.  Libertarianism considers all taxes theft, and while in many ways I agree, I also consider tax neccesary to keep the government running.  But when taxation is done not according to that limitation, but to hand out money in vote-buying schemes we have a problem.  I don't even think the government should pay for public schools.   I think there should be some sort of tuition grant from non-profit organizations to tell the truth.  If you can't afford the best schools, then you just don't go.  We don't need a million Da Vincis.  We do need some people to run our gas stations, wal-marts ETC... though.

Get madder.

If you can't afford the best schools, then you just don't go.
lol u tk him 2 da |!?

BTW, that guy misunderstanding the commons illustrates how you misunderstand libertarianism.  On the commons, there were all kinds of rules that people lived by, because they knew they couldn't do it any other way.  They probably learned by trial and error. 

That's the exact same as it would be in a libertarian society.  There would be laws that would be made, but the point would be to keep people from screwing with each other.

Rather than depicting the failures of Libertarianism, that guy pointed us to an example of almost perfect Libertarianism.

There would be laws that would be made, but the point would be to keep people from screwing with each other.
That is the basic philosophy of how laws are constructed right now (I think...)
The difference seems to be how much into the future and how much screwing is done to each other.

I haven't had any problems with the US power grid

What was that blackout of the eastern half of the US then? Or all the rolling blackouts California used to have?

Government would have all the powers necessary to bring a corporation down.

Explain how that fits in with non-initiation of force? It's not like a monopoly is going to build their own military and lead a revolution. No, they'll work within the system, much like they do now.

also consider tax neccesary to keep the government running.

It's mighty strange how your form of libertarianism is looking increasingly more like already-existing forms of government as this argument goes on.

>What was that blackout of the eastern half of the US then? Or >all the rolling blackouts California used to have?

Eh.  That was a temporary situation.  They were recovering from government control.  They instated an incompetent and inexperienced group to direct it.

The eastern blackout was an accident, plain and simple.  Had nothing to do with government control or not.  Some transformers overloaded, and the power grid backed up, blowing more transformers (I don't think they were transformers... They were called transmitters or something). 

You can be sure under a capitalist system, whoever was responsable for the accident would be cut from the system, immediately, and a restructuring would be imminent, people would be tested for competence ETC...  under government control, you couldn't be so sure.  The only way you could be sure something would be done is if there was sufficient public outrage. 

>Explain how that fits in with non-initiation of force? It's not >like a monopoly is going to build their own military and lead a >revolution. No, they'll work within the system, much like they >do now.

Still, infringing on other people's rights means initiation of force.  If they don't initiate force, there's no problem.  Think Wal-Mart.  People hate them, call them a monopoly, ETC.  But people buy their products because they want them.  If they say, start breaking the law, they will be brought out and beat to death in public.  Enron.

It's mighty strange how your form of libertarianism is looking > increasingly more like already-existing forms of government as > this argument goes on.

Duh.  The US is probably the most libertarian nation on earth.     I acknowlege that.  But the libertarian movement is still useful.  The government, over the years, has become bloated and incompetent. Libertarianism seeks to reverse that trend.

Europe is different. Employment quotas and nanny-state laws have destroyed overall productivity.  In Germany and France, they have passed laws to decrease the limit on hours per week an employee can work without being paid overtime, but has changed it in such a way that the employee's overall salary cannot be lowered either (they get paid the same amount to work fewer hours).  The idea is that they will hire more people, and decrease the overall unemployment rate.  What is a business supposed to do under such pressure?  The government basically has told them what they will pay for service and how much they will pay for.  Not only that, but most businesses now are reluctant to hire anyone at all, and the unemployment rate has not significantly fallen. 

Libertarianism (or more specifically, a Republican form of government) is admittedly flawed for our current society, but much less so than collectivism. 

>>47
You might want to do a little reading:
http//www.google.com.au/...
http//www.google.com.au/...

