It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 7:31 ID:+hD9dG9H
Because it only exists on paper.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 8:37 ID:2W81jO2j
Its not infallible, its unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no way to prove it wrong. Other unfalsifiables are if there is a god or if there is alien reptiles living among us in neat flesh suits.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-04 9:08 ID:OkVo5iwv
>>2
If it only existed on paper you would be a slave living in fear.
>>3
Science works with facts, so how can there be no proof to begin with?
more nothing-talk. why don't you just come out and say you hate the FDA, the FAA and the EPA
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 14:19 ID:zCUYzMPX
>>4
Science work with facts yes, and a scientific theory must be able to be disproven theoretically meaning that its basic framework must include the parameters where it can clearly be discarded as disproven. That god does not exist is impossible to proove. That libertarianism does not work is impossible to proove. This means both statements are not scientific and more opinions with no true answer rather than scientific theories.
You said my mission statement included empty platitudes and no concrete goals, so now I revealing the fact that for some people our nation's values are not empty platitudes and that you don't need a government to tell you what your goals are. Do you think I am wrong and if so why?
>>8
For a start the core principles of Libertarianism work because certain principles do secure the freedom of nations, it has to be fought for and the product isn't perfect but it's epicly better than the alternative. No one can disagree with that. Libertarians merely apply the same reasonning used to generate these core principles in order to calculate why socialist modelled government policies continue to exploit the proletariat despite claiming to do otherwise and have discoverred that it was just another unrealistic utopia used to bolster corruption all along. The solution therefore is to prevent the government forcing ideologies on the popluation, they should be free to experiment if they want, but no one should be permitted to force anyone into economic policies they do not want, not even those evil people who own property.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 15:15 ID:WJeSxOnO
It's 'infallible' because libertarians don't agree on anything but free market economy. Ok, we all know that it's superior but what about abortion? Or immigration? Their everyone for himself attitude prevents them from winning any election.
We are not slaves BECAUSE of government regulation. In the early 1900s Big Business owners basically treated their workers like slaves: made them work in horrible working conditions, forced child labor, and gave them pay that they couldn't feed their family with. This is what sparked progressivism in the 1910s and 20s.
the free market does nothing to protect the environment or stop global warming. also the free market doesn't give a shit about sending american jobs overseas. libertarians are like fat kids in the cake shop in that respect.
It DOES protect the environment and even more because it's regulated by demand.
People feel like it's too dirty → they want someone to clean up the mess. That demand creates a market and the one who offers the best solution wins.
"Protecting" through regulations is on same level as reading tea leaves.
I agree. You can clearly see this working in countries such as _________.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 19:19 ID:zCUYzMPX
>>9
Its still just an opinion which lacks an objective truth. Or rather, can you state as an libertarian what conditions would have to be met for libertarianism to be disproven?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-05 19:26 ID:3m4WQ4um
Cock
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 7:31 ID:S2lXeOut
>>10
It's simple. By following the laws of reasonning we can deduce the answers.
Abortion: Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil.
Immigration: Immigration should be free unless it influences factors such as gdp per capita and crime.
>>12
The US was not a free market. Constraints of the free market included institutional discrimination against foreigners, women and blacks and excessive taxation of the poor. Not to mention the fact that the economy was very different from today, the US received a large number of unskilled labourer immigrants and was still developping at this time compared to europe.
>>13
Incorrect. The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property. Due to it's nature, the atmosphere will have to be considerred international property, businesses and nations will be charged for using it and the money paid to contractors for the amount of carbon they remove from the atmosphere.
>>16
Polluting the air is causing damage to property, something even socialist governments won't consider due to their inability to see the benefits of property laws.
>>17
There are 100s of companies across the globe which perform clean up operations. http://www.pdcarea.com/
What are you trying to say? That it's only physically possible for these companies to exist if they are run by the government? That's absurd.
>>18
The only thing that can be disproven are the conclusions that have been made through reasonning. Libertarianism is just a branch of political science, within the range of accuracy that we have core libertarianism is correct and the newer libertarian policies are predictions. In before "GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF THEM WORKING".
