Chefelf.com Night Life: Libertarianism - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Libertarianism Could it work?

#31 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 28 September 2007 - 04:55 AM

Scientific research for the most part is a massive money pit that never yiels immediate results. The only way to get corporations or any business to sponser such a thing is the potential to make a profit within 10 years.

Canada is seeing this now with oil sands. Many oil extracting companies and refining plants have shelled out massive doe to universities (namely UofA) to come up with solutions to make the process of harvesting oil from sand a profitable one. They've finally done it and right now a major parcel of land has been carved up between a handful of big oil companies to start extracting the oil via a complicated melting process.

This was a successful investment. Other investments like hydrogen cells have not been so succesful. They still have limited use, and the process of stablizing the hydrogen requires an intensive fossil fuel burning process, such that it negates the purpose of the cell.

But not all scientific research is profitable. State of the art bio research labs that monitor the toxicity levels, in Vancouver lower mainland for example, cost shit loads to build and run. These scientists can go for a few years without publishing any results. Then one day, after lots of money is spent, a graph on an overhead is produced. It shows the contaminent levels in a near by river over the course of say 3 years. The study concludes that toxicity is rising. Who just made a profit off that? Nobody. Without government spending, these important facts would go un-noticed.

Without these facts, guys like david suzuki wouldn't have a branch to stand on. The Canadian building Code has been ammended a lot based on the research of non-profitable organizations that conduct field tests and monitor lakes, wet lands, and the air we breath. Corporations and large firms usually continue to go about whatever it is they're doing until it becomes illegal, and the government decides that.

We'd never know CFC's destroy the ozone layer, we'd be using envriomentally unfriendly chillers, refrigerants, building materials, etc.. hadn't some group of people taken the time to explore these issues.

Corporations can invest, if it's porfitable. ANd heck, they often toss fat checks to small R&D teams, if only to look good. TRust me, I work for a big firm, and the second we sponser something, we have a newsletter out a day latter patting ourselves on the back.

NOTE- I just bumped off civillians last comment, which was kind of long, go read it, bottom of page 2... sorry

This post has been edited by Jordan: 28 September 2007 - 05:00 AM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#32 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 September 2007 - 05:05 PM

Hahahahahahahaha! Cobnat, were you seriously calling for a flat tax system? It only takes a sixth or seventh grade education (assuming you're in a good school system) to do a little bit of math and discover how absurd that is. 10% of the wage of a person who makes 10,000$ a year is A LOT more out of his/her wallet than a person who makes 50,000$ or 100,000$. The reason we have a graduated income tax in the states is because, firstly, the government wants lots of our money, but it's graduated so that it ideally screws the poor over less, and the wealthy can give up buying that second gold-plated yacht every year with their money to support government. I dunno if you meant a flat tax or not, I only noted Civ 2 thinking you meant that, so I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that you've already realized that it doesn't work and isn't fair to anyone who the taxes actually effect to a great degree.

It's also entertaining how you hold people in positions of power in the government to such low regard in regards to corruption, but somehow making these same people out to be competative large to global business owners capable of buying their own police force (and being required to) will become saints under less taxation and when given more economic power.

Minimum wage exists to prevent companies from completely screwing over workers and charging whatever they want. Minimum wage is grossly low in this country in most areas, many fight to keep it low, and if it goes up, prices go up to perpetuate the income gap and take advantage of the situation, not due to any real rise in demand. It's not here to oppress the poor, and nowadays, companies can get around it by hiring illegal immagrants or sending all of their jobs overseas to where they are allowed to slash their wages to ridiculously low amounts. The next time you can't understand your Indian tech support guy when your computer breaks, you can thank free market policies.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#33 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 03:51 PM

Spoon Poetic
Just the SC jackpot alone is something like 23 mil at this point. 100,000 jackpot would never get players. tongue.gif

Cobnat
Where else are people going to put there money? I mean, 100,000$ is still a lot of money for a lot of people, people would pay 10$ if there was a slight chance it could turn into 100,000$.

civilian_number_two
The companies now aren't developing alternatives. And I wasn't talking about fossil fuels. It was CFCs that depleted the Ozone layer (and will do for the next few decades whether we stop using them or not), and it was state-funded scientists that discovered that. Corporate scientists stopped research when they were in danger of corroborating what their opponents were finding. There is no profit in being a whistle blower unless there's somethign to back you up. Lacking any government science, we'll be back to the pollution of the Industrial Revolution. I know you doubt it, and so do a lot of theorists, but I'm describing the history, the checks and balances of a system that is actually in use right now. You are describing a theoretical model for which there is no example.

