Pages:

Author

Topic: Am I wrong? - page 2. (Read 3806 times)

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on March 02, 2012, 10:03:59 AM

Quote from: Hawker on March 02, 2012, 10:01:19 AM

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs. We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.

Maybe. I think of it more like car maintenance. Sure I could buy a book for each car and learn how the engines work and how to look after them. But that is not how I want to live my life. I pay a garage to do it and hopefully while in the garage, the do more than put air in the tyres and make up a bill.

Same thing with the zoning/economics/pollution/health decisions for most people. I find that particular discussion interesting but I have yet to meet anyone to talk about it in a pub. Eyes glaze over and they watch the latest football. Which is fine...they vote for people to think about that stuff on their behalf.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on March 02, 2012, 10:03:26 AM

Quote from: Rassah on March 02, 2012, 09:58:52 AM

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Not strictly true. In a free market system, health care costs more than a socialised system.

The higher amount of money spent on healthcare is not wasted. I mean literal waste of money, time, and resources.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hawker on March 02, 2012, 10:01:19 AM

This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Rassah on March 02, 2012, 09:58:52 AM

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Not strictly true. In a free market system, health care costs more than a socialised system.

The benefit of a libertarian system is primarily a moral benefit. People like the idea of sturdy independence.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:55:09 AM

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

Depending on your handicap, you can still work. Most of our employment now only requires a functioning brain and a set of fingers.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:57:34 AM

Quote from: dayfall on March 01, 2012, 05:38:50 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

Perhaps. Solving this problem will require changing how people view the state and their own responsibility. Right now, people say, "I pay taxes so the Government should take care of X. I have done my part." The key to making a stateless society work is to make people realize they are responsible to take care of the unlucky and stopping monopolies. Nested counsels and open debate will make sure a failure to take responsibility is known.

But isn't it always the fault of someone else? Also wouldn't these things require (enforced) transparency?

As dayfall says, right now people say "I voted for X and its his job to make sure the government takes care of pollution, crime and the usual things that no individual really wants to devote brain time to."

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs. We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: neptop on March 02, 2012, 09:55:09 AM

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 05:31:33 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 05:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

You don't. Libertarians believe that charity and begging will be just as good as a state system.

neptop

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

Quote from: dayfall on March 01, 2012, 05:38:50 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

But isn't it always the fault of someone else? Also wouldn't these things require (enforced) transparency?

neptop

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 05:31:33 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 05:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: fgmnp on March 02, 2012, 01:43:37 AM

Also, don't you see by now? Every program that's ever implemented in the name of the needy - it only ends up helping the super-rich cronies?

+1

We have someone like that here, who worked for a program that gave low interest loans to low-income apartment housing developers. She figured out how the program worked, set off on her own, and now makes millions by building those apartment complexes with the state's money. Every legislative session when the budget is being decided, she is always there to show how much she feels for the poor unfortunate folks who need housing, even crying if she needs to, to make sure the state can give her more money. It's such a waste.

fgmnp

donator

Activity: 29

Merit: 252

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 02, 2012, 02:23:32 AM

You don't have to have your back rubbed by someone with a license, even now...g

Well, we are splitting hair now.. Fine, "you can't legally rub someone's back for money without a license."

neptop

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 05:14:35 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

So for actual freedom wouldn't it make sense to take care that everyone can have a life of a certain standard - get food, a place to live, healthcare, education for free (not something luxurious, just something)?
Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

Some claim charity can take care of that. Personally I'm not entirely sure... Though just because you are disabled doesn't mean you can't contribute. Look at Steven Hawking.

That's why I call it luck. Stephen Hawking at least had the luck to be in the right social environment.

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't it cause companies to create/be dictatorships (look up on Foxconn, they have more employees than some states have citizens and completely control their lives)?
Wouldn't such a society destroy the free market, because of stuff like monopolies?

Not counting the government (har har), can you name a monopoly that exists now that can't be destroyed by a free market? We had a few companies grab power temporarily, but that never lasts... (Microsoft, Kodak, Ford, heck, even Foxconn will die as soon as Africa opens up, or 3D printing at home becomes more widespread)

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't we have all the benefits of a Libertarian society already if people would actually care about stuff like what products they buy and why would people care more in a libertarian society?

They wouldn't care any more or less than they do now. People still shop at Walmart, buy BP and Exxon gas, etc. I don't think this will change.

