[Slade]

You know what's REALLY scary? The same guy who used his economic power to enforce lead additives in gasoline also pushed for the use of CFCs.

Edit: Cobnat: Yes, there will be less chance for the government to be corrupt, but the power will just be shifted into the hands of the corporations and they will be corrupt and abuse power instead of the government. It doesn't solve the problem, only a symptom...

This post has been edited by Slade: 12 October 2007 - 06:48 PM

[Cobnat]

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.

Baseless speculation, where is your proof that this is a sure thing to happen? The corporates are uncontrolled as we speak because the government and the system is corrupt. They use and abuse the system and swallow our tax dollars.

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!

Well I don’t sit in public (unless you count school or work) so I don’t really care. Anyway, if there is a demand then there will be someone there to capitalize on it, thus the masses will be fed, one way or another. If the people want public parks outside their doorsteps then they will come together and buy the park.

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 am for evening out the power between the government and the people.

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’ve already state that I am not a ‘pure’ libertarian. I am for less government spending in the military and other things that give no benefit to me whatsoever. The way I believe a private hospital or school would work is like a smaller government, I am sure that that would be the case, like medicare cards but also for schools. Though concerning healthcare, ask yourself how many people will die this year because there is not enough organ donors (reason why organ donations should be financed). In the end you simply cannot make everyone happy. If the people want healthcare then the will organize their own with or without a corporate sponsor; we have socially evolved since the middle ages methinks. Especially since most people now can read and aren’t superstitious fanatics.

Edit: Cobnat: Yes, there will be less chance for the government to be corrupt, but the power will just be shifted into the hands of the corporations and they will be corrupt and abuse power instead of the government. It doesn't solve the problem, only a symptom...

I already explained how the corporates use taxes to keep small businesses out of business. The corporate structure is built into the system, if there is less of a system then the corporates would have less power. Since they are the prime abusers of the system.

[civilian_number_two]

People will band together and buy parks? They'll build and fund hospitals, and peform medical research? You have just described social porojects, my friend. When folks set these things up, they will, to curtail disagreement, need to establish governing boards to work with the pooled wealth. You're describing how government evolved in the first place. You're not actually describing libertarianism. Why remove the existing system if you only advocate replacing it with another version of the same thing?

[Cobnat]

People will band together and buy parks? They'll build and fund hospitals, and peform medical research? You have just described social porojects, my friend. When folks set these things up, they will, to curtail disagreement, need to establish governing boards to work with the pooled wealth. You're describing how government evolved in the first place. You're not actually describing libertarianism. Why remove the existing system if you only advocate replacing it with another version of the same thing?

I want people to live in a society that allows them to choose what kind of government they want, I don’t want any system enforced onto the people. That is one of the libertarian ideals.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ- Slade mentioned this topic to me. I thought it was a debate on the libertarian or other third parties. I had no idea you were dueling with Ayn Cobnand singlehandedly. My entre:

Quote

Well I am sure that there will be a wealthy businessman with a big heart, like Bill Gates. Those who do not have families will rely on donations. News keeps leaking out here in Australia about government owned/funded homes being a literal death factory for the unfortunate anyways, where the owners keep government funds and don’t spend anything on the mentally ill or enfeebled. So I have to say that it is probably best that it is not government funded at all and it really solely on donations. People arent as cold hearted as you think.

So basically the poor will have to sacrifice all dignity and beg in the streets? Hey, wait, there's a way to keep your dignity and still live on the streets. Basically anyone who's poor and doesnt feel like asking for donations will just take their donations.

Quote

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.

Without a maximum number of hours they can be told to work, how will people have time to train for a militia unless for a higher goal. Are these militias to become police forces or defense apparati of the community or a company? It sounds like you're going into cooperative commune territory without noting that large corporations have no place in such a system. Here's a basic explanation of a cooperative commune:

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable"

Quote

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.

Sometimes, my parents told me not to write on the walls or to go to bed on time, and if I disobeyed they taxed my allowance. If my parents were gone I wouldnt get my allowance taxed and would, by virtue of not being taxed, no longer want to write on the walls or stay up late. I would however decide that it was time to play with those nifty dials on the oven and check out my dad's gun.

[quote]please tell me of the privately-managed parks-for-profit in your experience.[quote]

I think he's saying that people will own them almost like fair grounds, and then sublet them to vendors and such. So those trees you're enjoying will be cut down for the firewood vendor, and those ducks you're feeding will be harvested for the rotisserrie duck vendor, and that open grass your kids are playing soccer on will become a tee shirt sales booth. But, you'll still have a park in the sense that there is a more or less open area and it is called a park and you can go there. So it will be a mall... but still a park because..............