Cobnat
I am not saying that Libertarianism is some kind of ideal government which will solve the worlds problems, I am saying that it is better then the systems we have now. I mean, companies pollute all they want now anyway, why? Because of loopholes in the laws. Politicians are talking about reducing green house gases by 20% in 15 years, that is too little too late.

civilian_number_two
You even suggest that the country ought to fall apart, break into smaller economies, etc, and that this would be better no matter what.

Cobnat
Better? Depends what you define as better.

civilian_number_two
Where are your historical examples?

Cobnat
Give me a historical example of a government that has not fallen into anarchy because of civil unrest.

civilian_number_two
I'm not going to get into a military history argument here, but none of those is an example of a militia defeated a standing army.

Cobnat
What about the countries that gained independence from France and Spain by force? What about Boer War? Plus what I mentioned before; the countless partisan units operating against Nazi Germany during WW2.

civilian_number_two
Yes. With help from the government. With no help from the government, you suggest that folks would just contribute exactly as much on their own, or possibly more. I doubt it, but I guess that doesn't matter to your argument. And the corporations, which contribute tons, do it for tax breaks, and they'd lose these breaks in your flat tax system. I promise you a lot of those folk would stop contributing and the poor would suffer.

Cobnat
They pay no taxes regardless of donations. Most donations come from entrepreneurs (former businessmen) who either want to do good or whose conscience has gotten the better of them.

civilian_number_two
There was some suggestion somewhere in all that about how the minimum wage was a plot to hurt the poor, that without a minimum wage folks would be able to negotiate thier own salaries, and that those salaries would be better. I don't know how you think that would work. If corporations are itching to pay people what they're worth, and if as you say the corporations pay less tax than their smaller competitors, then why do the corporations always suggest that the minimum wqage should be lowered? And when they can't lower it, why do they pay exactly minimum wage? Maybe I don't understand the suggestion made about minimum wage being devise to hurt the poor, but it seems counterintuitive since the corporations are happy to pay it and would love to pay less, despite not having as you say to pay very high taxes. I'm honestly confused by this.

Cobnat
You didn’t even read what I wrote. Therefore I will not before refuting you. Just for the note; my point is that minimum wages hurt small businesses, not the ‘poor’ as you mentioned.

Jordan
Scientific research for the most part is a massive money pit that never yiels immediate results. The only way to get corporations or any business to sponser such a thing is the potential to make a profit within 10 years.
Canada is seeing this now with oil sands. Many oil extracting companies and refining plants have shelled out massive doe to universities (namely UofA) to come up with solutions to make the process of harvesting oil from sand a profitable one. They've finally done it and right now a major parcel of land has been carved up between a handful of big oil companies to start extracting the oil via a complicated melting process.
This was a successful investment. Other investments like hydrogen cells have not been so succesful. They still have limited use, and the process of stablizing the hydrogen requires an intensive fossil fuel burning process, such that it negates the purpose of the cell.
But not all scientific research is profitable. State of the art bio research labs that monitor the toxicity levels, in Vancouver lower mainland for example, cost shit loads to build and run. These scientists can go for a few years without publishing any results. Then one day, after lots of money is spent, a graph on an overhead is produced. It shows the contaminent levels in a near by river over the course of say 3 years. The study concludes that toxicity is rising. Who just made a profit off that? Nobody. Without government spending, these important facts would go un-noticed.
Without these facts, guys like david suzuki wouldn't have a branch to stand on. The Canadian building Code has been ammended a lot based on the research of non-profitable organizations that conduct field tests and monitor lakes, wet lands, and the air we breath. Corporations and large firms usually continue to go about whatever it is they're doing until it becomes illegal, and the government decides that.
We'd never know CFC's destroy the ozone layer, we'd be using envriomentally unfriendly chillers, refrigerants, building materials, etc.. hadn't some group of people taken the time to explore these issues.
Corporations can invest, if it's porfitable. ANd heck, they often toss fat checks to small R&D teams, if only to look good. TRust me, I work for a big firm, and the second we sponser something, we have a newsletter out a day latter patting ourselves on the back.
NOTE- I just bumped off civillians last comment, which was kind of long, go read it, bottom of page 2... sorry

