Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So ultimately every individual throughout recorded history is faced with having trade offs by virtue of having a civilization (any civilization, it doesn't matter what brand).
True enough. However, "trade-offs" would indicate voluntary agreement. The problem, as I see it, is that forcing someone to "agree" through initiations of force is not really an agreement at all. That would be like me asking you to give me your money in an alley while holding a gun to your head. Would you say that you made a "trade" with me after I robbed you?
I swear I need a damn hot key for those, they prove dead accurate for extremist nutters.
I'd like to point out there is an equal illustration of this phenomena in left wing authoritarianism. They have their version of aggression as well. Passive aggressive or overt aggressive is still aggressive.
True enough. However, "trade-offs" would indicate voluntary agreement. The problem, as I see it, is that forcing someone to "agree" through initiations of force is not really an agreement at all. That would be like me asking you to give me your money in an alley while holding a gun to your head. Would you say that you made a "trade" with me after I robbed you?
You voluntarily agreed to participate in civilization. You're on a computer, using the infrastructure born of civilization. How have you been robbed?
You voluntarily agreed to participate in civilization. You're on a computer, using the infrastructure born of civilization. How have you been robbed?
I was born in this civilization and would like to see it progress, rather than regress back into the deplorable philosophies of forced collectivism and tyranny of the past. I want to see this nation maximize individual freedom for everyone and to shun the practice of initiating force against individuals and writing preferential "laws".
I am not civilization's enemy, I am the enemy of those who wish to create and strengthen a "civilization" governed by thuggery.
Everyone is robbed every time that they are forced to pay for services that they have not received, forced to provide for others involuntarily, is forced to surrender the rewards of voluntary trade among free people to satisfy some "planners" economic social engineering ideal, or even forced to "buy" that which they do not require or request. Theft is theft, regardless of who the criminal is, whether it is government or a gang member.
I was born in this civilization and would like to see it progress, rather than regress back into the deplorable philosophies of forced collectivism and tyranny of the past. I want to see this nation maximize individual freedom for everyone and to shun the practice of initiating force against individuals and writing preferential "laws".
I am not civilization's enemy, I am the enemy of those who wish to create and strengthen a "civilization" governed by thuggery.
Everyone is robbed every time that they are forced to pay for services that they have not received, forced to provide for others involuntarily, is forced to surrender the rewards of voluntary trade among free people to satisfy some "planners" economic social engineering ideal, or even forced to "buy" that which they do not require or request. Theft is theft, regardless of who the criminal is, whether it is government or a gang member.
You need to get over these characterizations if you mean to articulate your concerns in a way that people can understand.
Forced to pay for services they have not received-- get specific.
Forced to provide for others involuntarily--- name orgs and situations
theft is theft no matter who is stealing. Who stole what from whom?
Moreover, if you mean to see changes happen, what method of enforcement and policy making should your ideal government have?
It seems to me that Libertarians, are the most entitlement addicted individuals in the country, Libertarians, or so they argue, are entitled to a stable and for the most part peaceful nation, yet demand that they should be excused from adhering to those laws that maintain it.
This is a gross mis-characterization of libertarians and all small government conservatives. It's not that there are laws, it's the nature and the degree of the laws. It's individual liberty versus the collective well being. Libertarians believe that everyone has a right to political, social, and economic self-determination, to the greatest degree that is possible. Neo-conservatives and progressives believe that a greater societal good can be achieved by curtailing the rights of the individual so that the actions of said individual better conform to those of the larger group. Our government has shown us time and time again that it doesn't feel we're capable of making our decisions, even when they don't effect anyone but ourselves (banning trans-fat...really?).
A word about individualism: Individualism DOES NOT mean forsaking society, culture, or cooperation. It means that the individual is allowed to define for themselves (self determination) the level of participation that one takes in said institutions, once again, to the greatest degree possible. Left to themselves, individuals will congregate, cooperate, and achieve group objectives WITHOUT coercion. The private industry is perfect example of this (for the most part). Groups of individuals, of their own free will, congregate and work to achieve common goals (usually money). And yes, private industries have been responsible for terrible wrongs in the past, but so have countless governments, including our own, and historically, the wrongs committed by governments are far, FAR worse than those committed by business.