BECAUSE OF TEN PERCENT TAXES! SHUT UP CIV!

Quote

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

This makes perfect sense. I used to pick on this kid until his arms fell off and he couldnt fight back anymore. After that there was less of him to abuse so I stopped picking on him seeing as how he couldnt fight back. Yes.

Quote

People will band together and buy parks? They'll build and fund hospitals, and peform medical research? You have just described social porojects, my friend. When folks set these things up, they will, to curtail disagreement, need to establish governing boards to work with the pooled wealth. You're describing how government evolved in the first place. You're not actually describing libertarianism. Why remove the existing system if you only advocate replacing it with another version of the same thing?

Hey, Civ, your sister is dying of epilepsy and my father just went into diabetic shock since he cant afford his medication. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That's right, it's time to BUY US A PARK, BIATCH!

Also the idea that in order for libertarianism to work people will have to band together and form communes or soviets is pretty much what already happened:

Industrial Europe, 1800s:

Ruling class: Woohoo! No regulation. Let's open an orphanage/factory and have the orphans make neat stuff we can sell, then take up donations for said orphans, and feed them on the table scraps bought with the sale of their manufactured goods and the donations that we dont decide to keep.

Proletariat: Hey, could you, like, ya know... Pay us more than a penny a day?

Orphans: Hey, maybe someone should regulate these people, like, say, a strong central government?

Orphans and Proletariat: Hey, what if we formed groups called communes and regulate them ourselves?

Communists: We'll regulate them. Regulate them with a GUN!

Government: Holy fuck, if we don't start regulating these jackasses and form a strong central government, the communists might regulate us next. Let's become a welfare state so they dont shoot us!

So basically Cobnat you're assuming that, rather than this affect which was observed, I dunno... Everywhere? What will happen is that the corporations will have the good sense to regulate themselves in response to the threat of the rising labor movement? That by eliminating the only possible mediator (the national government) the two sides will, by virtue of your magical ten percent tax rate, come to a sensible and peaceable understanding?

Here's how that goes:

The corporations win out and assrape the working class without any lubricant. Then the working class finally has enough and kills fawking everybody (Russian revolution)

The weak government can't manage the country in any way, the proletariat become disaffected with the wealthy and the government, and someone pops up and points out that, hey, maybe if there was a really, really strong government things would be just nifty. (Guess.)

The business interests pretty much openly take over the government and the people are left to starve horribly. (Cuba from 1890-11950s)

As you can see all of these scenarios led in some way to a form of socialism with a strong government. When it comes to government the meek shall not inherit the earth.

The examples of the Western economies such as the US should be noted. They were very much laissez faire, but look what happened:

The US was forced into legalizing unions. Then anarchists and communists started to get pissed because more wasnt being done. The pressure by anarchists, communists and unionists would have overthrown a weak, decentralized (libertarian) government, but the US government was fairly strong and willing to enact reforms. So now we have a moderate welfare state, but only because the government was capable of at least making a token attempt at regulation.

Pure laissez faire economics is unsustainable. The only way I can see it surviving, and this is a hellish scenario, is as an oligarchy wherein a strong central government is wholly devoted to the idea of laissez faire economics for their rich patrons who help said government with "donations". This pretty much describes a lot of the old monarchies that did indeed last for quite some time, but made life hell for the poor and crushed any opposition.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 October 2007 - 03:21 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Oh but don't worry JM. The army may have tanks, rockets, advanced training, and most imoportantly communication and a chain of command, but the average citizen can buy a rifle, so the entire military machine is shaving in fear of civilian militias. So, uh, tyrrany is no longer possible, don't you know.

[J m HofMarN]

Oh of course. The militias can beat the military because they pay low taxes.

Seriously, I don't care how little funding you give your army. Unless you purposely buy them defective weapons and vehicles they're still going to have a pretty big advantage over disorganized civilian militias.

I'm not sure just how far Cobnat is talking about deregulating arms sales. Maybe he means that every person should be able to just buy a howitzer. That might pose some degree of deterrent to the military....... as well as to, ya know, anyone who happens to be walking within a mile of the crazy howitzer owning person's house.

And something tells me that if I'm a military general and I feel like having some tyranny, a strong central government that can hold me responsible is going to be more of a worry than some rednecks with guns and camo overalls.

But again I forget to factor in the low taxes, which will solve that whole problem.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 October 2007 - 03:43 AM

[Cobnat]

J m HofMarN
So basically the poor will have to sacrifice all dignity and beg in the streets? Hey, wait, there's a way to keep your dignity and still live on the streets. Basically anyone who's poor and doesnt feel like asking for donations will just take their donations.

Cobnat
I will only repeat myself one more time. There will no doubt be a philanthropist like there is now. Since charities gain most of their money from people who do not donate because of tax brakes (like civ2 thinks) then there wouldn’t be much of a change.