Cobnat
If we run out of fuel source then we will enter a dark age. If that happens then companies will soon become extinct. The corporates know this, soon they will start investing money into alternative fuels if they haven’t already.

Slade
Hahahahahahahaha! Cobnat, were you seriously calling for a flat tax system? It only takes a sixth or seventh grade education (assuming you're in a good school system) to do a little bit of math and discover how absurd that is. 10% of the wage of a person who makes 10,000$ a year is A LOT more out of his/her wallet than a person who makes 50,000$ or 100,000$. The reason we have a graduated income tax in the states is because, firstly, the government wants lots of our money, but it's graduated so that it ideally screws the poor over less, and the wealthy can give up buying that second gold-plated yacht every year with their money to support government. I dunno if you meant a flat tax or not, I only noted Civ 2 thinking you meant that, so I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that you've already realized that it doesn't work and isn't fair to anyone who the taxes actually effect to a great degree.

Cobnat
I stated that it would be best if the max tax is 10%. Obviously the rich would be taxed more then the poor. I think 1% for every 10,000$ earned would be a good system.

Slade
It's also entertaining how you hold people in positions of power in the government to such low regard in regards to corruption, but somehow making these same people out to be competative large to global business owners capable of buying their own police force (and being required to) will become saints under less taxation and when given more economic power.

Cobnat
What economic powers? The corporates use the government to massively tax small businesses (aka competition) while they pay virtually no taxes at all.

Slade
Minimum wage exists to prevent companies from completely screwing over workers and charging whatever they want. Minimum wage is grossly low in this country in most areas, many fight to keep it low, and if it goes up, prices go up to perpetuate the income gap and take advantage of the situation, not due to any real rise in demand. It's not here to oppress the poor, and nowadays, companies can get around it by hiring illegal immagrants or sending all of their jobs overseas to where they are allowed to slash their wages to ridiculously low amounts. The next time you can't understand your Indian tech support guy when your computer breaks, you can thank free market policies.

Cobnat
You know, it would be nice for you to read what I wrote instead of assuming what I wrote. As for exporting jobs, since that is internationalism, I am against it. Plus if everyone in the country is jobless because they are exporting jobs, how are they going to buy the products?

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 04 October 2007 - 03:56 PM

0

#34 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 03:55 PM

QUOTE
The corporates know this, soon they will start investing money into alternative fuels if they haven’t already.


Well you think this would have happened back during the oil scare during the 70s. It should have been a wake up call to slowly pull out of the middle east since these countries are not our friends and for the most part can be unstable. Instead of funding money into alternative fuel sources back then, the real funding didn't happen for another 20 years.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#35 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 October 2007 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE (Jordan @ Oct 4 2007, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well you think this would have happened back during the oil scare during the 70s. It should have been a wake up call to slowly pull out of the middle east since these countries are not our friends and for the most part can be unstable. Instead of funding money into alternative fuel sources back then, the real funding didn't happen for another 20 years.


You know what happened when oil companies here in Australia decided to up the prices? The country nearly broke out into rioting and people started stealing fuel (thus the oil companies lost money because the gas stations couldn’t pay them) so I don’t think they oil tycoons are as nearsighted as most people think.
0

#36 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 04 October 2007 - 09:29 PM

"minimum wages hurt small businesses, not the ‘poor’ as you mentioned"

Sorry. So you lower the minimum wage, and small businesses can pay people less. What do you suppose the large businesses will do? I suspect they would also pay people less, and be just as capable as always of outcompeting the smaller businesses. I don't see that the big companies have conspired to create a minimum wage in order to destroy small business.