Within it's range of accuracy newtonian physics works, while on the quantum or relativistic level it does not this does not mean that when you drop a pencil it will not fall at around 9.8ms^-2. I'm sure there are innaccuracies in predictions made by libertarians, but within the range of accuracy that we are capable of in political science we can be sure the predictions made will occur. If newer libertarian policies are implemented methodically over a period of 4 years, starting with the obviously most beneficial such as personal freedoms and equalising tax and going on to experiment with other ideas, you can be sure you will see major improvements in society and the economy.
Anyway, libertarianism first and foremost is about making money by any means possible except crime. You can all afford computers so once you people see the opportunities openned up I'm sure you will be able to cut yourself a slice of the cake, then you will become libertarians.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 10:13 ID:+qsyM8UT
>>13 >The environment will be bought and sold and the people who own it will strive to make it as profitable as possible, if someone affects someone else's environment then they will be prosecuted for causing damage to their property.
It's really cute how you spew out this pie in the sky bullshit. Left to their own devices, business will make ZERO allowances for environmental protections - even on their own property. You make it sound like libertarianism is a big, happy system where Chinese factory wokrers hold hands and sing Earth Day songs while they add 3000 cars a day to the roads of Bejing.
STFU. There is a strong need for government regulation in this area.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 10:53 ID:Q+fmp0u2
LIBERTARIANS DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-06 18:40 ID:S2lXeOut
>>21
If they make zero allowances their business will fail, so they won't. If they don't notice it or don't care then their shareholders will and they will lose or not make as much money until they start doing otherwise. Shares = long term investment, this is why logging companies only chop down trees of a certain diameter and why oil companies only extract a certain amount from an area even though they could increase "production" several hundred times as much with the profits they make.
There is no need for government regulation, just big business and investors who think about their future.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-07 18:57 ID:xDEp4L0H
>>20
is abortion killing sentient life? define sentient. if fetuses are sentient so are fucking cows.
so everything should be free unless it affects gdp and crime? Everything affects GDP, so i guess nothing's free.
so... people will buy and sell "environment", and make it as profitable as possible? what do you even mean by environment? how will a company make a quarter of a mountain side profitable? without mining it or something similar? and if you can't mine it or something similar you can't make it profitable.
the athmosphere will be considered international property? who owns it then, who's going to take money from the businesses and thwart the market when they pollute? where will all the money go? to a supernational organization? a supernational organization that owns the athmosphere?
Yeah, pollution 'causes damage to property, and what do you think is the most profitable for the individual organization? to protect themselves from the pollution or to chip in a tiny bit to removing all of the pollution? it's a typical prisoners dilemma situation. the only way you can solve it is by instituting is by setting up some sort of commitment device which has to be instituted by govenrmetns etc. this menas you ahve to have an incentive for companies to not pollute, and it HAS to be instituted on a global level, do you really think that's gonna happen?
And now we can govern over companies because something they do has negative externalities? and since we have to be rational about it we should do it for ALL externalities. how do we figure out exactly what externalities businesses produce? and how do we make sure that what they claim they produce is what they produce? that's right, more regulations.
Since we have do take into account all things which effect our GDP, this includes social matters. If a person has an alcoholic problem, that's his own fault, but negative personal traits such as alcoholism affects his ability to work AND his ability to raise and have kids which are effecient and contribute fully to our GDP, so he would have to be charged for his negative externalities.
Alright, so what do we have now, all companies and people are being watched and monitored by a supernational government in order to make sure noone contributes inefficiently to our GDP.
good job.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-07 21:03 ID:QjmfMyvV
Competition ends.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
Companies collude, merge.
The public is conspired against.
Government is the only force that can stop it.
In before guild system.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 1:33 ID:uouiKCS0
It is due to it being the application of political science.
Hahaha
HAHAHAHAH
GGGGGGGGGGGYYYYYYAHAHAHAHAHA*thud*
Something (a very big something) tells me you haven't even taken Political Science 101. It's an interesting topic, but science it sure as fuck ain't.