A word on taxation: Taxation is inherently an act of coercion, but a necessary one. Most libertarians are not upset THAT we pay taxes, it's how those taxes are used and what we get for them that makes us angry. Look at it this way: If you go to a restaurant and order an expensive dinner, you're willing to pay for it, but you expect it to be good, and you expect to pay the same for your meal as the person sitting at the table next to you. Now, imagine your meal is terrible, the guy next to you got his for free, and he received better service. Now also imagine that this restaurant is the only one in town, and since the owner gets more compliments from those who get their meals for free than those who actually have to pay for theirs, he has no plans to change his policy.
Now, all of that said, of course we need laws. Specifically to prevent others from committing acts of coercion on the individual. To prevent mob-rule. To prevent industries from willfully hurting individuals by lying to them about the nature of their products. To prevent me from reasonable self defense? No. To make me wear a safety belt (though I would anyway)? No. To stop me from coming home after work and smoking a joint (though I wouldn't)? No. To stop some person I've never met from marrying anyone he/she chooses? No. To stop consenting adults from viewing adult-themed entertainment? No. To intern 100,000+ people because we feel the simple fact their Japanese (or German) ancestry makes them traitors? No.
There is a subtle line here between what laws are justifiable and which ones are not. Saying Libertarians don't like laws is like saying Democrats don't like freedom. Obviously neither are true. Stop with the straw man. And don't even start with entitlement. Not when our politicians actively, if subtly, promotes class warfare and attempts to buy lower income voting brackets by promising that other's will pay for the programs that we all use.
You need to get over these characterizations if you mean to articulate your concerns in a way that people can understand.
I am sorry. I thought that such things would be understood, even if not openly admitted by others, or even agreed with.
Forced to pay for services they have not received-- get specific.
Forced to provide for others involuntarily--- name orgs and situations
theft is theft no matter who is stealing. Who stole what from whom?
Moreover, if you mean to see changes happen, what method of enforcement and policy making should your ideal government have?
Surely you are joking. I understand that some may believe that theft is "good" if they like, or are themselves, the beneficiaries of the loot or if they believe that theft is "good" if it is for a "noble" cause. I do not believe that anyone seriously does not recognize that government theft, force, and extortion permeates our entire society.
How about we pick a particularly sinister and repugnant institution like "public school" as a single example of the omnipresent system of theft in America?
Is it not theft to charge for a service that one does not use? "School taxes" being paid by those without children is just how? What about the poor souls who pay to send their children to real schools and then are forced still to pay for public schools? Even worse than the blatant theft that they are, these "taxes" are often collected through "property taxes", which are arbitrary and discriminatory. The amounts collected have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the actual liability, or cost, of the individual for the "service" even if they actually do use the school.
People who believe in freedom should be able to recognize such things for what they really are. A true free people who were not basic thugs and thieves would realize that "taxes" should be levied upon individuals according to actual services used and requested. Free people could see that government "services" should not be any different than any other transaction made outside of government.
Imagine if the grocery store sent you a bill for the food that you never purchased. Or even worse, imagine them sending you a bill for food that they chose to give to someone else. Imagine that the clerk at the grocery store charged you $20 for a loaf of bread and then charged the next person $1 for the same product. We would never tolerate this type of ridiculous nonsense and injustice by an evil business, but we are brainwashed into believing that it is "good" when practiced by government.
Just to be clear, if people want to create charitable institutions for things such as education, I have no problem with that at all. However, charitable organizations should be funded by voluntary contributions and not at the end of the barrel of a gun held by government. "Taxes" should be limited to recovering the cost of services purchased voluntarily by the individual. So while I am sure that all of the omniscient planners, thugs, and looters do not agree, that still in no way justifies them resorting to threat, force, and theft upon the individual.
the private industry is perfect example of this (for the most part). Groups of individuals, of their own free will, congregate and work to achieve common goals (usually money). And yes, private industries have been responsible for terrible wrongs in the past, but so have countless governments, including our own, and historically, the wrongs committed by governments are far, far worse than those committed by business.
A word on taxation: Taxation is inherently an act of coercion, but a necessary one. Most libertarians are not upset that we pay taxes, it's how those taxes are used and what we get for them that makes us angry. Look at it this way: If you go to a restaurant and order an expensive dinner, you're willing to pay for it, but you expect it to be good, and you expect to pay the same for your meal as the person sitting at the table next to you. Now, imagine your meal is terrible, the guy next to you got his for free, and he received better service. Now also imagine that this restaurant is the only one in town, and since the owner gets more compliments from those who get their meals for free than those who actually have to pay for theirs, he has no plans to change his policy.