"Nazis... etc"

The Nazis were not defeated by partisan militias. They were defeated by billions of dollars of Allied resistance. Those militias were little more than a nuisance in the scheme of things. That's why I said that none of your examples met the model you proposed.

"They pay no taxes regardless of donations. Most donations come from entrepreneurs (former businessmen) who either want to do good or whose conscience has gotten the better of them."

That's ridonculous. Companies pay taxes like crazy. Those that get to avoid them do so beause of charitable contributions. Many such sompanies have rigged scenarios where their customers give them the money that they are then able to use for tax writeoffs - note how just about every big fast food joint and convenience store has a charity box. Moneys donated by corporations and private citizens pretty much always come with tax receipts.

"I mean, companies pollute all they want now anyway, why? Because of loopholes in the laws. Politicians are talking about reducing green house gases by 20% in 15 years, that is too little too late."

First sentence: no they're not. Why not? Because of the laws. Less gvernment would mean laxer laws, and more loopholes. Again you're advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water. Next bit, about too little, too late: Ok, so I imagine you advocate taking all regulation out of the system, and then magically companies will determine a system for themselves that will be better. They will self-regulate, and when they find something to be world-threatening but profitable, they will publish their studies and curb their habits. In the world of Libertarianism, the rivers will also flow with chocolate.

Again, I agree with balancing the National Budget. I disagree with you quite strongly that there is only one way to do that.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#37 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 05 October 2007 - 08:04 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"minimum wages hurt small businesses, not the ‘poor’ as you mentioned"

Sorry. So you lower the minimum wage, and small businesses can pay people less. What do you suppose the large businesses will do? I suspect they would also pay people less, and be just as capable as always of outcompeting the smaller businesses. I don't see that the big companies have conspired to create a minimum wage in order to destroy small business.


Because big companies can pay minimum wage but if they put a strangle hold on a small business and as a result, that small business starts producing less profits, they would have to pay their workers exactly as much as a big company would, despite making much less.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"Nazis... etc"

The Nazis were not defeated by partisan militias. They were defeated by billions of dollars of Allied resistance. Those militias were little more than a nuisance in the scheme of things. That's why I said that none of your examples met the model you proposed.


You never said “defeat“, you said “stand up against”. A libertarian country would have a standing army, if you remember correctly I never said that the army would be disbanded. A libertarian army would be effective against a standing army because they will be able to hold them down while the war becomes unpopular in the homeland of the standing army. Also if you look at the countries that are currently (almost randomly) invading other countries around the world then you will see that they are surprisingly democratic, thus more likely to have domestic dispute over the war at home.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"They pay no taxes regardless of donations. Most donations come from entrepreneurs (former businessmen) who either want to do good or whose conscience has gotten the better of them."

That's ridonculous. Companies pay taxes like crazy. Those that get to avoid them do so beause of charitable contributions. Many such sompanies have rigged scenarios where their customers give them the money that they are then able to use for tax writeoffs - note how just about every big fast food joint and convenience store has a charity box. Moneys donated by corporations and private citizens pretty much always come with tax receipts.


Well I am sure that there could be tax refunds for a person who donates to charity and pays 10% tax.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 4 2007, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"I mean, companies pollute all they want now anyway, why? Because of loopholes in the laws. Politicians are talking about reducing green house gases by 20% in 15 years, that is too little too late."

First sentence: no they're not. Why not? Because of the laws. Less gvernment would mean laxer laws, and more loopholes. Again you're advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water. Next bit, about too little, too late: Ok, so I imagine you advocate taking all regulation out of the system, and then magically companies will determine a system for themselves that will be better. They will self-regulate, and when they find something to be world-threatening but profitable, they will publish their studies and curb their habits. In the world of Libertarianism, the rivers will also flow with chocolate.


The world is smegged anyway. Whatever governments or companies do in the next 20 years will do nothing to stop the coming of the storm. The only thing that would be able to stop greenhouse gas emissions and make a difference if there was some kind of worldwide catastrophe that would make all power plants shutdown. I mean if you honestly think that governments reducing green house gases by 20% in 15 years is achieving something then you live in fantasy.
0

#38 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 05 October 2007 - 10:42 AM

QUOTE
You never said “defeat“, you said “stand up against”.


... OK. So to make sure I have this in context: The notion that a militia would be effective against a standing army, the notion that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny from one's own armed forces, is fiction. If all a militia can do is stand up against and ultimately not defeat an army, then it's ineffective as Boudicaa. I was pretty sure you were saying that the US with less taxes and a smaller army wouldn't have to worry about foreign armies because it would have its militia, untrained as they would be in use of any military hardware more complicated than a rifle. I disagree.

....

But whatever. You figure thwe world's doomed, so why not just go for a change in government? Rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship? I disagree, but time will tell. However if we're doomed as you say, then I don't see the need to change the government at all.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#39 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 05 October 2007 - 12:20 PM

Big Companies, the manufactueres are not polluting as heavy as they'd like to in N.America. Most manu jobs are outsourced any how to countries that don't have heavy fines for pollution, it's part of the reason why it's cheaper to get the Chinese to do stuff for us.

There are many special interest groups here in Canada that have made a difference in the way industry is able go about running it's process. They may not be as effective as, say green peace would like, but without it, if corporations had their way (make the shareholders money) they'd probably turn a blind eye many important issues.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#40 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 October 2007 - 09:58 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 5 2007, 07:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... OK. So to make sure I have this in context: The notion that a militia would be effective against a standing army, the notion that the right to bear arms is a defence against tyranny from one's own armed forces, is fiction. If all a militia can do is stand up against and ultimately not defeat an army, then it's ineffective as Boudicaa. I was pretty sure you were saying that the US with less taxes and a smaller army wouldn't have to worry about foreign armies because it would have its militia, untrained as they would be in use of any military hardware more complicated than a rifle. I disagree.


Untrained? They would have trained on their own in their own time. As for the complicated hardware, perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote about the standing army.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 5 2007, 07:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But whatever. You figure thwe world's doomed, so why not just go for a change in government? Rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship? I disagree, but time will tell. However if we're doomed as you say, then I don't see the need to change the government at all.


I said that there is no point to reduce greenhouse gases because if we are to believe Gore and the rest of the doomsayers, the ice age will be in less time then it will take to reduce greenhouse gases by 20%.

QUOTE (Jordan @ Oct 5 2007, 09:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Big Companies, the manufactueres are not polluting as heavy as they'd like to in N.America. Most manu jobs are outsourced any how to countries that don't have heavy fines for pollution, it's part of the reason why it's cheaper to get the Chinese to do stuff for us.


(I think I should have mentioned this earlier)

If a corporation is polluting then they are probably hurting the local population. If this is the case then the government would intervene on behalf of the locals. If the corporation is using its security forces to hurt people then the government would intervene on behalf of the people.

QUOTE (Jordan @ Oct 5 2007, 09:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There are many special interest groups here in Canada that have made a difference in the way industry is able go about running it's process. They may not be as effective as, say green peace would like, but without it, if corporations had their way (make the shareholders money) they'd probably turn a blind eye many important issues.


I am sure that a corporation wouldn’t want to be taken to court by the government on behalf of the people for publicity purposes. In the end everything is controlled by public opinion, including the actions taken by corporations.
0

#41 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 11 October 2007 - 03:59 AM

QUOTE (Cobnat @ Oct 10 2007, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Untrained? They would have trained on their own in their own time. As for the complicated hardware, perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote about the standing army.

"Untrained in anything more complicated than a rifle" doesn't mean "untrained," but it does mean you'll get your ass kicked by a real army. Rome, Boudicaa: war is won with discipline and technology. I don't think you'll convince me that any group of weekend warriors would ever be as effective as a proper army. I can't think of any examples.

If you're saying the proper army will be less funded and tarined poorly, then you're advocating giving America up to its enemies. Sure, why not, since you believe evrything Al Gore has to say about climate change and since you advocate a massive change in governemtn rather than simply lowered deficit spending, on a ccount of we're all doomed no matter what we do.

Remind me again how any of the nihilism you're spouting here works as a defense of the principles of Libertarianism?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#42 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 11 October 2007 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 11 2007, 12:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"Untrained in anything more complicated than a rifle" doesn't mean "untrained," but it does mean you'll get your ass kicked by a real army. Rome, Boudicaa: war is won with discipline and technology. I don't think you'll convince me that any group of weekend warriors would ever be as effective as a proper army. I can't think of any examples.


I am thinking of a small standing army combined with a large drafted army. There are plenty of examples, I cant be bothered to repeat myself over and over again, read my previous posts, this part of the argument is over.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 11 2007, 12:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you're saying the proper army will be less funded and tarined poorly, then you're advocating giving America up to its enemies. Sure, why not, since you believe evrything Al Gore has to say about climate change and since you advocate a massive change in governemtn rather than simply lowered deficit spending, on a ccount of we're all doomed no matter what we do.


Actually, if you bothered to read/remember my previous posts then you would know that I am a moderate that believes that a libertarian government should be in place only after considerable actions have been taken to insure that economic and social wreck does not ensure after the implementation. I thought we were debating theories but obviously you are not.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 11 2007, 12:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Remind me again how any of the nihilism you're spouting here works as a defense of the principles of Libertarianism?


Whatever government you advocate for will only lead to abuse of power. With less power to abuse, the people doing the abusing will be left with fewer powers. That is the main purpose of libertarianism is to limit the power of those who will no doubt abuse the system while at the same time give more power to those who are usually abused by the system. I cant understand why you think you have won this argument.
0

#43 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 11 October 2007 - 07:56 PM

Well, with less government, the same power will be abused by different people, in this case the corporations. Again, corporate abuse of workforces with government complicity (or failure to act) is historically precedented. You're advocating less government and fewer laws limiting corporations. You then say that corporations will act better either on their own, or beause the limited government will make sure that they do. There is no precedent for any of the stuff you're suggesting.

Also, without public ownership of land, there would be no public parks in civilised areas. I know you think that's wrong, and have said so, but please tell me of the privately-managed parks-for-profit in your experience. I like parks, so I say Libertarianism is bad. I would like less government spending, but don't think a flat tax and an elimination of all economic controls is necessary for that.

We have created a society. As a created entity, it needs to have some parameters imposed on it. If you just have everyone do as they will, and there is no law, then fine. I don't think that'd work, but some others do. Your suggestion that business can run society so long as we tax everyone just enough to protect business is insane. The police and the military would be used up just policing economic crime and breaking up the occasional labour dispute. And while you suggest there's no point in bothering anyway, I think medical research, as well as a load of pure scientific research is good (again, please read up on economies of scale before suggesting that smaller organizations or the polics force could do this). I think restrictions on pollution are a positive thing for a society.

And while you're fixated on everyone paying less taxes, it won't be any different when everyone also makes less money, apart from the CEOs and the odd entertainment celebrity. In exchange for this lowered numerical cost you will be giving up all social security and you will have no way to pay for your chemotherapy. Everything else in your life will be the same: you'll have the same car, house, whatever; you'll just have a shorter expected life span and nowhere to sit down in public unless you buy something. Huzzah!
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#44 User is offline   Cobnat Icon

  • Viva Phillippena Radio!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,631
  • Joined: 25-December 05
  • Location:I am in atheist heaven.
  • Interests:Body Disposal.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 12 October 2007 - 02:53 AM

How can people abuse the system more if there is less of a system to abuse?

(I will respond to the rest when I have time)
0

#45 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 12 October 2007 - 02:45 PM

Regulated or not, there will always be a system. Our society has evolved to what it is through the efforts of its members. You're advocating throwing away loads of government control in favour of allowing others to control those same elements. You haven't shown me that new masters would be gentler, smarter or more responsible than the ones we have now.

I'd like to pay less tax. I paid more in tax last year than you earned. But at the same time, my father got his triple bypass and my sister's epilepsy was diagnosed correctly and she was given appropriate attention for it. So I pay my taxes and ask my government to manage its money better. But I don't mind the roads and the armies and the public parks and the basic scientific research and the subsidised university education and the medical research and the health care and the space program which while seemingly crazy allowed us to find the whole in the ozone layer so we could ban CFCs.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size