I guess you believe creationism is a science too?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 1:48 ID:l8dEq6Bi
Libertarianism needs to be updated with a post 16th century economic model. lp.org is apparently quite ignorant of the simple concept of a market externality. Their platform would actually make sense if they endorsed Pigovian taxes for markets with significant externalities. I guess that goes for all the parties!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 9:19 ID:ZPB3OyW1
people who are so zealous about government regulations confuse me. what makes the corrupt rich whities in congress better than the corrupt rich whities in a company board room? the corporate fatcats actually stand to lose profits if they fuck over their resources and consumers, the government weasels dont give a shit either way.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 9:50 ID:6XMrzEwk
>>28
Because the business fatcats loose money if the income level is risen, i.e. they stand to loose if poverty is eradicated. In theory, this is not true of politicians and the government. In some countries (not the US) this actual practice. And everybody except the filthy rich stand to win if poverty was ever eradicated.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 10:10 ID:ZPB3OyW1
>>29
i dont know what fucked up econ classes you've taken, but more people with more money is VERY good for the corporations that are trying to sell people things. if anyone loses when poverty is eradicated it's the government, because if everyone has money, no one is going to vote for the guy that wants to take it away.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-08 13:21 ID:Y+DEqujd
>>24
Abortion: You fail to see my point. Where do you draw the line as to whether a fetus is sentient or not? If a fetus can survive outside the womb is it ok to end it's life? etc..
GDP and crime: It is unfair for one country to have to lower it's living standards to deal with another country's inability to prevent overpopulation and crime.
Environment: Environments have tourism value.
International property: Everyone owns it. Due to it's fluid nature the atmosphere can only be everyone's property, so everyone in the entire world must pay for it's use and decide it's composition.
Pollution: Pollution is damage to other people's property. For instance you can dump all your trash in the back yard instead of sorting and composting, but if the stank and rats start to affect your neighbours you are damaging their property and you will have to pay for it or work off your debt to them in prison. Property laws have been degraded over time, but they will be become a lot more touchy under libertarianism and will serve to prosecute polluters. Commitment devices or any other pointless bureaucracy is needed.
Regulations: Regulation is a standard part of law enforcement. The improvement libertarians would make is to ensure businesses foot the bill for the law enforcement needed to police them. This means they have an incentive to prove they are law abiding and stay that way, one slip up and they have to pay substantially more tax for a few more years along with their legal costs. This way evil corporations won't even touch immoral activities with a 180 foot pole.
Social problems: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a "supernational" government to prevent self-destructive behaviour. Libertarianism would greatly reduce social problems by forcing people to be responsible. If every time you fall the government catches you you would never develop a sense of balance.
>>25
A cartel forms.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
One company manager quickly discovers his branch can gain a little extra profit by reducing the cost or increasing the quality or his services.
The shareholders demand a split
The corporate cartel faces losing a significant proportion of the value of their company unless they comply.*
fix'd
>>26
The first thing any scientist does is look for facts or problems in reasonning. Since you have provided none I will reply to someone else.
>>27
They are not ignorant of it. They expressly state a deeper understanding of this dilemma which for some reason you cannot reach. Consider this. In the prestigious institution of walmart, 99 law abiding citizens and a hooligan all purchase a 6pack of beer. The law abiding citizens consume the beers over the period of a week whilst the hooligan consumes them all within an hour, he goes on a drunken rampage vandalising property before being picked up by the police, sent to the courts and spending a week in jail at great expense. The expense just happens to be the amount of extra tax levied from the 100 customers that day.
Did that tax stop the hooligan?
Who paid for the damage?
actually, you failed your point, you said abortion was killing sentient life and that killing sential life was evil. You drew a line right there, and i'm saying to you you can't.
Not all environments have tourism value, what about the ocean? large interdependant environments?
Oh, so everybody everybody in the world has to pay for using the athmosphere and decide how it's composed? what if say, 2/3rds of the world doesnt want to pay?
how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it? since the fine is enormeous, their incentive to attempt to bribe the inspector are that much greater, and the inspector being able to retire happily in macao for the rest of his life after two bribes may as well comply.
so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike? give the kid the bike and say "here, have fun trying to learn how to ride a bike" or holding the bike untill the kid got it straight and then let go?
And about the supernational government i was taking your argument of forcing responsibility of pollution on a supernational level and using a completely rational way of doing things one step further, leading to a computer-run technocracy in order to remove negative externalities and inefficiency costs.
100 law abiding citizens buy a sixpack. 80 of them drink it over the course of the week. 20 of them drink it over the course of an hour, and beat up their wives, giving her a minor concussion which reduces her efficiency, but she won't tell the cops on him because she loves him even if he beats her.
Also, in your example the hooligan went to jail, keeping him away from work for a week, instead he's doing low-production manual labour in the private jail, worth alot less than he would've produced in his normal work week, he will also make less money to consume less. So the company he works for gets fined for his inability, and all the other companies that produce things he would've bought lose sales.
The hooligan being arrested leads to a total reduction in GDP, and this isn't really very good at all.
This thread has now more hilarious generalisations and retarded analogies than all the other threads on /newpol/ togther.
Keep up the good work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 7:01 ID:8ozVXBvx
>>32
I said
"Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
I meant
"Killing sentient life is evil. If the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
Key word "If".
How long are you going to draw this out?
The ocean like the atmosphere is fluid, so a person who owns an area of ocean cannot use it to dump waste or it will interfere with the fishing business next door. If an environment has no tourism value, what's the point of preserving it? A lot more people need that land for farming or the minerals there.
"how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it?"
Indoctrinate them in the values of justice, tell them to accept the bribe but report them to the state anyway and increase the number of inspectors until the company cannot possibly bribe them all sufficiently.
"so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike?"
What is the point of your analogy? We do not need the state to treat them like kids their whole lives. After the CHILD learns how to ride the bike the parent is supposed to LET GO. The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them by never letting them learn to look after themselves.
Computer run technocracy? Let me guess, the technocrats (enlightenned monarchs?) decide the best way people should live their lives? If such a thing is beneficial, then it should have no real power beyond anyone else. How about a social R&D or think tank which people pay to teach them how to solve their problems.
What stopped the wife beater from purchasing a six pack? The tax? How much tax would needed to stop him? What if he simply brews his own beer or distills his own whiskey thus evading the tax? Again who was punished? If alcohol really did cause 20% of users to beat up their wives it would be classed as a class A drug. The hooligan has to be punished to maintain the deterant, if the deterant is gone then hard working people will drink themselves into a stupour, hurt themselves and others thinking there are no consequences because they benefit the economy more.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 7:03 ID:8ozVXBvx
>>32
I can predict your quibbles now.
"The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them INTO ADULTHOOD by never letting them learn to look after themselves."*
fix'd
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 10:00 ID:qYlntB+k
>>30
Yes, but people whit money demand higher wages, thus lowering profit margins. Thats why they are closing down the factory and moving it to china you know. They dont move it to fucking sweden. They just sell shit to the swedes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 13:24 ID:LG6slosn
Im terribly sorry for reading what you write and not what you mean.
so.. so far we have indoctrination, supernational government regulating everything very strictly, the parts of the environment that can't be made profitable destroyed.
me saying that the state will let go when the kid has learned how to bike is as retarded as you saying that people will learn how to keep their balance really efficiently from constantly falling over.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 13:58 ID:T9urS6qb
>>36
The quality of workers in China is poorer than the quality of workers in the US. Companies with poor expertise cannot compete in the US so they must move to China where they do not have to purchase expensive sophisticated machinery and employ 1 american technician to ensure it function correctly, they just round up 100s of peasants and sit them next to a conveyor belt.
It is due to it being a fabrication of political ideology. It subsists in failed ideas to be promoted fruitlessly year after year with brick-headed audacity, it is next to impossible for anyone talking to a confused libertarian simpleton to teach that person the simplest of facts. It's made of ironically fascist ideals, engorged with false dichotomies and fueled by logical fallacies.
Age 4ever since newpol is a wasteland with a horrible past! If we sage all retarded threads then the reject threads starts climbing, and thats terrible!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-10 20:46 ID:0bczz3/f
>>44
Well I can't be botherred to decipher the points >>40 is trying to put across until he puts it in clear logical non-dogmatic sentences. So until then there is no reason to assume it is truth.
>>37
This might be my fault, I tend to make misunderstandings and it is difficult for me to determine whether it is because I wasn't specific enough or the prejudgement of person I am discussing with which clouds their ability to see ideas beyond that which has been drilled into them by the media. Sometimes it is because I am just not specific enough, or it is a mixture of both. I will try to be clearer now..
You have the right idea about how a "supernational government" would work. Regulation is of course needed, libertarians just have a problem with how the government throws it's weight around. Most regulations are arbitrary poorly thought out and dubious at best and if a supernational government existed with these levels of corruption it would be an absolute disaster. So I think you overhype the idea of what the supernational government's powers would actually be. It would be more like a cooperation between the laws and police forces of various countries involved in order to resolve issues that affect the entire world. Policies would hinge on a few universal principles in order to improve the law's clarity whilst it continuously monitors the multitude of situations it must cover. These principles would also cut down on loopholes and make it pretty straightforward for different nations to adapt them to their own legal system.