J m HofMarN
Without a maximum number of hours they can be told to work, how will people have time to train for a militia unless for a higher goal. Are these militias to become police forces or defense apparati of the community or a company? It sounds like you're going into anarcho-syndicalist commune-ism without noting that large corporations have no place in such a system.

Cobnat
If the people want to break away from the government and form their own society with their own system of government, regardless of what the government is, I would support their right to. If people in their newly society do not wish to stay with them then they can come back to the original society or create their own.

J m HofMarN
Sometimes, my parents told me not to write on the walls or to go to bed on time, and if I disobeyed they taxed my allowance. If my parents were gone I wouldnt get my allowance taxed and would, by virtue of not being taxed, no longer want to write on the walls or stay up late. I would however decide that it was time to play with those nifty dials on the oven and check out my dad's gun.

Cobnat
You are comparing a child with an adult? A child only has one source of income, their parents. An adult has many sources of income since they have more economic, social and psychological freedom then a child.

J m HofMarN
This makes perfect sense. I used to pick on this kid until his arms fell off and he couldnt fight back anymore. After that there was less of him to abuse so I stopped picking on him seeing as how he couldnt fight back. Yes.

Cobnat
The people would be armed… bloody hell, read my previous posts, I would just be repeating myself.

J m HofMarN
Hey, Civ, your sister is dying of epilepsy and my father just went into diabetic shock since he cant afford his medication. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That's right, it's time to BUY US A PARK, BIATCH!

Cobnat
Doesn’t your father have a job/pension? I am sure that without heavy handed taxes he would be able to afford medication and as for the park, if there is 100 square metres of park land and there are over 100 people willing to buy the park (since you, Civ, Slade and Jordan all want to preserve parks regardless of your different political beliefs then I am coming to the conclusion that there are many people who want to preserve parks) then I am sure there would be no problem with buying the park.

J m HofMarN
Also the idea that in order for libertarianism to work people will have to band together and form communes or soviets is pretty much what already happened:
Industrial Europe, 1800s:
Ruling class: Woohoo! No regulation. Let's open an orphanage/factory and have the orphans make neat stuff we can sell, then take up donations for said orphans, and feed them on the table scraps bought with the sale of their manufactured goods and the donations that we dont decide to keep.
Proletariat: Hey, could you, like, ya know... Pay us more than a penny a day?
Orphans: Hey, maybe someone should regulate these people, like, say, a strong central government?
Orphans and Proletariat: Hey, what if we formed groups called communes and regulate them ourselves?
Communists: We'll regulate them. Regulate them with a GUN!
Government: Holy fuck, if we don't start regulating these jackasses and form a strong central government, the communists might regulate us next. Let's become a welfare state so they dont shoot us!

J m HofMarN
So basically Cobnat you're assuming that, rather than this affect which was observed, I dunno... Everywhere? What will happen is that the corporations will have the good sense to regulate themselves in response to the threat of the rising labor movement? That by eliminating the only possible mediator (the national government) the two sides will, by virtue of your magical ten percent tax rate, come to a sensible and peaceable understanding?

Cobnat
Without workers, businesses are nothing. Without businesses, workers are nothing. Yes, I do believe that those who serve the economy are not idiots, regardless of where they are on the economic ladder.

Also, Europe in the 1800s were different times, with different systems. Monarchy, illiteracy and the Caste system are dead, now we have free speech, industrial philosophy and many more things to guide us if we are to fall on hard times, our forefathers had nothing, they were abused by the system but they soon learnt. Again I mention that there wasn’t a lack of regulations in the past, there was only a certain system and that system soon fell after the corporates realised that the people wouldn’t stand anymore.

J m HofMarN
The corporations win out and assrape the working class without any lubricant. Then the working class finally has enough and kills fawking everybody (Russian revolution)

Cobnat
The reason of the Russian revolution was because of the short-sightedness of the Czarists during the 1860s when they introduced emancipation without forth thought and in effect made millions of peasant homeless because the landlords were not willing to pay the serfs anymore. If libertarian (or any other government) is introduced tomorrow, it will be economic anarchy, I am against that, I believe in moderation, if you had bothered to read my previous posts you would know that.

J m HofMarN
The weak government can't manage the country in any way, the proletariat become disaffected with the wealthy and the government, and someone pops up and points out that, hey, maybe if there was a really, really strong government things would be just nifty. (Guess.)

Cobnat
I believe in week national government, I believe in a decentralized government, I believe that people should be in charge of their own fates.

J m HofMarN
The business interests pretty much openly take over the government and the people are left to starve horribly. (Cuba from 1890-11950s)

Cobnat
Poor people in Cuba didn’t own their own land back then, they still don’t but for different reasons now.