Now, all of that said, of course we need laws. Specifically to prevent others from committing acts of coercion on the individual. To prevent mob-rule. To prevent industries from willfully hurting individuals by lying to them about the nature of their products. To prevent me from reasonable self defense? No. To make me wear a safety belt (though i would anyway)? No. To stop me from coming home after work and smoking a joint (though i wouldn't)? No. To stop some person i've never met from marrying anyone he/she chooses? No. To stop consenting adults from viewing adult-themed entertainment? No. To intern 100,000+ people because we feel the simple fact their japanese (or german) ancestry makes them traitors? No.
there is a subtle line here between what laws are justifiable and which ones are not.
1st bolded statement-- Any organization you can name, no matter how noble intent, is subject to nefarious purpose supplanting the core mission purpose. Our military can be misled to commit injustice by nefarious leadership, and that doesn't make our military inherently wrong. The Vatican can foster an environment where victimizing children is protected criminal behavior-- that doesn't mean the entire mission statement is wrong, but that it's wrongfully applied & authority abused.
I believe this habit Americans have gotten into-- the generalized accusations leveled at ideology (whether left or right) is patently false.
2nd bolded statement-- how does that same train of thought apply to a pacifist who resents his tax dollars paying for military, or funding a war he's against? How does that same train of thought apply to a social liberal diametrically opposed to corporate welfare? If I ran down every dollar taken from me and every dollar spent on this that or the other, I could generate a list of disagreement. The validity of my disagreement would be this simple litmus test; is it in service to the greater good?
3rd bolded statement-- I agree wholeheartedly. Boiled down to bones, we are in a never ending boundary dispute as individuals, and as gov't regulators trying to seek balance where all sides are represented equally. Your failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet riding a motorcycle only becomes my problem when I'm expected to cover your 6,000% inflated medical costs or death benefit subsidies to your children. The only answer for social conservatives is to embrace personal accountability to it's highest degree possible.
Overall I do tend to agree with libertarian views. The disconnect I find in politics is that they aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and author policy from a perspective of maximizing personal accountability. They take on the appearance of laying over, playing possum, or ostrich with head in the sand. I'm not attempting to smear libertarianism, but to encourage they get more active in crafting solutions that can be practically implemented by a governing body. Ron Paul for instance-- wonderful ability to diagnose, but comes up short on potential cures.
"Taxes" should be limited to recovering the cost of services purchased voluntarily by the individual. So while I am sure that all of the omniscient planners, thugs, and looters do not agree, that still in no way justifies them resorting to threat, force, and theft upon the individual.
Point of service existence:
That would mean a very long line of payment to a million individuals delivering misc levels of goods and services to you by virtue of you living in public life. That civilization would be far more costly, far more inefficient, and utterly dysfunctional. Carrying around a jar of pennies that big is too much work.
School taxes being your only example... how much is it worth to you not being overwhelmed by a majority of illiterate/ ignorant of law, having the right to vote but can't read a ballot and have no comprehension of their own government? Yes sad to say it sure feels like we're already there, but it could be far worse if we did nothing.
Please watch idiocracy. Would you prefer they be the majority if we refused to shoulder a social commitment to youth education? Those kids are destined to be in service to you one way or another. One is your fireman, one is your doctor, one is your electrician, one is your president 40yrs from now. I fail to see theft.
1st bolded statement-- Any organization you can name, no matter how noble intent, is subject to nefarious purpose supplanting the core mission purpose. Our military can be misled to commit injustice by nefarious leadership, and that doesn't make our military inherently wrong. The Vatican can foster an environment where victimizing children is protected criminal behavior-- that doesn't mean the entire mission statement is wrong, but that it's wrongfully applied & authority abused.
I believe this habit Americans have gotten into-- the generalized accusations leveled at ideology (whether left or right) is patently false.
Oh, I agree with all of this. I was rambling a little bit, but I get impatient when people talk about how evil corporations, banks, etc. are but completely ignore the fact that governments, including ours, have committed massive wrongs in the past, and undoubtedly will in the future. In my opinion, there's a real difference in the types of accountability between government and private industry.
