What's wrong with you? You access a government designed technology using govt regulated computer parts, powered with regulated and possibly subsidized energy, in you house made according to govt safety regulations and probably are sipping on a beverage regulated by the road,hassles,or fda. I'm not a linerrarian because I actually understand how the world works.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-13 8:34
>>2
1: Strawman fallacies, libertarians don't want most of those things. If regulations serve justice enforcement purposes then they're fine, libertarians believe that is the purpose of the state.
2: Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, just because the state funded one tiny technology decades ago doesn't mean that everything which uses that technology depends on the state, chances are the private sector would have developed it a year later anyway.
3: Subsidies do not come out of thin air and market forces will simply react to the changes, because people are paying more tax or their businesses cannot afford to pay them higher wages they won't be able to use more energy anyway in the long term, all polices like this accomplish is more pork spending, bureaucracy, kickbacks and loss of economic freedom for ordinary people.
>>3
Every time a corporation was involved in making something big (like the Rand Corporation with ARPANET (which later became the Internet) it involved the government facilitating that (DARPA). There is no way a corporation just by itself with R&D could have had the vision to create the foundations that paved the way for the Internet what we have now (I'm not saying the private sector doesn't at least deserve a pat on the back). The fact that developing packet switching networks because we were pretty close to having a nuclear holocaust with the former Soviet Union seems to miss the minds of libertarians.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 1:06
>>2
>2011
>Still believes that libertarians want anarchy rather than a government that isn't completely out of control.
>Either still wants a government that is completely out of control, or is too ignorant to realize that it is so.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 3:49
yes, vote Ron Paul for president and kill niggers
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 6:53
Because I believe people need to be told what to do.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 14:06
>>3
>If regulations serve justice enforcement purposes then they're fine, libertarians believe that is the purpose of the state.
um no. All regulations are bad, if regulations served a purpose then they would be done by the free market.
>>4
Liberal statist spotted. Go be a willing slave somewhere else.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 18:36
>>5
>2011
>Still using straw man (where did I use the word anarchy or pretend that libertarians don't want govt to enforce the law? Oh right I didn't)
>Either has no argument or is in actual fact mentally challenged
You may not want safety regulations since you have them already but I'm sure that if they were removed you would change your tune. Like having exits in every building? Fire alarms? Cars that don't topple over by design? Seat belts? Etc? To say you wouldn't want safety regulations is just absurd.
Using latin words also doesn't make your argument any more legitimate. The fact is that the government directly funded research for much of the technology we make use of today, including the internet. You're argument is essentially this : "Govt may have made the internet but anyone could have done that" which is false, the government has much more investment power than any single corporation and no corporation was funding on it's own similar technology, or in other words your argument is the assumption that the private sector would have done it anyways regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest this.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 18:37
>>8
Anarcho-capitalist spotted, go be a tyrannical dickhead somewhere else.
Ad hominem attacks are both fun and easy!
Too bad they don't accomplish a single thing.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 19:43
Why the fuck aren't you Libertarian yet?
Because I'm not 19.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 23:11
>>10
>Statist calling an anti statist tyrannical
LOLOLOLOL
>>11
Hmm the same could be said about liberals/most leftist ideologies that are in the current high school/college indoctrination camps.
I don't know why so many kids fall for the Marxist/Communist crap, ITS COOL BEING A REBEL RIGHT GUISE FUCK CAPITALISM LETS JUST GO PROTEST WITH OUR HOT TOPIC CLOTHES AND THEN GO GET SOME COFFEE AT STARBUCKS HERP DERP.
a govt monopoly throwing money at things =/= entrepreneurs making the investment work the way it does now.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-14 23:40
>>12
It's easy. They see the government as a tool to impose what they want. They want mommy and daddy to take care of them forever and force everyone to agree with them.
Working class person who holds down to jobs to make a simple living here. I'm okay with some moderate libertarian beliefs, but overly paranoid libertarians can go fuck themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-15 9:57
>>12
An anarchist pretending he doesn't support tyranny
LOLOLOLOLOL
because i'm not a psychotic, self absorbed narcissist
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-16 22:32
>>23 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI43mAFjOM8
look up "myth of the robber barons" >>24
example? >>25
"When someone wishes to be so altruistic that they say, “I think there should be universal healthcare” - that’s not “just their opinion”. This person wants you to have your options restricted, and have you be forced to pay for it. Now if you believe some people ought to be forced to pay for things because that will make things better, that’s a position to be presented and defended. But it is NOT “just an opinion” to be casually bandied about as most collectivists may believe.