People in Cuba have healthcare and free schools. Do they have food? Do they have money to buy food? Is there not an increasing black market in Cuba? What is the point of free hospitals and schools when you are and your family is slowly starving?

J m HofMarN
As you can see all of these scenarios led in some way to a form of socialism with a strong government. When it comes to government the meek shall not inherit the earth.

Cobnat
No one believes it until it is done. Before Beethoven, no one believed that a deaf person could write a symphony, I am sure that no one even thought about it, until it happened.

J m HofMarN
The examples of the Western economies such as the US should be noted. They were very much laissez faire, but look what happened:
J m HofMarN
The US was forced into legalizing unions. Then anarchists and communists started to get pissed because more wasnt being done. The pressure by anarchists, communists and unionists would have overthrown a weak, decentralized (libertarian) government, but the US government was fairly strong and willing to enact reforms. So now we have a moderate welfare state, but only because the government was capable of at least making a token attempt at regulation.

Cobnat
The will of the people was done. Look, I am not for enforcing a libertarian government on people. I believe that when the people are ready then they themselves will enact libertarian reforms.

J m HofMarN
Pure laissez faire economics is unsustainable. The only way I can see it surviving, and this is a hellish scenario, is as an oligarchy wherein a strong central government is wholly devoted to the idea of laissez faire economics for their rich patrons who help said government with "donations". This pretty much describes a lot of the old monarchies that did indeed last for quite some time, but made life hell for the poor and crushed any opposition.

Cobnat
I believe in government control, that is to say that I believe in local government control. The people would come together and create their own economic systems.

civilian_number_two
Oh but don't worry JM. The army may have tanks, rockets, advanced training, and most imoportantly communication and a chain of command, but the average citizen can buy a rifle, so the entire military machine is shaving in fear of civilian militias. So, uh, tyrrany is no longer possible, don't you know.

J m HofMarN
Oh of course. The militias can beat the military because they pay low taxes.
Seriously, I don't care how little funding you give your army. Unless you purposely buy them defective weapons and vehicles they're still going to have a pretty big advantage over disorganized civilian militias.
I'm not sure just how far Cobnat is talking about deregulating arms sales. Maybe he means that every person should be able to just buy a howitzer. That might pose some degree of deterrent to the military....... as well as to, ya know, anyone who happens to be walking within a mile of the crazy howitzer owning person's house.
And something tells me that if I'm a military general and I feel like having some tyranny, a strong central government that can hold me responsible is going to be more of a worry than some rednecks with guns and camo overalls.
But again I forget to factor in the low taxes, which will solve that whole problem.

Cobnat
Oh bloody hell. Have you two looked at the war in Sierra Leone? It was possible for a poorly armed militia to fight against a standing army with mercenary backing. The war lasted 10 years and only ended because both sides agreed to settle their disputes in government.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 13 October 2007 - 03:58 AM

[Jordan]

Why do you keep repeating every thing in one post, cobnat?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 October 2007 - 05:59 PM

[Cobnat]

Why do you keep repeating every thing in one post, cobnat?

I have to repeat myself because they keep asking the same questions. And then when I do repeat myself they immediately dismiss it out of hand rather then think about it or demand that I give an example which I cant because libertarianism is still a theory and has never been put to practise, so in reaction I demand from them an example that libertarianism will not work and then I show the ridiculousness of their example because they either give me a capitalist example or a pre-renaissance example.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

I will only repeat myself one more time. There will no doubt be a philanthropist like there is now. Since charities gain most of their money from people who do not donate because of tax brakes (like civ2 thinks) then there wouldn’t be much of a change.

Many charities get government grants. Many people dont rely solely on charities because the government helps them. They are ENTITLED to this help. There is a big difference between recieving foodstamps from the government because you're entitled to it and begging for money to buy food. The main one being that you can still have your dignity while on foodstamps, but if you have to go about begging from philanthropists for money to buy food you're going to feel pretty bad.

Quote

If the people want to break away from the government and form their own society with their own system of government, regardless of what the government is, I would support their right to. If people in their newly society do not wish to stay with them then they can come back to the original society or create their own.

So yours is a governmetn where anyone at any time can stop being part of that government, stop paying taxes, and become a separate entity? People already have their own militias and everything. If the government and military are so disorganized that they cant keep their cities and towns from seceding, what happens when someone, anyone, decides to take over that government either from without or within?

Quote

You are comparing a child with an adult? A child only has one source of income, their parents. An adult has many sources of income since they have more economic, social and psychological freedom then a child.

A kid whose parents are gone, and therefore no longer tax their allowance, does not become better behaved. A corporation whose government is no longer taxing them or strictly enforcing anything, also does not become better behaved.

Quote

The people would be armed… bloody hell, read my previous posts, I would just be repeating myself.

You claimed that the corporations would stop taking advantage of the government if there was less of it to abuse. I pointed out that just because the kids arms fall off and theres less of him to pick on, no one stops picking on him. You then rebutted by saying that the people will be armed...

So either you completely failed to get my analogy or you just think that low taxes and a well armed population will magically solve anything, ever.

Quote

Doesn’t your father have a job/pension? I am sure that without heavy handed taxes he would be able to afford medication and as for the park, if there is 100 square metres of park land and there are over 100 people willing to buy the park (since you, Civ, Slade and Jordan all want to preserve parks regardless of your different political beliefs then I am coming to the conclusion that there are many people who want to preserve parks) then I am sure there would be no problem with buying the park.

Cobnat... My father CAN afford his diabetes medication. Civ's sister is NOT dying of epilepsy. Our point was that those "Heavy Handed Taxes" we pay go to medical care for sick family members of ours. We pay a small percentage of every dollar we make into that system. And so we are concerned with the existence of community parks because the "welfare state" helps out our relatives. If we lived in your government we would be too busy trying to dodge our family members seizures to worry about buying a park.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how your first idea, parks for profit, would produce a remotely enjoyable landscape.

Quote

Also, Europe in the 1800s were different times, with different systems.

True, but I'd like to know where you can see a better example of what unregulated industries do.

Quote

I believe in week national government, I believe in a decentralized government, I believe that people should be in charge of their own fates.

And then the first time that the weak national government and its weak military fuck up, someone comes along, as I stated in my example, and points out that a strong national government would do better. Then him and his friend start smashing the windows of Jewish owned businesses.

Quote

People in Cuba have healthcare and free schools. Do they have food? Do they have money to buy food? Is there not an increasing black market in Cuba? What is the point of free hospitals and schools when you are and your family is slowly starving?

I'm not turning this into a Cuba debate. The point is that, regardless of what it's like now, pre-Batista Cuba was quite a libertarian society. A weak government, unregulated corporations, etc. Armed gangs roamed the streets and corporations took advantage of the workers.

Quote

The will of the people was done. Look, I am not for enforcing a libertarian government on people. I believe that when the people are ready then they themselves will enact libertarian reforms.

I hold that the US, England and Cuba were corporate libertarian during the late 1800s and early 1900s. The people did not like this state of affairs and did indeed not enact libertarian reforms. Infact in each country more government control of businesses and more subsidation of the workers was demanded and granted.

Quote

I believe in government control, that is to say that I believe in local government control. The people would come together and create their own economic systems.

So you believe a local government can stop a national corporation from abusing its people?

Local 1: Hey, corporation. Your phone rate of 9 dollars a minute is too high. We're outlawing your company.

Corporation: Ok.

Local 2, 3, 4 and 5: We need phone service, so naturally we'll deal with you.

Corporation: Wewt!

Town 1: We're the only shit town with no phone service. Let's leave and go elsewhere.

Oh bloody hell. Have you two looked at the war in Sierra Leone? It was possible for a poorly armed militia to fight against a standing army with mercenary backing. The war lasted 10 years and only ended because both sides agreed to settle their disputes in government.

Yeah, after ten years a militia becomes a regular army. As I said though, with no maximum work week, and the fact that they'll need jobs since there will be no government subsidy to milita members (as they do now for the national guard, etc) how is it that your militias will train? And with no government grants to pay for their arms, how will they be bought? Charity? Will they put up a big sign that says "Will work for AK47"?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 14 October 2007 - 01:26 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Doesn’t your father have a job/pension? I am sure that without heavy handed taxes he would be able to afford medication

ECONOMY. OF. SCALE.

NO, in NO case would completely privatised medicine EVER profit from doing basic research into the treatment of disease. There are NO examples of this. This is NOT the sort of work being done in the HMOs, and University hospitals, without government funding, would rely ENTIRELY on tuition fees to keep themselves running. Hence they'd have less money, since with all these lowered wages noone would be able to afford an education (trade schools would probably be up howveer). So anyway, there wouldn't ever have been ehart transplants, since the initial research was costly and sicne, really, not enough people could afford to pay for one anyway, and working in that field just wouldn't be worthwhile. Probably in the specific example, bypass surgerey would still be profitable enough, but only because for so long reseacrh into cardiac surgery was state-funded. Left to its own devices, the field would not advance. What we know would be all we'd ever know.

