Am I wrong? - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 09:54:39 PM

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 09:31:18 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.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 09:31:18 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?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

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.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 07:41:29 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 06:31:33 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 06:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.

Yes, I've thought of that. I was only specifically commenting on the employment part. I don't have an answer to the disability part (maybe now that we can detect disabilities from genetic scans and ultrasound soon after gestation, we can abort any fetuses that will be born with disabilities?)

I suppose that could work as long as someone can enforce responsibility of care on the people who make that decision. The parents could take out insurance themselves before conceiving, but without it being mandatory there are going to be instances where disabled people are born to parents who thought they could support the child (or couldn't accept abortion), and can't for the rest of the child's life. On top of this, "someone" has to enforce responsibility / accountability on the parents which goes against the grain of libertarianism.

Ultimately I think this problem boils down to lesser evils. How many people suffer if we leave disabled (or unemployed) people to their own hardships, and how many people suffer if we all chip in to help them suffer less. There is surely suffering in either case, but which is more? How do we quantify suffering and happiness? Have these things already been done?

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 06:31:33 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 06:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.

Yes, I've thought of that. I was only specifically commenting on the employment part. I don't have an answer to the disability part (maybe now that we can detect disabilities from genetic scans and ultrasound soon after gestation, we can abort any fetuses that will be born with disabilities?)

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rassah on March 01, 2012, 06:31:33 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 06:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.

dayfall

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Hunterbunter on March 01, 2012, 06:20:37 PM

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Speaking only for myself...

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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.

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 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, 05:49:06 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.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 PM

Wouldn't such a society destroy the free market, because of stuff like monopolies?

Libertarians would say the free market was destroyed because you prevented monopolies from acting, through regulation, and that monopolies are the free market in action - freedom, allowing them to grow large.

They forget that government is also a monopoly, and they've created themselves a paradox. If government is a monopoly, and monopolies are only possible in a free market, then it follows that we have a free market.

This means one of the three assumptions are false; either the free market was never destroyed, and libs are wrong about us living in an unfree market; monopolies are not inevitable in a free market; or government is not a monopoly.

The real world supports the view that monopolies are inevitable in every market (this is one of a capitalist business' goals).
The real world supports the view that governments are a monopoly on region (one winner taking all in every war).
Therefore, the only conclusion logically possible is that we live in a free market, and the libs are incorrect on this point.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: neptop on March 01, 2012, 05:49:06 PM

I spent some time thinking about Libertarians, because I find it interesting in many ways. I have some criticism that I don't write to tell everyone how bad Libertarians are, but because I am curious about the answers, where I am wrong and where I am right.

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)?
...snip...

That is where many libertarians disagree.

Some say there should be no right to these things and call themselves libertarians.

Some say that a free market is the best way to deliver these things and call themselves libertarians.

The first group call the second "socialists."

neptop

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

I spent some time thinking about Libertarians, because I find it interesting in many ways. I have some criticism that I don't write to tell everyone how bad Libertarians are, but because I am curious about the answers, where I am wrong and where I am right.

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)?
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?
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?

Topic: Am I wrong? - page 3. (Read 3773 times)