With government, it's often difficult to trace accountability. A candidate can make campaign promises, and be elected to pursue a specific course of action, and then once in office pull a 180 and be relatively untouchable until the next election cycle (here's looking at you Governator). Worse yet, we have a huge problem with special interests in Washington (and Sacramento), so sometimes you can't even tell who the politician even feels accountable to. Furthermore, if said politician is power hungry (some are, some aren't), they may pursue whatever course of action provides them with the most influence. They are of course, accountable to their electorate, but the process is necessarily cumbersome and imprecise (we can't go off having elections every month), and is only one tile in the much larger mosaic of overall accountability.
Corporations, on the other hand, while no bastions of virtue themselves, at least are accountable to one thing: Profit. We know they're accountable to this, and thus can reasonably predict what they're going to do: Whatever makes them the most money in the long run. There's an old saying: "I don't trust a dog, but I trust a dog to be a dog."
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
2nd bolded statement-- how does that same train of thought apply to a pacifist who resents his tax dollars paying for military, or funding a war he's against? How does that same train of thought apply to a social liberal diametrically opposed to corporate welfare? If I ran down every dollar taken from me and every dollar spent on this that or the other, I could generate a list of disagreement. The validity of my disagreement would be this simple litmus test; is it in service to the greater good?
Very good questions, and there are non easy answers. Libertarians start with the premise "Government exists to protect it's citizens from acts of coercion," and build from there. At every avenue that government is expanded, we ask ourselves, "is this absolutely necessary?" Or, "is it possible for the private sector to provide this service in a less expensive, more flexible manner?"
If the Pacifist is upset about their tax dollars being spent on a war in Iraq, they have every right to be mad. If the same pacifist is angry that we're fighting a war of self defense (in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, for example), I would question their level of naivety. Even as a libertarian, I understand the need for the war in Afghanistan (though I may question our methods), because their government was harboring and supporting an organization that killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
3rd bolded statement-- I agree wholeheartedly. Boiled down to bones, we are in a never ending boundary dispute as individuals, and as gov't regulators trying to seek balance where all sides are represented equally. Your failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet riding a motorcycle only becomes my problem when I'm expected to cover your 6,000% inflated medical costs or death benefit subsidies to your children. The only answer for social conservatives is to embrace personal accountability to it's highest degree possible.
I don't disagree with the fact that medical insurance costs would be inflated if you banned safety belts, but at the same time, medical insurance is a collective risk pool. I mean, there are plenty of unnecessary risks people take (contact sports, cheerleading, sky diving, eating at McDonalds, horseback riding, etc.), so we really shouldn't pick and choose a handful of things and tell them they can't do it.
I liken it to this: Most of except the fact that a free society has its advantages and its disadvantages. The advantages are obvious, but disadvantages include: Loss of personal safety, having to tolerate people you're uncomfortable with, having to see people doing things you're uncomfortable with, etc. I think most Americans would agree that, despite the disadvantages, we'd all rather be free (well, maybe not supporters of the Patriot Act).
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Overall I do tend to agree with libertarian views. The disconnect I find in politics is that they aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and author policy from a perspective of maximizing personal accountability. They take on the appearance of laying over, playing possum, or ostrich with head in the sand. I'm not attempting to smear libertarianism, but to encourage they get more active in crafting solutions that can be practically implemented by a governing body. Ron Paul for instance-- wonderful ability to diagnose, but comes up short on potential cures.
I agree with the above. Us Libertarians (big L) are lucky that we're not in power from an ideological standpoint. It's always easier to find problems than solutions. Many of the solutions, however, are simply to end programs that do more harm than good. To quote Thomas Sowell, "when you extinguish a fire, what do you replace it with?" There have been a lot of programs put in place that had the greatest of intentions, but didn't pan for one reason or another. Unfortunately, we, as a society, have hitched ourselves to them and are now unwilling, or unable to unhitch ourselves.
Take social security for example. The system is fundamentally flawed, but there's little we can really do about it. We can't deny people the social security benefits that they've payed into their whole lives, but at the same time, is it fair to force young people into the same system knowing full well that their benefits, if not completely lost, will be significantly reduced? It is, in effect, a legally mandated pyramid scheme that victimizes most those who can least afford it: the young. Our only option is to slowly fade it out of existence (and mandate that, once it is completely nonexistent, that the taxes stop being levied as well).
I'll finish this quote with another Sowell quote, which in my opinion, sums up about how I feel with regards to the ever increasing size of government:
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