An Act of State is An Act of War"
Were psychotic because we don't wish to impose our will on others?
>>26 Now if you believe some people ought to be forced to pay for things because that will make things better, that’s a position to be presented and defended.
Then, by that logic, there should be nothing wrong with universal health care, and an absolute right to education (including university level education). Having shitty for-profit health care, and shitty for-profit expensive education are the antithesis to having a fulfilling life, and not having access to both are fundamentally harmful to society.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 17:31
>>27 Then, by that logic, there should be nothing wrong with universal health care
IF, IF you can defend it, you haven't shown why it would work, and even if it would if there is at least 1 person who disagrees with it it can never be "universal" and cant implement it without it being imposed on another.
And i seriously doubt that's going to happen.
Having shitty for-profit health care, and shitty for-profit expensive education
You think even in your "universal health care utopia" people wont work for profit even if the profit is "feeling good"? People do things for profit all the time, right now you are trying to convince me of universal health care so you can profit from it by having one more person support it. Now you can say that everyone profits from it but nevertheless you profit from it.
This is why i think people that loathe profit are stupid, they never define "profit" and if they do why is their definition any different/better than mine?
Now if you desired health-care for everyone in a society/community that EVERYONE supports it then there is no problem since everyone there is willing to pay for it, but the problem begins when people say "universal" and wish for people who don't want in to pay for it.
and not having access to both are fundamentally harmful to society.
[citation needed]
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 19:09
>>28
You seem to have randomly redefined what "universal health care" means. It means everyone receives the same coverage regardless of what they can pay, not that everyone agrees that it's the best system.
loathe profit
Who the fuck loathes profit?
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 19:20
Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 19:41
Libertarianism is infallible.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 19:59
>>29 You seem to have randomly redefined what "universal health care" means. It means everyone receives the same coverage regardless of what they can pay, not that everyone agrees that it's the best system. EVERYONE
That's still your preference there would still be health-care systems that will give different types of care depending on how much you pay. Would you shut these places down because they don't adhere to your idea that EVERYONE should receive the same coverage?
If you take away the different types of coverage then there is no incentive to pay anything above the minimum cost to receive the healthcare that you would if you payed regularly which would cause funding problems for the institution.
Who the fuck loathes profit?
People who correlate that systems run on profit are shit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 20:00
>>30
because the rich TOTALLY LOVE free markets right?
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 20:37
>>28 Now if you desired health-care for everyone in a society/community that EVERYONE supports it then there is no problem since everyone there is willing to pay for it, but the problem begins when people say "universal" and wish for people who don't want in to pay for it.
Ignoring your redefined definition of what "universal health care" is, throughout history, nearly every time progress was made in a particular instance, there was always fervent opposition to it. The introduction of Social Security is one good example. Opponents, foaming at the mouth, would claim all all sorts of wrongs and ills using egregious fallacies. Today, a huge majority of people support Social Security because they realize the good it does for society.
I support government intervention, only, and if only, it benefits society. DHS, National Security and others pretend to benefit society, but for nefarious reasons, do not. I don't support that kind of intervention.
and not having access to both are fundamentally harmful to society.[citation needed]
It should be obvious. The United States lags and lacks behind other Western World nations in education. We're at number 22 in rank last I checked, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that education isn't as valued both culturally, institutionally, and politically these days. Naturally, having terribly unfunded and under subsidized education causes a long-term brain drain for the country. This is incredibly harmful to society, and will only get worse until those who deny it finally admit it and publicly address it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 20:38
>>32 People who correlate that systems run on profit are shit.
Nobody made that correlation. It's just that some systems are shit when they're run for profit.
Would you shut these places down because they don't adhere to your idea that EVERYONE should receive the same coverage?
You mean shut down health care facilities for taking payment that isn't from a hypothetical government program? I don't think anyone wants that.
Name:
322011-08-17 20:53
>>35 Nobody made that correlation. It's just that some systems are shit when they're run for profit.
I agree. I have no problem with profit for other things that aren't directly related to a person's health. But when you have profit-run entities that directly affect people's well-being and survivability, people do things that they wouldn't normally do under a not-for-profit health care system.
People don't even have to be "money hungry" or "evil", it's an institutional problem that correlates with the fact that profit is the motive, and not being specifically aimed at looking out for the welfare of the public's health in and of itself.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 23:05
>>34 Today, a huge majority of people support Social Security because they realize the good it does for society. good
That doesn't mean everyone supports it and as long as they are forced to pay for it it is theft.
I support government intervention, only, and if only, it benefits society. DHS, National Security and others pretend to benefit society, but for nefarious reasons, do not. I don't support that kind of intervention.
With that logic you can almost justify all government action as benefiting society the problem is when people disagree with what your preferences are and you are in the majority. In this system the majority can always impose their will on the minority (democracy). You might say the constitution is supposed to prevent that but the majority control even that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_DBy34NRlY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoGLqKRPRt0
It should be obvious. The United States lags and lacks behind other Western World nations in education. We're at number 22 in rank last I checked, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that education isn't as valued both culturally, institutionally, and politically these days. Naturally, having terribly unfunded and under subsidized education causes a long-term brain drain for the country. This is incredibly harmful to society, and will only get worse until those who deny it finally admit it and publicly address it.
Only problem with your theory is that we don't truly have a free market in the US and many institutions are government funded which lowers the incentive for good results and instead only give the minimum requirement of work. (EX:Teachers unions)
>>36 I agree. I have no problem with profit for other things that aren't directly related to a person's health. But when you have profit-run entities that directly affect people's well-being and survivability, people do things that they wouldn't normally do under a not-for-profit health care system.
Well everyone doesn't value health like you do, so why is your value more important than someone elses? People don't even have to be "money hungry" or "evil", it's an institutional problem that correlates with the fact that profit is the motive, and not being specifically aimed at looking out for the welfare of the public's health in and of itself.
explain
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-17 23:21
Libertarianism is just a way for rich people to get away with evil shit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 0:54
>>37 With that logic you can almost justify all government action as benefiting society
I wouldn't say that, because I don't think in black and white like libertarians do. There are many shades of gray, and things are a lot more interconnected than you realize. It's not all government regulation = bad, free market = perfect, and government regulation = perfect, free market = never, ever good. It's not even so much as a balance rather than where free markets work good, and where government regulation is needed. More often than not, government regulation is needed than not. the problem is when people disagree with what your preferences are and you are in the majority. In this system the majority can always impose their will on the minority (democracy). You might say the constitution is supposed to prevent that but the majority control even that.
Checks and balances. They're there for a reason, to protect people from their duly elected morons, and from themselves. For fuck's sake, to even amend the constitution, you need 3/4th of the state legislatures and Congress to pass. There's so much overhead, that I wouldn't even worry about it. Are you sure we're talking about the same constitution here? Have you even read it? Only problem with your theory is that we don't truly have a free market in the US and many institutions are government funded which lowers the incentive for good results and instead only give the minimum requirement of work. (EX:Teachers unions)
Free market? Neither do most Western countries. EU member states are collectively regulated tighter than the US is, both from EU governance itself, and from its constituent governments. Finland, for example, has free full university education, and they consistently rank within the top 5 in the world for education excellence. Their secondary education is funded through the regional governments, and the national government, it's not a free market per the common definition among American libertarians. How would you then explain this correlation? It would seem that if education is properly and efficiently subsidized, education excellence will increase dramatically. Well everyone doesn't value health like you do, so why is your value more important than someone elses?
Realistically, no. But, of course, they should. Not only for the fact that doing so makes it less expensive for everyone else, but also for the fact that they'll be living much more fulfilling lives. Ignoring things like genetics, because for some, no matter how healthy you try to remain, there are genetic factors that affect health, and you can never really get rid of those. That doesn't mean that treatment for them should be at a charge that only a few can afford. People don't even have to be "money hungry" or "evil", it's an institutional problem that correlates with the fact that profit is the motive, and not being specifically aimed at looking out for the welfare of the public's health in and of itself.explain
Under the current for-profit institution, people will make stark rationalizations based on arbitrary situations like patients being denied insurance coverage for "pre-existing conditions", patients being denied certain treatments because the expense to administer them is more than what the patient (or their insurance) can afford to dish out, etc. It's simply the profit motive, not people's evil intent that makes health care such a mediocre, horribly over-priced sector. You cannot ever purge health care of these problems even in principle, unless you completely expunge it as a for-profit enterprise. However, if you still insist on having private health care, even countries that have universal health care also have private health care as well. If you can afford the private health care for yourself, by all means, knock yourself out.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 2:18
Most critics don't know or understand libertarianism let alone basic economics and government.
lol it feels good pretending to be elite and pretending to know some sort of "esoteric" knowledge and "explanations" for every problem. "OH YOU'RE COMPLAINING YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS! IT'S QUITE COMPLICATED". lol, the economy doesn't fucking work. it's a charade.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 17:44
>>40
Lol, when all else fails in an argument simply say the other party doesn't understand.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 20:30
If you don't respect Libertarianism, you still can not defend your support of a nanny government in its place.
Those are hypocritical comments. It's also easy to laugh off someone if they say you don't get it, especially when you really don't get it.
When someone legitimately tries to make point that is supposed to critique some libertarian position, it completely misunderstands it. They then claim the exact thing as you two say, or opponents argue the view of libertarianism is "too simplistic" "not reality" etc.
>>44 or opponents argue the view of libertarianism is "too simplistic" "not reality" etc.
That's because it's true. Every time someone make a good argument against libertarianism, the libertarian says something to the effect of "oh, he just doesn't fully get libertarianism" and they don't even attempt to refute any of the points written in the critique. This happens like clockwork. If you're not willing to refute any of those points, then it's not so much the person critiquing libertarianism, but possibly that arguments for libertarianism don't hold up to close scrutiny.
I am not a libertarian because I am not a teenager anymore and see their ridiculous oversimplifications, irrational disdain for the public sector and equally irrational worship of the market as the rubbish it is. A libertarian state would descend into either full-on anarchy or become a dictatorship within a year.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-19 13:41
If healthcare is regulated by the govt. Then there will have to be some sort of blanket code established that lays out the req. for what each citizen must receive. If this is true then it becomes harmful for companies to innovate or offer new techniques, procedures, or services. Companies will only offer what is required. There is no incentive to innovate.
Under the current system Government and the Private Sector fund research through universities which helps drive innovation. For Profit companies also fund R&D and develop medical equipment, drugs, procedures, ect.
If you subsidize health care then you will take away a large chunk of the money being used for development. Because as stated before providers will only provide what they are required to.
Also taking money in the form of taxes and using it for things that do not directly affect you ie defense, infastructure ect. IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS. Why should the money i earn be forcibly taken from me and given to others.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-19 13:46
>>47
What a coincidence, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat because I'm not a teenager anymore and fail to see the difference between the two, irrational disdain to the public sector, and equally irrational worship of Hollywood as the rubbish it is. We descended into a corporate police state within a year under Bush, and in that same time frame Obama made it even worse.
>>48 If healthcare is regulated by the govt. Then there will have to be some sort of blanket code established that lays out the req. for what each citizen must receive. If this is true then it becomes harmful for companies to innovate or offer new techniques, procedures, or services. Companies will only offer what is required. There is no incentive to innovate.
Under the current system Government and the Private Sector fund research through universities which helps drive innovation. For Profit companies also fund R&D and develop medical equipment, drugs, procedures, ect.
If you subsidize health care then you will take away a large chunk of the money being used for development. Because as stated before providers will only provide what they are required to.
This is still a facet of how things are done with countries that have universal, fully subsidized health care. Innovation is still done by a combination of R&D, academia, and the government, which also facilitates the other two. Even if health care is completely non-profit, universities still have their own R&D departments, and despite what libertarians think otherwise, governments too.
>>50
Lets assume you really were libertarian and understand most basic aspects of it accurately as possible. So then in comparison, what position of a political philosophy that you associate yourself with now, was a main factor that changed your thinking? There must have been at least one issue from the point of a liberal, conservative, etc, that converted you.
I prefer the term "capitalawesome". Without the safeguards of capitalism these corporations would simply be run more directly by the state, and no, that's not a good thing even if they are democratically elected. I don't see why people drag welfare and utilities into this anyway, very few tax dollars actually find their way into the pockets of the working class or public works, more might actually reach the poor if it were left in the hands of the top 0.00001% super ultra rich, anyway most of it is pork spending on suspicious schemes like social security.
What "safeguards"? In a free market anything can happen. There are no written rules or regulations, there are phony formulas though which corporations are "expected" to follow. How exactly do you enforce the "rules of the market" if the state has no role and don't give this "it enforces itself bullshit". We all know that's a lie.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 19:05
>>63 How exactly do you enforce the "rules of the market" if the state has no role and don't give this "it enforces itself bullshit". We all know that's a lie.
There are no rules, thats the point.
Competition would be able to limit the power of most corporations more than the state ever has, at least if you buy out a small company as a giant corporation there will just be another small company there ready to take its place whereas with the state you only have to bribe a few senators and you have power for a long time.
Don't you get it? If you control all the resources and the means of production (like these monopolies do), no competition will ever form.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 20:10
>>65 Don't you get it? If you control all the resources and the means of production (like these monopolies do)
I doubt that no competition will ever form.
There will always be competition, having a state makes it harder for competition to form.