The US system generally stinks compared to most OECD countries in the majority of metrics. If you're too lazy to do the research, then at least read this (it's a nicely researched paper and everything, ya know?): http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77

o shit... ＷＲＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹＹ！！！

>>52
Sorry, man, you lose again. The reason it crashed is because the privitization shaved off the safety margins. Why the hell do you think there was an overload?  This isn't news to anyone who was paying attention.

The very first link I got, shit: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~johnc/attacks_and_accidents.pdf

Employment quotas and nanny-state laws have destroyed overall productivity.

More like having a fucked population pyramid, with several countries already below ZPG, and getting owned now that they're trying to reintegrate a bunch of former-communist states. Ever live in a communist state? Yeah, I can see why they're having problems.

Besides, there's more to life than working 24/7. Or are you at work surfing world4ch? Naughty...

Libertarianism (or more specifically, a Republican form of government) is admittedly flawed for our current society, but much less so than collectivism.

No shit. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that both extremes are idiotic. Moderatism and borrowing from both schemes is where it's at. At least Libertarians aren't as stupid as anarcho-capitalists. I have no idea what thosewhackos are thinking.

I'm starting this new political movement. Vegetarinism!

I'm arguing that one extreme should be used more liberally than the other.  Much more. 

Where are you from by the way?

You also show your ignorance by saying "there's more to life than working 24/7"

Ever hear of building a career?  40 hours a week really isn't that much in the long run.  For most people, it's a third of a day.  The other third is spent sleeping, and the last third is up to you.  That's the world.  Just because you don't feel like working is nobody else's problem.

And health dude...  That paper was full of "taiwan has not collected statistics... blah blah blah..."  They're saying themselves they're using their own numbers, in itallics at the bottom of the page.  I don't trust taiwan enough to not try to make themselves look good. 

Also, the united states has been the foremost country in creating new drugs.  Why?  Because there's incentive here.  I don't care about equitability of access, because I think people take too much, and take too expensive healthcare as it is, and that's the "Metrics" most of you guys are using.

And power rates have gone down here since deregulation.  I'm happy about that.  Everything causes some problems. 

Problems with privitization are most likely problems with the huge upheaval it causes for the industries in question, not the concept of private ownership itself.

You also show your ignorance by saying "there's more to life than working 24/7"

True laissez faire capitalism is a race to the bottom. You're working 40 hours a day now (but the market is regulated, how convenient!). You'd have to be pretty naive to think that'll remain if there are no government regulations, particularly if you don't even plan to control monopolization.

That paper was full of "taiwan has not collected statistics... blah blah blah..."

You're a rather selective reader, aren't you? Why don't you reread the entire thing, this time? And what about the numerous other studies on OECD countries and universal healthcare? Seriously, did you spend more than 30 seconds trying to find a useless retort?

And power rates have gone down here since deregulation.

As opposed to where I live, where they have gone sky-high since being deregulated (like 20x higher). Oh yeah, your favorite northern neighbour, Canada, has lower rates per kW than the US. It's also reliable.

united states has been the foremost country in creating new drugs.

Uh... good for the US? How do pharmaceutical companies doing well have any effect on the generally poor state of the US health-care system? They're not the same thing, you know?

I don't care about equitability of access, because I think people take too much

Studies indicate the opposite, actually. It costs more because people don't get minor ailments treated before they become major ailments. Also, your "don't care" bit is shortsited, considering that a lot of diseases are virulent.

Anyway, more reading for you: http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm

s/shortsited/shortsighted/

>>36

You have an odd view of government.  Ever heard of a democracy?

Whoops, didn't realize I wasn't looking at the whole thread.  Ignore the above post.

in >>8
"Look at the US today. Notice something?"

What's wrong with the US today?

Yeah, you compare the countries Canada and Western Europe to the US without giving any details...

>>62
I've heard of it, but never actually witnessed one. The most recent democracy ceased to exist several thousand years ago. Most modern nations are republics.

>>66

Stop being pretentiously correct.

>>65
Can you read?

>>66
Given the changing definition over the years of _republic_, it might be more accurate to say democratic republic.

DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA

This thread sux.

Anyway, you haven't really made clear what's so great about western europe either...

Europe also sucks. It just sucks less.

Less war mongering, less faggot patriotism, less looney bible-thumpers, less fat fucks (not for long though lol), less gun nuts, less sport moms in SUVs, less "we're no.1!" retards, less ill-mannered arrogant pricks, less uneducated idiots in general.

OTOH, they have Tony Blair.

Don't forget less black epople

>>72
lol

>>71

The grass is always greener.

>>74
if that's true, why am i happier here?

Ever been on the other side?

y yes i hav

ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>78

ANARCHY BURGER, HOLD THE GOVERNMENT

Blegh.  Problem is, that government has been perpetrator of some of the greatest evils of our time.  Soviet Russia, WWII, all problems cause be people becoming too dependent on the government, or looking to it to solve their problems.  The problems caused by big business over the past 200 years have amounted to minor problems in the long run.

If we start offering healthcare to everyone for free, then that makes people that much more dependent on government.  It erodes from there. People start looking to government to solve all their problems, and suddenly, fascism, totalitarianism and all their variants begin to pop up.

Government, while it may not seem like it, is a much more uncontrollable and dangerous force than any conceivable private endeavor.  That's why libertarianism is useful.

The report's title you gave on taiwan up there, turns out it was asking was healthcare "Affordable".  I did some of my own research, and it turns out that Taiwan is having it's own considerable share of problems, especially dealing with distribution of health care practicioners.  Canada is having problems paying for medical treatment for extreme situations, such as cancer, that an insurance company would have no problems paying for.  They're having to rely on public donations in some cases because the system just can't pay.  The answer is always MORE FUNDING. Canada's GNP is already 11% health-related, compared with 9% for america (OK, fine, The U.S. Foreign fags).   This comes about because when the cost to acquire a service is zero, then the demand skyrockets.  I don't buy the whole "Catching problems early causes the amount of medical services that must be rendered to go down" shit that many socialized medicine advocates claim.  It's full of problems, just like the U.S. Capitalistic system we have.  Only difference is, I don't have to pay. 

I also did some research on privitization of power grids ETC... and it turns out that while it hands services to individuals, it is not a true free market.  It's is a complex managed system with so many points of failure, it's surprising the thing hasn't collapsed.  They have bidding wars, where the one who supplies power at a lower cost gets to sell, which is OK in theory, but it's still a government mandated ogliarchy, full of regulation and price controls ETC...  In a natural monopoly (only way for it to not be would be to have multiple sets of powerlines strung to every house, and while it's possible, I don't want that many telephone poles in my yard), so I don't really have an answer with regards to the free market system for you there.  I only know that deregulation has worked for the most part, without any "significant increases or decreses in overall quality of service," To quote the article on Taiwan's healthcare system that you showed me.

I think you blow the problems of the US out of proportion while ignoring many of the problems of the countries you seem to have a boner for.

I'm not ignoring the flaws of the other countries. I'm all too aware of them as well. Frankly, I like the text in >>80, even if it's counter to my position, because it's mostly based on reality.

Government, while it may not seem like it, is a much more uncontrollable and dangerous force than any conceivable private endeavor.

This I disagree with though. Why is government more uncontrollable? It's supposed (we hope) to be accountable to the people. Business is only accountable to shareholders.

If you think about this a while, you'll note their structures have a fair bit in common. Governments are run by an elected legislative branch, with an employed executive branch. Private enterprises have an elected board of directors, with employed executive officers and managers. Citizens and shareholders are analogous. The only real difference between the two is that governments have a judiciary.

If you watch the macroscale behavior of a state, which is essentially controlled by the government, as interacts with other states, you'll note the behaviour is very much like private enterprises in a market.

Governments and private companies are the same thing. The only significant difference is in scale. The rest is incidental.

Because government ISN'T always accountable to the people, and it has direct control over them.

>>82

This is the logic problem with a lot of Libertarian thinking I see.  They see government screwing stuff up, and suddenly declare that all government is inherently bad.  When your TV is broken, you don't decide that all TV's are inherently bad and broken and rid yourself of TV; you fucking fix your TV!  If government isn't accountable to the people, then make it accountable to the people, the way it's supposed to be!  If government officials are fucking things up, kick them out and elect people who will do it right!

>>83
But the problem is that people are not informed enough to decide whether to kick out a government official or not. They could be the most evil person and still have a good reputation. Nobody KNOWS what the government is doing at a particular time. The government is not transparent and it would be very difficult to make it transparent.

Therefore it would be a much simpler solution to not give that much power to the government so that the power would not be abused.

To repeat, solving corruption or overuse of power is  a very difficult task and it would be much easier and safer for all concerned to not give the government that much power in the first place. The people do not know what officials are doing and most of the time. Corruption could be rife and no one would know. Taking the power out of their hands so that abuse will not happen is a better choice.

So how is giving private interests a free hand any better? If government isn't accountable, a company sure isn't.

In >>84 I was also talking about private companies. I don't think that **any** organization should have too much power. Power corrupts.

>>87
Unfortunately, without a government, I fail to see how you'll achieve that. Anything that can enforce such a thing has enough power, by definition, to be a government.

how do you expect people to change their government when they control the military, the police, and not on an election year?

Guess you've never

Whoops. For >>86.

how do you expect people to change their government when they control the military, the police, and not on an election year?

There's a reason why most democratic governments come with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. You're making the mistake of lumping them all together. I'd hardly call the US a good example either, although it does display problems that could face any similar system.

Okay, throw it out. You'll just end up with a similar set of problems. How do you intend to prevent a non-representative private interest from taking over the market and then deciding it can do better by becoming a defacto dictatorship? If I were that private interest, you can be sure I'd try.

At it's height, the worst it did was employ some child labor and break a few ethical conventions

Only because they weren't powerful enough to do more. Why not? Because there was a government more powerful than they were. If there weren't, they'd have taking its place and done as they pleased. Why shouldn't I employ a private army to destroy my competitor? You can be sure I'd try that too.

Government, on the other hand, has been responsible for some of the worst mass killings of our time.

As well as building infrastructure, sending people to space, funding universities and basic science, funding the arts, giving us universal health-care and security of the person, ensuring the market is regulated, providing a forum for the law, ad nauseum.

**weak** government
not **no** government
**weak** government

Too weak and it'll be eaten alive. Can weak government really scale?

| Only because they weren't powerful enough to do more. Why not? Because there was a government more powerful than they were

The point isn't tomake corporations stronger than government, or to make government weak.   The point is ***LIMITED*** government.  A government that has strict rules imposed upon it, that not even a democratic vote can revoke.  (Tyranny of the majority is a problem in democratic systems, the rape of the minority.  Say 90% of the population is shiite.  They vote to kill the 10% that's sunni.  Too bad sunni?

Say ten people are in an elevator, and there's one woman.  They all want to have sex with the woman.  Democracy says put it to a vote.  Oh well!

Problem of Democracy is that people are stupid, and will vote for their stupid shit.

How weak can a government be and still be able to control companies?

It doesn't even need to the federal government who should control companies and split up monopolies. It could be the state or even county/city government.

The less people who are affected by a decision from a government, the better.

>>94 was addressing >>91

Who should have the power to limit the power of coorporations anyway?

A government that has strict rules imposed upon it, that not even a democratic vote can revoke.

There is no such thing. There can be no such thing. I recommend you take some law courses that discuss constitutional law as to why it's impossible. Almost by default, such a society would not be a democracy. Further, it's utterly inflexible.

This is really just the debate over the concept of living constitution all over again.

It's regrettable that apparently Civics is no longer taught in US highschools.

It could be the state or even county/city government.

You can't be serious. May I point you to Italy before it was unified? Wasn't exactly a peaceful place now was it? What makes you think it'll be any different if you replace princes with presidents? And what about Florence during its heyday?

Pay a bit more attention to history please.

The local government isn't going to be breaking up any monopolies, they'll just be restrcting what a corporate entity can do on land under their control.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that under the US system at least, corporations have no liability for their actions, while having all the rights associated with being an individual.  Libertarian doctrine seeks to bring that under control, not by limiting corporations, but by holding them accuntable for their actions, or by revoking some of their rights. 