World governments have already decided to spend vast sums of money on renewable energy and cutting down on carbon emissions, however it is turning out to be a farce, just another excuse to create loopholes. A libertarian system would probably see the spending of a similiar amount to begin with and in a more economic manner.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 14:13 ID:lGU8Qio3
Thus far all criticism of libertarianism has been answerred for.
>>52
Thus far all you've done is sage. You have proven nothing and we both know this so there is nothing you can do to escape this fact other than engage in debate.
>>57
Correct, libertarians don't ATTEMPT to avoid facts, they just do it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 22:06 ID:eRSE81UN
Has anyone noticed that no one has actually disproven anything the libertarian has said? Libertarianism is indeed a science, either she can prove herself right or she says "I do not know the answer, we must research this further.".
As a proletariat I'd prefer to be under a libertarian government than a socialist government, that's for sure.
I would just like to give thanks and acknowledge a truly great historical figure who did his
best to help shape the world to what it is today. I'm talking of course about Adolf Hitler.
He looked ahead and saw over-population causing future global problems so he exterminated a
lot of the 'unnecessary' niches of human civilisation (eg: homosexuals gypsies and jews).
With his leadership Germany conquered a huge portion of the world and only failed in the end
because of inconvenient Allied attacks and the wealthy, well equipt but still incompetent USA
helping out. There is so much to say about this truly wonderful man so I think your homework
can be to research him and then you can show your appreciation for all the joy he helped to
bring to the world.
Ok guys this the bumping of old threads are becoming real dumb and stuff. I think we are at /comp/ can not do it so much becos its is real stuopid and dumn. If moar people are being dumnb then i think the site admins will stop annying people getting in here as it are realy dumb and i do'nt like it, ok? So guys you just neede to stop, and look at waht you are doine becauz its not funy and its real dumb and im call the admins to stop stewpid people doing it all the times. It is just dumb. Why you are'nt stoping it now is so anoying and stuped that ill have to contact the site or else it will keepe on hapining and its not good for the comunity on the intrernets becaze its real anoying and dumn and it makes them stewpide and shit, and they wo'nt be happy and its real dumb ok? So my advise is stop spaming shit and making old dumn posts new again at the top of page in \comp\ or ill be geting you in shit and shit.
Thank you for taking my seriously its a real consirn of mine that the intanrets are making dumber and i are going to stoping it rite now! So pleze cume and halp me and togetha we will fix the intrnet and making it good.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 2:06 ID:CTLs6t7i
Libertarianism is infallible, but remember, drugs and alcohol don't count as individual rights because destroying your life affects other people and doesn't fulfill the social contract.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 5:24 ID:RmcHpVyH
Libertarianism is fallible, but remember, wealth and health dont count as individual rights because destroying my life with taxes just so you can live affects me and doesnt fulfill my bank account with precious juice. Also, i suck cox.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 18:25 ID:a6Q2n7GG
In 1987, a young woman named Holly Ackerman was killed in a bizarre cult ritual. Now that you have read her name, she will come to you in the night and pay you a horrifying visit. You MUST do the following:
>It is due to it being a fabrication of political ideology. It subsists in failed ideas to be promoted fruitlessly year after year with brick-headed audacity, it is next to impossible for anyone talking to a confused libertarian simpleton to teach that person the simplest of facts. It's made of ironically fascist ideals, engorged with false dichotomies and fueled by logical fallacies.
Well, looks like it's infallible and it has all been quickly defined in layman's terms, anyone who passed high school can understand why. The likelyhood of someone voting libertarian depends mainly on if you have been exposed to an explanation of what libertarianism is, how much you stand to gain from a fairer society and how much you care about American values.
Average blue collar workers, tax payers and small innovative competitive businesses stand to gain from libertarianism. Welfare leaches, useless state bureaucrats and corporate welfare monopolies stand to lose from libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 8:29 ID:H4wt5aBa
>>82
Im an idiot because ive never heard this definition in layman terms quickly. Care to give itto me fast?