>>65
How can anyone do that? Control all the resources and the means of production? There are natural limits on what people can control, at least through accidents, fraud, and the like.
That's why tribal societies are so prone to potlatch and the like, using internal gifting and sharing rituals. The tribe's chief really only has status, not real power. So he can not actually control all those resources himself. So he has to pretend that he does, as long as he gifts or even destroys those resources in a social ritual.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 22:48
AND WITH ONE LINK, ALL LIBERTURDIANS WAKE UP TO THEIR STUPIDITY
>>68 >>70
You obviously don't understand what a monopoly is, just because you're left with no other choice but to use the monopoly doesn't mean it's the only choice.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 1:36
>>68 >>70
Let me rephrase, it doesn't mean there are no alternatives.
For instance if there is a monopoly on who is allowed to operate railroads and the owners start charging exorbitant prices for freight you can pass anti-trust laws to break up the monopoly and force them to compete.
And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system.
Why does the FCC have a monopoly on providing organization and coherence to telecommunications? If another organization can provide this service why are they banned from operating? Because the FCC should be given special priveleges even though they provide an inferior service?
Libertarians have no understanding of law or civilization.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 15:19
>>74 ignore everything that's been said The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
I know you will continue to ignore facts, I'm just making it more obvious.
Name:
Ancapist2011-08-27 16:11
So is libertarianism growing, or is what I'm seeing just a growth in the "liberty" movement associated with Ron Paul's popularity?
Name:
Ancapist2011-08-27 16:15
>>75
Also, fucking this. I was struggling to put it in words. You did it perfectly. The "durr libertarians use roads and the internet, so that makes libertarianism invalid" agrument is just....just....I'm trying to find words for it.....buttfuckingatuisticreatrded
99% of the public get ALL of their information from Fox News. You guys are wasting your time. Looks like they want Rick Perry to win, therefore, HE WINS! Doesn't matter what you say to the average person, the media has already formed their opinion for them. Who knows, next week they might decide on a new puppet they want in office, but they are in control, they don't like Ron Paul, and they always win.
The people get the government they deserve
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 19:53
Ron Paul's popularity? Not likely.
>99% of the public get ALL of their information from Fox News.
Libertarianism supports monopolies though and monopolies are more easier to form in an "anarcho-free market" situation.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 22:40
Do you not understand what happens without government regulation? Sure, governance isn't always perfect, but corporations are run by the same thing: people. The only difference is that governments can (not always, but can) be held accountable to the people, while corporations are only accountable to their shareholders.
Two simple examples of lack of regulation:
1) The sad state of the meat industry in the United States before the publishing of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
2) The 2008 Recession, which was caused by the fall of the unregulated derivatives market, and banks giving out risky loans to people who didn't qualify.
The natural state of capitalism is ups and downs. Unregulated capitalism has a history of WILD ups and downs. I'm not a Marx-loving anarcho-syndicalist here, just an adult that realizes the actual course of history. I was once a libertarian, too, as the ideas are attractive at first, but a thorough study of history shows that unregulated capitalism is accountable to no one, and causes only harm. If you can't accept this, you have more studying to do.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 23:00
Ideally, regulation should be, "don't do whatever physically harms the general population." Instead, much of it these days is "don't do whatever the government or highest bidder doesn't like."
The 2008 Recession, which was caused by the fall of the unregulated derivatives market, and banks giving out risky loans to people who didn't qualify.
If you still think more regulation is needed on top of the 10k commandments we have then you are a fucking lost cause. How many more regulations is it going to take for you to finally say HEY MAYBE REGULATIONS THAT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT DONT ACTUALLY WORK...
The natural state of capitalism is ups and downs. Unregulated capitalism has a history of WILD ups and downs. I'm not a Marx-loving anarcho-syndicalist here, just an adult that realizes the actual course of history. I was once a libertarian, too, as the ideas are attractive at first, but a thorough study of history shows that unregulated capitalism is accountable to no one, and causes only harm. If you can't accept this, you have more studying to do.
If you dont understand the difference between corporatism and true capitalism then i hardly think you could call yourself a libretarian and would ask you to go back to "studying".
>>84 Actually he can't go somewhere else.
This is what lazy people think.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-28 20:37
Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism.
Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism.
The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
>>85
No true libertarian supports government monopolies on law, police or defense.
Further, libertarian ideology falls straight on it's fucking face when it comes to racial dynamics.
White man builds a civilization, libertarian promotes "free movement of labor" and then the civilization dies under the endless swarm of lesser races.