No charity, no person can keep up with a government destroying wealth through inefficiency and inflating the cost-of-living. Less than 10% of money going into services reaches the people.
There is nothing wrong with charity.
Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 10. (Read 11738 times)
You know what else those mentioned private industries have in common? The poor can't afford to use them. We already have very nearly the worst social mobility in the First World, and you guys are chomping at the bit to make it even worse.
I don't see why poor people could not afford some education. Surely not as good an education as the one a child of a rich family could afford, but still they could get some. And they would certainly be some good people who would be happy to provide free education, just by generosity.
So we've got the charities that can't adequately feed people now paying out for the lack of social safety nets, sub-minimum wage earners, health care for tens of millions of people who can't afford insurance, and education for tens of millions, as well.
This is what you call a (redacted) fairy tale.
I think part of the reason why people focus on Atlas is because it's easier than arguing against libertarians that are a lot more knowledgeable and patient.
Atlas is a hilarious sociopath. You're just a regular one. And I've spent a ton of moments I'll never get back arguing with you anyway.
I'm a liberal. I'm also a sociopath. Not caring for people doesn't mean that they shouldn't be cared for, i recognise intelectualy that people need to eat. I don't want to feed them. I pay taxes so people who care can make it their job to feed (or cure, or educate) these people.
Based on your contradictory statements, you seem to be more confused than anything. Just keep paying taxes and let the grownups take care of the sick, young, and hungry.
Well as long as they're just chronically hungry, I guess that's okay and means that charities will still be flush with money once you eliminate the minimum wage on top of that. I can't possibly see how chronic hunger could lead to starvation. As a libertarian, connections that tenuous make my head hurt.
Minimum wage doesn't do anything but force people to be unemployed that can't provide labor worth around $7 dollars an hour. If you can provide labor worth $5 an hour but employers have to give you an extra $2 which represents a loss, they aren't going to hire you. Then on welfare you go where other people are forced to support you entirely instead of allowing charity to provide only that extra little bit you are missing. There are so many reasons why the current system hurts the needy, not allowing them to easily start a business without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops, allowing the people with the most resources to make laws (unions support the minimum wage yet they don't come anywhere close to needing it, hmm I wonder why), etc. I'm not going to sit here and give you an entire economics lesson. All I want you to take away from this is that we aren't that different. We both want people to be free, want them to succeed, want them to be happy, we just differ on how to go about it. So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all.
Unions indeed are a tricky one - I'm still not sure how I feel about them. On one hand, I can see them being needed inorder to prevent it's members from being kicked around. On the other hand, it can result in things like I saw in Detroit, where union workers are making $30/hr, 60hr weeks (so 20hrs is at 45/hr), for pulling levers and pushing buttons. And that's on top of benefits.
At it's core, a union is just a group of people getting together to act collectively in mutual self interest. No more moral or immoral than a corporation or political action committee. I've been a member of two different unions in my life. Unions aren't the problem, per se; it's when collective bargining is permitted for government workers. It the private sector, government operates as the arbitrator between unions and businesses. When the employer is the taxpayer, and the unions are able to contribute to the election of people who negotiate on the behalf of the taxpayer, the balance of powers are all screwed up. Can't really blame unions for taking advantage of the situation, it's what they exist for. But we shouldn't allow it to happen to start with, any more than we should allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of campaign support to those who might regulate them or decide on their government contract bids.
Unions have never been the problem. The government provisions, monopolies and subsidies they are given are the problem.
Well as long as they're just chronically hungry, I guess that's okay and means that charities will still be flush with money once you eliminate the minimum wage on top of that. I can't possibly see how chronic hunger could lead to starvation. As a libertarian, connections that tenuous make my head hurt.
Minimum wage doesn't do anything but force people to be unemployed that can't provide labor worth around $7 dollars an hour. If you can provide labor worth $5 an hour but employers have to give you an extra $2 which represents a loss, they aren't going to hire you. Then on welfare you go where other people are forced to support you entirely instead of allowing charity to provide only that extra little bit you are missing. There are so many reasons why the current system hurts the needy, not allowing them to easily start a business without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops, allowing the people with the most resources to make laws (unions support the minimum wage yet they don't come anywhere close to needing it, hmm I wonder why), etc. I'm not going to sit here and give you an entire economics lesson. All I want you to take away from this is that we aren't that different. We both want people to be free, want them to succeed, want them to be happy, we just differ on how to go about it. So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all.
Unions indeed are a tricky one - I'm still not sure how I feel about them. On one hand, I can see them being needed inorder to prevent it's members from being kicked around. On the other hand, it can result in things like I saw in Detroit, where union workers are making $30/hr, 60hr weeks (so 20hrs is at 45/hr), for pulling levers and pushing buttons. And that's on top of benefits.