And OF course you can vote to change the constitution, but the idea is that even by democratic process, if there is an action that opposes constitutional law, it can't be upheld.  Should have clarified that.  The constitution BTW is fucked up currently.  The act that lets them take income tax needs to be reworked.  Thsi may sound radical, and maybe it is, but most libertarians oppose tax on incomes, but instead want to institue a national 10% sales tax, including a rebate that would occure every month equal to the tax that would be paid out on bare neccesities (Food, water, the amount of electricity that would be used if you only ran the refrigerator and some lights, the lowest fair rent that many poor people woudl be paying ETC).  It'd be a more fair tax, it'd be a consumption tax, and not a punishment for standing out in a group as occurs under democracy. 

Whether you like it or not, the US is I think about to have a libertarian revolution, not like the russian revolution or anything, but a huge reformation of the political parties that currently exist, I think over maybe four decades.  If the experiment fails, then hey, we'll be no worse off than you. 


BTW, earlier one of you, I can't tell how many of you there are, called libertarians dangerous.  I assert that you statist government control freaks are more dangerous.

Covertly got 100

hundred and first post

if there is an action that opposes constitutional law, it can't be upheld.

I agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, if you take a look at US history, presidents have been sodomizing the constitution left, right, and centre. The presidents who did obey the constitution were all called weak. A constitution is little protection against anything.

I was about to go on regarding your statements of corporations being legally treated as people, however I think I'll just point the following out: if you look at the writings of some of the founding fathers, you'll note that many of their sentiments were exactly like your own. Yet where are corporations today? They're even treated like people. What a coup!

Having them held responsible for their actions only works if they aren't more powerful than the government. They appear to have done a fine job of taking over larger governments, so I think a small one will suffer a similar fate (just faster).

most libertarians oppose tax on incomes, but instead want to institue a national 10% sales tax

That's one tiny government you'll have there. That aside, who is going to maintain the roads? Pay the police? Firemen? Judges? Employ the people who'll hold those corporations accountable?

If you pay for them seperately, how is that any different from a tax?

Well, all that's true.  But the threat of corporations is still miniscule compared to the threat of powerful government.  Corporations lack the infrastructure and know-how to set up their own micro-governments that actually controls anyone.  And what do you mean different from a tax?  I never opposed a tax.

BTW, it was the emancipation proclaimation that was used to make sure corporations could be treated as people.  They used some weird loophole, and made it work.

They did the calculations, BTW, and found that under our current amount of goods being moved, we'd get approximately the same amount of tax revenue.  Because, consider, that all those corporations who you give your money to must also pay a tax in order to buy most of their supplies ETC... so the effect isn't just 10% like it seems.  Of course, most corporations will be trying to cut their supply chains to reduce their tax burden... And of course, that might also reduce thier power...

And that's just the tax on the federal level.  There will still be local and state taxes.  The beauty of this is that if you hate the system where you live, you can just leave without going through all the tricky mess of citizenship.

And about the politicians being called weak, yeah, I know.  But a constitution is still not "little protection." It has kept our politicians basically in line for the most part for 200 years.  The constitution isn't weak, it's the judicial branch, who seems to have forgotten it's job as of late...

Corporations lack the infrastructure and know-how to set up their own micro-governments that actually controls anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India

And there are a bunch of other companies too.

it's the judicial branch, who seems to have forgotten it's job as of late...

Judicial is always subject to the legislature. It has nothing to do with forgotten. Imagine what would happen if the judicial branch was not subject. There's a reason why, until recently, judges have tiptoes and pretended that judicial activism doesn't exist.

I appreciate all your arguments, and some of them seem, prima facie, compelling, but most of what I've read thus far displays a fundamental lack of understanding how most modern governments work, and why they work that way. They didn't evolve this way by accident.

What the hell?  STFU

During the Great Depression, when all those lazy fuck workers should have been screened out of the genepool, that fuckhead Roosevelt enacted the New Deal to help those worthless fucks live. Nonesense. So the large corporations at the time did the only sensible thing and tried to stage a coup. Unfortunately they hired US Marine Corp Smedley Butler for the job, who should have been a sure thing as he was a general and helped expand business abroad through military action, but instead he ratted them out and said he was tired of being a "gangster for capitolism". What a pussy. We'd be so much better off today if we could have gotten rid of all those worthless fucks who couldn't contribute to society.

Last time I checked, it was the workers who actually worked (which is why they are called WORKERS), so how can they be lazy?

I think the humour just went over your head.

I loled.

"I appreciate all your arguments, and some of them seem, prima facie, compelling, but most of what I've read thus far displays a fundamental lack of understanding how most modern governments work, and why they work that way. They didn't evolve this way by accident."

Translation:  You're making some good points, but I'm going to decide I'm winning the argument anyway. 

Am I supposed to assume that every change that has been effected in the past was a good thing?  Am I supposed to assume that our society is perfect as it is?

Earlier you said that presidents who upheld the constitution were "weak".  What's the relevance of a president being "Strong"?  Just because he gets something done doesn't mean he did good things.  Lincoln, as I said earlier, paved the way for corporations to gain the power and influence they currently enjoy. 

Why do you think the government needs power over everything in our lives to be able to protect people?  Or do you just feel more comfortable putting your future in somebody else's hands?  Not having to worry about health insurance...  Why should we strive to put everyone in the nation in the same category?  I don't say that we should let people die (just that we maybe... prevent them from reproducing, maybe, but that's more sci-fi than real world right now)... But why should we equalize everything?  Because people are not... You pour money into a ghettow in the USA, and people don't get any better off, they become dependent.  You talk about people being greedy, but in truth, the only way to get anything done, to effect any real change in the world is to concentrate the capital under an independant person.  While there'd need to be many laws to prevent problems, and a "big" government, why you think it needs to be a *provider* and not a *protector* is beyond me...

Are you a college professor or a high level college student?  Because it sounds that way.  I don't know, I'm just a low-level highschool mook, but I'd be really interested to know a little about yourself.  I don't have all the research background that you obviously do, but whenever I've reasearched your claims myself, I found them to be very exaggerated.  You've proven earlier with your defense of marxism your bias, (and your disdain for American student's who think "they're so smart").

I realize most of the world is going in your direction, and this discussion and millions like it will have no effect on the real world.  But I believe that before it's over the US will surpass the world at large again, in politics, industry, and technology because of it's lean and efficient system. Of course, you'll deny it, and claim that the US is going to fall to obscurity soon, but only time will tell, eh?  The experiment hasn't failed yet.  When I see the McDonald's gulag "disappearing" thousands to die in remote corporate gulags, then I'll agree with you.

Translation: you're making some good points, but I'm going to decide I'm winning the argument anyway.

No, the correct translation is I don't have time to educate you on the basics. You think a lawyer argues with every opinionated couch-potato who has watched too many law shows?

I must be an idiot for joining this.

WOOO!

Libertarianism wins!

>>114
Only in theory!

ok, not even then...

I believe in Social Libertarianism, a term I made up. Essentially, I agree with Democrats on social services/welfare, NRA-conservatives on gun rights (because I do *NOT* trust our government, such as on the eminent domain ruling), and citizens of Amsterdam on drug laws and gay rights （＾ヮ＾*）

>>116
is that Social Liberalism, or something...

>>39
Stop talking about anarchy, we're discussing libertarianism.

Why do you want the governement to manage your money? Well, most libertarians are minarchists. They want the state to manage justice and police, and nothing more. A small state.

As a libertarian I don't want ID cards, I don't want gun restrictions, public schools, and the likes. I want responsability. If you can't manage to pay for school for your children, don't have it. Don't make us pay for your errors. This is getting worrying in Europe, where I live.

We pay A LOT of money to subsidize the lazy and bad people of our society, and they laugh at us for doing it. The dumb people are still having 8 childrens per marriage while normal marrriages have one or two. This is getting very hard to sustain. How much time will this system last? I don't think much more... in my country the government is socialist, but they are imposing libertarian measures because if not, we are going to get out of money soon.

For example, in my country we pay with our taxes the culture. Our movies doesn't make money, they are sustained by taxes. Our poor people gets free housing while the median class pays 30 years for a mediocre basement.

We pay 8,5$ a galloon of gas thanks to taxes. We have to pay 1500$ and a lot of practice classes and a theory exam, and despite that, we have the same amount of accidents than the USA. The same car costs about 35% more in my country than in USA, thanks to taxes. And then, we pay a high tax every year for having a car. And another 500$ tax for putting an ID in our car.

We have an enourmous amount of public workers working at offices for the gov, people that earns a lot of money and can't be rid of. They become lazy because its very hard to throw the lazy workers out. If they want more salary, they paralize our country for months until they get more salary. The Postal Service is managed by the gov too, and it works like shit. It works like a 20 or 30 yeard old service, computers and electronics are not used by the customers. I usually wait for 30 minutes or more for receiving or sending a package. We can't do anything. Lazy workers and bad system... and they don't bother trying to fix it. They don't need to, they don't have competence, life is great.

It's very hard to open a business. You pay a lot of money for it, and have to wait weeks for the permission. You can't even build a new room in your house without the Government permission, I waited 3 months until I got the permission. It's usual.

If you are married and you become separate, if you had a child your wife gets your HOUSE for her and her children, EVEN if you paid your house before getting married. Then you have to pay a monthly fee for your children. Feminist lobbies have a lot of power in our country, they run a sector of the socialist party.

Our benefits? Two.

1- Our public schools, that work like shit because the bad students can't be gotten rid of. It's very hard to manage them. Where could you send it? Another public school? We have a lack of discipline, there are thousands of cases of professors being bullied, insulted...

2- Our public health care system, where you have to wait 10 months or more for an important operation. People with money pays for private healthcare tought.. even if they get A LOT of salary taken off to pay these systems. It's very hard to improve them... every public worker wants to earn A LOT of money for the minimun job... and they have a lot of power. They manage our hospitals, our schools, our postal service... we have to obey them.

Of course we get around the same number of killings per habitant than the US but we can't carry guns, etc. Only the cops and thieves do.
My country is Spain by the way.

We even pay 15€ per hard drive disc, 50 cents per DVD-R, 4€ per cell phone, 10€ per a scanner etc. bcause we COULD copy with it. If you copy is still ilegal... but the gov gets the money even if you don't. And if you do, then jail.

This is socialism. It's an anachronic ideology. I'd prefer a responsible society, I'd prefer more freelancers and less blue-collar workers. Sadly, socialism makes it hard to be a freelancer due to high taxes, papers, legislations... it's very hard. They create a society of workers. It's hard to create your business, is hard to try to get money because you are going to get it stealed by the gov due to HIGH taxes.

The biggest problem is our housing market. We pay 3 times the prive of a house in the US while we earn 40% less money... because the gov controls the ground.

My perfect society has fiscal pression of 10-11% instead of 40-50% like we have in Europe. It doesn't bother with your life. It let's you be free. People are responsible due to this, they can't get their things for free, and a lot of them are freeelancers. They are their own bosses. After all, you only need a computer to be your own boss.

It's amazing that my country hasen't gone to the shitter yet. But it is going. We get more poor people every day, our industries doesn't work, etc. Factories being closed every month. We are going backwards. Asia is going to fuck us badly... and I approve that. Natural selection applied to countries.

>>120
Don't like it there? Move to a libertarian paradise like Somalia or quit whining.

>>118
Lol at newfags talking to a guy who posted three years ago.

>>121
Somalia is totalitarian. It consists of patchworks of armed gangs whom can take property from you at will. Sound familiar?

>>123
Detroit?

>>123
So, you want a society where everyone respects your rights, just because you respect theirs?

Awwww, how sweet.  It's a real shame that people aren't equal, otherwise you could possibly enjoy that pipedream.

>>125
So because absolute perfection is impossible there is no point trying? I don't expect a utopia, I am merely stating that libertarian principles significantly reduce tyranny and crime by clearly defining them and helping those few who care to keep them under wraps.