I like the system now, where science progresses. Moving to a more obvious example, those giant particle accelerators that run at a cost of billions a year and have no obvious practical purpose just wouldn't exist. And for what would we be giving them up, along with decent healthcare and a system to care for orpahns and retards? Oh yeah, lowered taxes and smaller wages for the majority of the country, greater profits for shareholders and CEOs.

The whole charity thing: the system works now with charity and socialised redistribution of wealth. You insist that by taking one of those aspects away, then immediately those less taxed would decide to donate charitably enough to make up for the loss of government subsidy. I don't have any idea why you're so sure.

Again, this is a society we've built. You want "every man for himself," with every aspect of life on a pay-per-use basis, then fine; go ahead and want that. I don't, and fortunately our society evolved as it did because noone else much wants that either.

[Cobnat]

J m HofMarN
Many charities get government grants. Many people dont rely solely on charities because the government helps them. They are ENTITLED to this help. There is a big difference between recieving foodstamps from the government because you're entitled to it and begging for money to buy food. The main one being that you can still have your dignity while on foodstamps, but if you have to go about begging from philanthropists for money to buy food you're going to feel pretty bad.

Cobnat
Begging? Most charities get money regardless. Though I personally think that charities should be regulated and controlled on a local level. You wouldn’t stop helping someone that you know.

J m HofMarN
So yours is a governmetn where anyone at any time can stop being part of that government, stop paying taxes, and become a separate entity? People already have their own militias and everything. If the government and military are so disorganized that they cant keep their cities and towns from seceding, what happens when someone, anyone, decides to take over that government either from without or within?

Cobnat
If people wish to stop paying taxes then they will have to find another way like defending themselves, paying for their own healthcare and education, etc. I want people to have a choice in the matter and not be forced to pay for a system they disagree with (people will weight advantages and disadvantages when they decide what system to want). As an example, say all the communists decided to start their own country, since they are not forcing anyone to live under the communist ideal and believe wholeheartedly in the system, they would be much happier there then if they live under another system.

J m HofMarN
A kid whose parents are gone, and therefore no longer tax their allowance, does not become better behaved. A corporation whose government is no longer taxing them or strictly enforcing anything, also does not become better behaved.

Cobnat
Corparations are not regulated or taxed at the moment while the working and middle class are taxed and oppressed out of their arses. They only difference a transition into a libertarian system would be that the majority of the people would not be abused as much (if at all) by the system.

J m HofMarN
You claimed that the corporations would stop taking advantage of the government if there was less of it to abuse. I pointed out that just because the kids arms fall off and theres less of him to pick on, no one stops picking on him. You then rebutted by saying that the people will be armed...

Cobnat
You are putting words into my mouth. I never said anything like that. What I said was that they would profit less if the took advantage of the government.

J m HofMarN
So either you completely failed to get my analogy or you just think that low taxes and a well armed population will magically solve anything, ever.

Cobnat
Dosnt it always? People care about their families and friends and land. They wouldn’t go on a rampage if it meant putting any of those things at risk and would only attack if they saw themselves as being oppressed far beyond the point where ‘democracy’ would help.

J m HofMarN
Cobnat... My father CAN afford his diabetes medication. Civ's sister is NOT dying of epilepsy. Our point was that those "Heavy Handed Taxes" we pay go to medical care for sick family members of ours. We pay a small percentage of every dollar we make into that system. And so we are concerned with the existence of community parks because the "welfare state" helps out our relatives. If we lived in your government we would be too busy trying to dodge our family members seizures to worry about buying a park.

Cobnat
I have provided extensive posts about how medicine would cost the same amount as now (or less) if under a libertarian economy.

J m HofMarN
Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how your first idea, parks for profit, would produce a remotely enjoyable landscape.

Cobnat
It doesn’t have to be parks for profit. I provided an example in which the community comes together to preserve the park, which they would do (since they do it now).

J m HofMarN
True, but I'd like to know where you can see a better example of what unregulated industries do.
And then the first time that the weak national government and its weak military fuck up, someone comes along, as I stated in my example, and points out that a strong national government would do better. Then him and his friend start smashing the windows of Jewish owned businesses.

Cobnat
This is not the depression and we all know the horrors that right (or left) extremism can do unto our nations and unto our world. Had the Germans known that the Nazis would have destroyed their country then they wouldn’t have received support.

J m HofMarN
I'm not turning this into a Cuba debate. The point is that, regardless of what it's like now, pre-Batista Cuba was quite a libertarian society. A weak government, unregulated corporations, etc. Armed gangs roamed the streets and corporations took advantage of the workers.

Cobnat
Damnit, this is how I was thinking it was going to turn out: You talk about free schools and then I mention that when those kids get out of school, they have no jobs. You talk about free medicine and then I mention how many people in Cuba would rather have more food then free medicine since the majority of Cubans are not sick.

J m HofMarN
I hold that the US, England and Cuba were corporate libertarian during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Cobnat
Central and South America was nothing like a libertarian society. It has always been a feudalistic system with the poorest of the poor being owned by land owners. I am advocating a system in which the poor would have their own land.

J m HofMarN
The people did not like this state of affairs and did indeed not enact libertarian reforms. Infact in each country more government control of businesses and more subsidation of the workers was demanded and granted.
So you believe a local government can stop a national corporation from abusing its people?
Local 1: Hey, corporation. Your phone rate of 9 dollars a minute is too high. We're outlawing your company.
Corporation: Ok.
Local 2, 3, 4 and 5: We need phone service, so naturally we'll deal with you.
Corporation: Wewt!
Local phone service anyone? I mean how many phone companies are there in America and how many do keep fragmenting or popping up?
Town 1: We're the only shit town with no phone service. Let's leave and go elsewhere.

Cobnat

Local phone service anyone? I mean how many phone companies are there in America and how many do keep fragmenting or popping up?

Yeah, after ten years a militia becomes a regular army. As I said though, with no maximum work week, and the fact that they'll need jobs since there will be no government subsidy to milita members (as they do now for the national guard, etc) how is it that your militias will train? And with no government grants to pay for their arms, how will they be bought? Charity? Will they put up a big sign that says "Will work for AK47"?

Cobnat

They would train marksmanship one their own in their own time. For the love of jebus! Don’t they have firing ranges in Nevada?

civilian_number_two

ECONOMY. OF. SCALE.
NO, in NO case would completely privatised medicine EVER profit from doing basic research into the treatment of disease. There are NO examples of this. This is NOT the sort of work being done in the HMOs, and University hospitals, without government funding, would rely ENTIRELY on tuition fees to keep themselves running. Hence they'd have less money, since with all these lowered wages noone would be able to afford an education (trade schools would probably be up howveer). So anyway, there wouldn't ever have been ehart transplants, since the initial research was costly and sicne, really, not enough people could afford to pay for one anyway, and working in that field just wouldn't be worthwhile. Probably in the specific example, bypass surgerey would still be profitable enough, but only because for so long reseacrh into cardiac surgery was state-funded. Left to its own devices, the field would not advance. What we know would be all we'd ever know.
[/quote]

Cobnat
People would fund raise for the research, if enough people had a certain type of disease or problem. Though every time humanity finds a cure for a disease then a new one pops up. Science will always progress, with or without government funding.

Civ2
I like the system now, where science progresses. Moving to a more obvious example, those giant particle accelerators that run at a cost of billions a year and have no obvious practical purpose just wouldn't exist. And for what would we be giving them up, along with decent healthcare and a system to care for orpahns and retards? Oh yeah, lowered taxes and smaller wages for the majority of the country, greater profits for shareholders and CEOs.

Cobnat
Smaller communities would come together and care for the misfortunate.

Civ2
The whole charity thing: the system works now with charity and socialised redistribution of wealth. You insist that by taking one of those aspects away, then immediately those less taxed would decide to donate charitably enough to make up for the loss of government subsidy. I don't have any idea why you're so sure.

Cobnat
Because I and most of my friends and family (concerning my friends, none of us earn more then 20,000 dollars a year) give to charity on a pretty regular basis. We do not do it for tax brakes but because we want to, because it is the right thing to do. Do you give to charity? If tax brakes stopped then would you stop?

Civ2
Again, this is a society we've built. You want "every man for himself," with every aspect of life on a pay-per-use basis, then fine; go ahead and want that. I don't, and fortunately our society evolved as it did because noone else much wants that either.

Cobnat
That’s why more and more people become libertarians every year, one of the most rabid growing, yet horrendously unorganized (small joke there) political movents of this day and age.

Though on a more serious note, you cannot force people to work for someone else anymore then you can force them to die for something that they do not have complete loyalty to. Even though the United States and Western European countries have become more and more economically centralized these past 20 years, it does not mean that the people do not wish less taxes and a decentralized economic system. I think it is foolish to say that just because a government has power, it means that the people want that style of government.

[civilian_number_two]

I agree with the last sentence of your post, Cob, but nothing else. You still don't understand the economy of scale I'm referring to. People pooling together to fund reseach into heart transplants will never match what a social system was able to do. And this is because of the huge amounts of money (billions of dollars) that can be pooled from government monopolies and the tax system. So too research of more questionable value, like the space program and particle accelerators. And even with amazing community pooling, lacking any centralisation there would be loads of redundant and competitive research that dfailed to advance the sciences. After all, you can't be suggesting that everyone would just intuitively agree on exactly what and whom to fund, and that all the money woul be pooled across the country into just the right places? Who exactly would be making THAT happen?

I know what you're getting at with "no one should have to pay" blah blah, but everyone gets access to the medicine and everyone gets to use the roads. And everyone gets access to the 843 acres of Central Park, not just the folks in your example who pool resources to by a 10x10m park to walk their dogs. Incidentally, ouside gated communities with Strata governments, I can't think of any examples of private parks (I don't count theme parks). It's just impossible to keep a thing like that without someone wanting to sell it to a condo builder. The only way to maintain a thing like that is by designating an area untouchable. And the only way to have that is to have a parks board. I know you believe that it's a higher tax that has caused all of the problems for mankind, but people will just NOT be more community-minded and peace-loving just because they make less money and pay a smaller percerntage of that lowered income in tax. Tax cuts are not the magic formula to fix society; Reagan proved that with Reaganomics.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Begging? Most charities get money regardless. Though I personally think that charities should be regulated and controlled on a local level. You wouldn’t stop helping someone that you know.

Charities can discriminate. Especially under your system. Maybe you only get help if you're Christian, or Muslim, or if you dont smoke, or if you're white. Thus, the people recieving your systems charity are beggars, I wasnt talking about the charity themselves.

Quote

If people wish to stop paying taxes then they will have to find another way like defending themselves, paying for their own healthcare and education, etc.

So this libertarian government will stand until some group of people, any group of people, become displeased with it. And you believe that magically, because of the lower taxes, when some state secedes no militias or state/federal armies will want to fight to change that?

Quote

Corparations are not regulated or taxed at the moment while the working and middle class are taxed and oppressed out of their arses.

Ok. Point conceded. If you dont think corporations are regulated now theres no point in me explaining that they are. A lot of your points around this one are just so fundamentally illogical "Medicine will cost the same without government funding as with it! Wheeeeeee!" as to not require rebuttal.

Quote

It doesn’t have to be parks for profit. I provided an example in which the community comes together to preserve the park, which they would do (since they do it now).

So the community will be paying for their own parks and their own medical care and sundry other things and you claim that the difference between this willing payment and the enforced taxation currently in effect would be negative? In other words that paying for a park and paying for a heart transplant ammounts to less money then paying income taxes? What numerical system are you using here because it seems different from mine.

Quote

Had the Germans known that the Nazis would have destroyed their country then they wouldn’t have received support.

So, under your system if the economy falters and someone blames government weakness in a bid to be given extreme powers, the people will magically (because of lower taxes) know that he'll destroy their country? Thanks, Cobnat. Just thanks.

Quote

Damnit, this is how I was thinking it was going to turn out: You talk about free schools and then I mention that when those kids get out of school, they have no jobs. You talk about free medicine and then I mention how many people in Cuba would rather have more food then free medicine since the majority of Cubans are not sick.

Wow. Thats possibly the best debate tactic ever: "I'm not going to respond to what you said, but if you'd said this here's what I'd say"
In that spirit, if you'd said "I am a silly silly person and my argument that lower taxes solve everything is fundamentally flawed" I'd have said "Why yes, yes you are." Then you'd have said "I've wasted enough of your time. Let us go have tea and crumpets" And then we'd have tea and crumpets.

Quote

Central and South America was nothing like a libertarian society. It has always been a feudalistic system with the poorest of the poor being owned by land owners. I am advocating a system in which the poor would have their own land.

And who will keep the wealthy from buying out all that land and owning everything again?

Quote

People would fund raise for the research, if enough people had a certain type of disease or problem. Though every time humanity finds a cure for a disease then a new one pops up. Science will always progress, with or without government funding.

Research would be limited to unscientific quick solutions "Hey, if we burn this plague victims house down the plague won't spread. Weeeeee!" Also, it is fucking awesome that you put the burden for researching disease on those afflicted with diseases.

"Fucking hell... my arm just fell off. Better fund more leprosy research!"

Quote

Smaller communities would come together and care for the misfortunate.

And the parks, and the medical/scientific research, and the animal shelters...

Quote

Because I and most of my friends and family (concerning my friends, none of us earn more then 20,000 dollars a year) give to charity on a pretty regular basis. We do not do it for tax brakes but because we want to, because it is the right thing to do. Do you give to charity? If tax brakes stopped then would you stop?

What charities and researches would be funded under your system? The most popular ones, more than like. Battered womens shelters maybe, orphanages, sure its possible, but who's going to fund drug rehab or job training for former prostitutes? And same goes for research. Aids and cancer might be marquee diseases with their names in lights, but who would be funding bird flu vaccines and so on and so forth?

Maybe its better having a central government since a lot of constituents can write to them telling them what to do with the money rather than them just picking by personal fancy of what sounds nicer.

one of the most rabid growing

Sure is!