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: fgmnp on March 02, 2012, 02:30:18 AM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 02, 2012, 02:23:32 AM

You don't have to have your back rubbed by someone with a license, even now...g

Well, we are splitting hair now.. Fine, "you can't legally rub someone's back for money without a license."

oh, no I meant that legal or not, you could get someone to rub your back without the public vouch, and there's a small chance they're make it worse unless they know what they're doing. A license is just a higher standard of care. Anyone can bypass them, sure, and they're a huge pain the ass (fewer people able to perform the thing, higher cost to license, higher cost in hiring), but the whole purpose of licensing (as with any regulation) is to reduce the likelihood of known damage. You may have common sense and not think you need a license to carry a gun...but how many other people are as smart or considerate as you?

fgmnp

donator

Activity: 29

Merit: 252

Quote from: fgmnp on March 02, 2012, 01:43:37 AM

Yes, the state spends some on the needy, but I suspect that if the state weren't making us all poorer all the time, the needy would have been even better off.

To see my point, an extreme example of that is, of course the communist/socialist states - they help the poor, but they create far more poor every year.

A non-minimal state (such as ours, that's been waging wars continuously since 1913, and has 900 bases around the world), does the same, IMO. It creates more poor than it can ever hope to help. That is, there are more needy and poor than if the state were minimal.

----

Just another reason why this non-minimal state makes us all poor: Does anyone really think this "license raj" is helping our country? Where I need a license for every darn thing? A license just to give someone a backrub? Where I need to get a license to trade for my friend? to change money/currency? to advise someone about the market?

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: fgmnp on March 02, 2012, 01:49:11 AM

A non-minimal state (such as ours, that's been waging wars continuously since 1913, and has 900 bases around the world), does the same, IMO. It creates more poor than it can ever hope to help. That is, there are more needy and poor than if the state were minimal.

This is very true, although I would still term the US as a relative capitalist state so socialism/communism themselves may not be responsible for extra poverty. You are trying to stop a war-like state with debate. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Quote from: fgmnp on March 02, 2012, 01:43:37 AM

Just another reason why this non-minimal state makes us all poor: Does anyone really think this "license raj" is helping our country? Where I need a license for every darn thing? A license just to give someone a backrub? Where I need to get a license to trade for my friend? to change money/currency? to advise someone about the market?

It's a public vouching system. You don't have to have your back rubbed by someone with a license, even now...get your friend to do it who "know's what they're doing".

fgmnp

donator

Activity: 29

Merit: 252

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 04:49:06 PM

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I actually believe that certain social programs would be good for society IF they could be implemented. My problem is the latter part.

The non-minimal state - the one you'd like, the one that would care for the needy - actually doesn't. Power corrupts. You may not easily see it, but the non-minimal state harms more than it helps the needy. Why, the more powerful you make it, the more it wages wars around the world with impunity.

The tax dollars that you think are going to the needy - no, they all go to wars. Plus, more money is printed and spent on wars. Yes, the state spends some on the needy, but I suspect that if the state weren't making us all poorer all the time, the needy would have been even better off.

Also, don't you see by now? Every program that's ever implemented in the name of the needy - it only ends up helping the super-rich cronies?

Corruption and perversion of everything "freedom" stands for is a fact of life. The only good state under such circumstances is a minimal state.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 10:45:39 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 09:23:35 PM

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?

I don't know. My guess is it was because of one of two reasons
1) it was not working well, so centralized option was put in place
2) someone wanted to score political points and started a small centralized option that eventually grew and overtook charities (the why should I give when government already pays issue)

Yeah point 2 would def be the balloon pressure once initiated.

Regarding point 1, I guess the political points would only have had weight if the charity version wasn't working very well. I don't think people would vote for something if they didn't see it actually happening around them.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 09:23:35 PM

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 09:10:40 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 08:54:39 PM

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 08:31:18 PM

I guess this leads back to changing perspectives from "Government took my taxes to pay to support X, so it's not my problem" issue. That's going to be hard, and a lot of people will get hurt obviously.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I don't quite follow your premise. Who's changing perspective?

I mean right now people thing that since they are paying taxes, it's no longer their responsibility to do thinks like take care of disabled or poor people. If that goes away, people's perspective will have to change, and they will have to take more responsibility for helping others. I think that change would be very difficult, since people will continue to think those other people are not their problem.

Oh I see, yeah that change will be difficult.

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?