So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all.
Actually, they can be pointed out with a brain scan with a very high reliability. No opinion necessary.
Well as long as they're just chronically hungry, I guess that's okay and means that charities will still be flush with money once you eliminate the minimum wage on top of that. I can't possibly see how chronic hunger could lead to starvation. As a libertarian, connections that tenuous make my head hurt.
Minimum wage doesn't do anything but force people to be unemployed that can't provide labor worth around $7 dollars an hour. If you can provide labor worth $5 an hour but employers have to give you an extra $2 which represents a loss, they aren't going to hire you. Then on welfare you go where other people are forced to support you entirely instead of allowing charity to provide only that extra little bit you are missing. There are so many reasons why the current system hurts the needy, not allowing them to easily start a business without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops, allowing the people with the most resources to make laws (unions support the minimum wage yet they don't come anywhere close to needing it, hmm I wonder why), etc. I'm not going to sit here and give you an entire economics lesson. All I want you to take away from this is that we aren't that different. We both want people to be free, want them to succeed, want them to be happy, we just differ on how to go about it. So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all.
I am not accepting private companies in charge of safety. Many airlines have closed because of safety failures and they are all racing to the bottom.
Nobody forces you to follow them to the bottom. You don't have to get in a plane if you think it is not safe.
On the contrary, you must pay for public education via taxation, even if you think public schools are mass indoctrination camps or just places where you put your kids to be watched for, during your working day.
And they would certainly be some good people who would be happy to provide free education, just by generosity.
Wishful thinking.
Not so much. Consider this internet dialog. It's not just a fight to get the opposite camp rally the other's side. It is also, whether it is conscious or unconscious, a way for us to try to "educate" other people and bring them to a more reasonable point of view. And we do that for free. So I think there is a big tendency in human nature to share knowledge amongst one another. I like to see things this way anyway. Consider also projects such as wikipedia.
I sincerely believe that in a free and globally wealthy society, most of the education system would be voluntary based, and free as in 'free beer'.
But call that wishfull thinking if you want. I'm OK with that. At least you'd have proven that libertarians are not as cynical as you seem to think so.
And they would certainly be some good people who would be happy to provide free education, just by generosity.
Wishful thinking.
You know what else those mentioned private industries have in common? The poor can't afford to use them. We already have very nearly the worst social mobility in the First World, and you guys are chomping at the bit to make it even worse.
I don't see why poor people could not afford some education. Surely not as good an education as the one a child of a rich family could afford, but still they could get some. And they would certainly be some good people who would be happy to provide free education, just by generosity.
Sure, but this is even more a reason to privatize education. If you accept that private companies are in charge of your safety in a plane, why wouldn't you accept that private companies are in charge of your education?
I am not accepting private companies in charge of safety. Many airlines have closed because of safety failures and they are all racing to the bottom.
A bad education is a terrible thing in life, but unlike flight transportation, it won't kill you. Also, as you said yourself, most libertarians are poorly educated. So I guess they are a living proof that public education is terrible anyway. I don't see why private education could not do better.
Sociopaths (libertarians) are not necessarily the result of the education system. There are systemic problems in all regulatory areas that privatization has infected. Mental health and healthcare in general are also to blame, among others.
The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people.
Please tell us why exactly. Education is important, sure, but I don't see why it means that it should be publicly founded. Being able to eat is important just as well, and yet nobody would seriously consider to socialize all the food industry.
The food you eat must be government regulated or the risk to your health and life goes way up by eating it. The airplane you fly, the car you drive, etc. must all have government regulation for safety. While I believe that education must adapt to the new information age paradigm, there still needs to be societal (i.e. governmental) regulation.
Public education is not just regulated, it is organized and founded with taxation.
The regulated industries you are talking about are NOT publicly founded. Most of them are privately owned. They offer a service and customers pay for it. At most, State intervenes to impose some safety and quality standards. Why should it be different with education ??!!!
You know what else those mentioned private industries have in common? The poor can't afford to use them. We already have very nearly the worst social mobility in the First World, and you guys are chomping at the bit to make it even worse.
Here, I'll modify my previous statement: libertarians are either sociopaths (since every damn one of their policies makes things a thousand times worse for the poor) or too dumb to understand basic cause and effect.
Private companies can self regulate, but they will factor in acceptable death rates to how much it would cost to change their business practices. If the rates of deaths get too high, there is still no accountability and they will simply reorganize and outsource for plausible deniability. All corporations are in a race-to-the-bottom line. There needs to be an independent authority with regulatory powers to maintain safety.