>>84
This has become the typical response from libertarians, whenever they are asked for these scientific definitions of their ideology then one is ridiculed. My heart breaks a little...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:06 ID:7/wSr5X6
I've often wondered myself why libertarianism is infallible. An ideology that lets everyone do what they want, unless it's at the expense of someone else? Motherfuck.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:13 ID:7/wSr5X6
Post 83 -- Basically, libertarians are for government staying out of the bedroom AND your wallet. Pro laissez-faire capitalism, pro laissez-faire social life. But never at the expense of others. Read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell for all the information on laissez-faire capitalism you need. That's the more controversial aspect of libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 15:59 ID:eSzBb2aO
>>86
It's a great political philosophy. Personally, I can't stand the thought of the government passing laws on moral issues. The only problem with it is how easily exploitable it is by big business. In a totally free market, the largest corporations are going to destroy competition, even if the competition is better for the population as a whole. Then the environment is going to go to shit, because people will have little or no sway in pollution regulation. Pardon me sounding like a hippie when I say that the Earth does not simply exist as a cog in an industrial machine, and has value beyond the commercial.
#90, that was a fantastic debunking of Objectivist ideals. That was brilliant; I'm giving up reading her works.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-23 19:18 ID:H4wt5aBa
>>87
Ok, so libertarianism is a science that is easily defined in laymans terms, yet i have to read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell to get a clue? Seems libertarians have problem with the definition of both easy and layman, but why am i not suprised.
Me, im a market sceptic. I believe the hype about how easily the market can solve every problem, as long as we dont tax the richest people in the world is a ad hoc argument to vindicate robberbaron behaviour. I dont even believe the market has the power to inovate, i believe the state is a much better inovator. Examples are satelites, the transistor, the internet etc. That shit could not have been invented by private companies trying to maximize profit (nor small companies), since they are too short sighted to realize the value of such things.
They drastically reduce smog and poisonous gas emissions at the cost of some power and fuel efficiency. What's to stop people from removing them and turning the cities into toxic smoggy hell-holes under a Libertarian system?
After all, it's beneficial to the car owner (better efficiency and power), and car manufacturers can also sell cars cheaper without the expensive catalysts.
Seeing as most people live in the suburbs, they don't foot the bill for the environmental damage on other peoples land causing loss of property value etc...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 7:35 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>85
You're like a child. Can't you participate in a discussion without throwing a hissy fit?. >>84 couldn't possibly have meant that "people should be able to do whatever they want" is the end of it.
Consider 2 people, E and O, E is good at finding solutions, O is good at looking for problems. Every time E presents a premise, O looks for problems with E's premises and problems that still exist.
E = PrEmise, O = PrOblem
E1: People should be able to do whatever they want.
O1: They might harm people.
E2: They should be able to do whatever they want except harm people and their property.
O2: Sometimes harming people is necessary to prevent them from harming others. Some people do not have enough property to prevent harm to themselves which can be prevented, such as poverty. The definition of harm is ambiguous and could be used to abuse the law.
This is the level we're at, retard. Not E1.
Shall we start here or do you want to beat down more strawmen?
libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.
me: so tax them?
libertarian: DSFARGEG
(lol libertarians)
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 8:17 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>97
libertarian: well, since smog and poisenous gasses cause damage to private property, we will fine the people who do not have catalytic converters and give the money to the people in the city.
retard: so tax them?
libertarian:: No, fine them. There is a difference.
retard: LOL I DON'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO UNDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINES AND TAXATION SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASSUME YOU SAID DSFARGEG AND PRETEND I WON ARGUMANT LOL I AM SOCIALIST I AM SUPERIOR TO LEMMINGS WHO ARE FOOLED BY THE RIGHT WING PROPOGANDAA OF THE TOTALITARIAN STATE WE ARE LIVING IN!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 12:19 ID:xM7GZ9Oe
>>98
so mr libertarian scientist, what are the difference of a fine and a tax? If the difference is not in name only there should be some criteria that your scientific analytical powers have detected that you´d like to share with us retards who fail to see the light?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 14:39 ID:pXXkT//q
I dump nuclear waste on the playground at your kid's school, and I only have to pay a fine?
Well, that's just the cost of doing business.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-24 16:06 ID:Kg+iaoYk
>>99
taxes are for everyone, fines are for those who did the crime