Sure, but this is even more a reason to privatize education. If you accept that private companies are in charge of your safety in a plane, why wouldn't you accept that private companies are in charge of your education?
A bad education is a terrible thing in life, but unlike flight transportation, it won't kill you. Also, as you said yourself, most libertarians are poorly educated. So I guess they are a living proof that public education is terrible anyway. I don't see why private education could not do better.
The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people.
Please tell us why exactly. Education is important, sure, but I don't see why it means that it should be publicly founded. Being able to eat is important just as well, and yet nobody would seriously consider to socialize all the food industry.
The food you eat must be government regulated or the risk to your health and life goes way up by eating it. The airplane you fly, the car you drive, etc. must all have government regulation for safety. While I believe that education must adapt to the new information age paradigm, there still needs to be societal (i.e. governmental) regulation.
Public education is not just regulated, it is organized and founded with taxation.
The regulated industries you are talking about are NOT publicly founded. Most of them are privately owned. They offer a service and customers pay for it. At most, State intervenes to impose some safety and quality standards. Why should it be different with education ??!!!
Moreover, I don't see why we need state to organize a regulation system. This could be done by a private company. Or better: by several, competing regulation companies.
Yeah, I sometimes get a little US centric when talking about politics. In the USA we have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate food, Department of Transportation (DOT) to regulate roadways and vehicles, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to regulate the skyways, and of course many more.
Private companies can self regulate, but they will factor in acceptable death rates to how much it would cost to change their business practices. If the rates of deaths get too high, there is still no accountability and they will simply reorganize and outsource for plausible deniability. All corporations are in a race-to-the-bottom line. There needs to be an independent authority with regulatory powers to maintain safety.
The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people.
Please tell us why exactly. Education is important, sure, but I don't see why it means that it should be publicly founded. Being able to eat is important just as well, and yet nobody would seriously consider to socialize all the food industry.
The food you eat must be government regulated or the risk to your health and life goes way up by eating it. The airplane you fly, the car you drive, etc. must all have government regulation for safety. While I believe that education must adapt to the new information age paradigm, there still needs to be societal (i.e. governmental) regulation.
Public education is not just regulated, it is organized and founded with taxation.
The regulated industries you are talking about are NOT publicly founded. Most of them are privately owned. They offer a service and customers pay for it. At most, State intervenes to impose some safety and quality standards. Why should it be different with education ??!!!
Moreover, I don't see why we need state to organize a regulation system. This could be done by a private company. Or better: by several, competing regulation companies. IEEE, for instance, was initiated by a pool of engineers working in the electronics sector. I don't think they were State employees.
The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people.
Please tell us why exactly. Education is important, sure, but I don't see why it means that it should be publicly founded. Being able to eat is important just as well, and yet nobody would seriously consider to socialize all the food industry.
The food you eat must be government regulated or the risk to your health and life goes way up by eating it. The airplane you fly, the car you drive, etc. must all have government regulation for safety. While I believe that education must adapt to the new information age paradigm, there still needs to be societal (i.e. governmental) regulation.
The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people.
Please tell us why exactly. Education is important, sure, but I don't see why it means that it should be publicly founded. Being able to eat is important just as well, and yet nobody would seriously consider to socialize all the food industry.
Core Beliefs of a Libertarian
Maximal personal liberty
The libertarian believes that the government that governs least, governs best. He believes in maximum personal liberty and minimum government coercion and intrusion in the everyday lives of citizens. The libertarian believes in small government, especially at the federal level, and not getting involved in foreign entanglements. He believes in personal autonomy, both social and economic.
I have also heard this useful description: A libertarian is more liberal than a Liberal on matters of personal liberty, and he is more conservative than a Conservative on matters of economic autonomy.
Maximal personal liberty
The libertarian believes that the government that governs least, governs best. He believes in maximum personal liberty and minimum government coercion and intrusion in the everyday lives of citizens. The libertarian believes in small government, especially at the federal level, and not getting involved in foreign entanglements. He believes in personal autonomy, both social and economic.
I have also heard this useful description: A libertarian is more liberal than a Liberal on matters of personal liberty, and he is more conservative than a Conservative on matters of economic autonomy.
A constitutional government of, by, and for the people is necessary. Being more conservative than a Conservative on matters of economic autonomy makes them extremists. The problem with most libertards is that they want to dismantle things like publicly funded education which makes no sense to sane people. Libertarians that just want to get laid and smoke pot are one thing, but might-makes-right neocon teabaggers are just plain nuts.
Jump to: