Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

Lately, most liberals in the U.S such as myself have been valuing social liberties over good economics, and with the democratic party's authoritarian shift and the greens' small size, many of us have been switching over to the libertarian party despite its far-right economics. So, economics and all, is libertarianism a good idea? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("No debate presented" - Megafan))[/highlight]

I assume you're talking about American style libertarianism, which isn't at all like Australian or European libertarianism.

Only if you're one of the successful people. The poor pretty much get buggered over under a libertarian system. A social democratic system that protects the poor while also allowing those able to make money is a far better system.

American libertarianism isn't that great. If you want to advocate for the perpetuation of white supremacy in the economic, political and social spheres, then this might be the political alignment for you. Advocating for complete government detachment from the economic sphere is asking for trouble, too. Monopolies will indefinitely crop up, and the political sphere will crumble as a result, because without any proper oversight, politicians will easily be able to be purchased to effect the social changes that those holding economic power desire. In short, American libertarianism isn't a fun thing. Ron Paul is basically cool if you're white, middle to upper class, and young/vulnerable to new ideas. Basically, the overwhelming majority of Redditors.

Libertarianism was a good ideal to hold onto back in the days when most people lived as farmers with little government intervention. But since then, the industrial world came into being, and trying to run a modern industrial/post-industrial society using libertarianism is rather backwards looking and unworkable. A central position that advocates reforms to move towards equality and freedom over time is the wisest in my opinion.

[QUOTE=SystemGS;37427590]American libertarianism isn't that great. If you want to advocate for the perpetuation of white supremacy in the economic, political and social spheres, then this might be the political alignment for you. Advocating for complete government detachment from the economic sphere is asking for trouble, too. Monopolies will indefinitely crop up, and the political sphere will crumble as a result, because without any proper oversight, politicians will easily be able to be purchased to effect the social changes that those holding economic power desire. In short, American libertarianism isn't a fun thing. Ron Paul is basically cool if you're white, middle to upper class, and young/vulnerable to new ideas. Basically, the overwhelming majority of Redditors.[/QUOTE] white supremacy? that's not libertarianism at all. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37427717]Libertarianism was a good ideal to hold onto back in the days when most people lived as farmers with little government intervention. But since then, the industrial world came into being, and trying to run a modern industrial/post-industrial society using libertarianism is rather backwards looking and unworkable. A central position that advocates reforms to move towards equality and freedom over time is the wisest in my opinion.[/QUOTE] why doesn't individual liberty work in a modern industrial society? How is that outdated?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37428643]white supremacy? that's not libertarianism at all. [/QUOTE] It in effect is, because you have a white-majority, white-biased, institutionally racist system that only really allows for the equal protections of blacks and latinos because of the huge impenetrable walls that the Court and Congress have put in place by the most crazy means. Libertarianism breaks down those walls, especially in private business, opening the way for separate but equal and discrimination in public accommodation, like was had up until the 60s. And don't even think for an instant that women, who are still unequal in most things economic, would be protected or not discriminated against if we removed the small amount of protections we give them. Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so I understand the appeal of minimalist government and maximized personal liberty, but if you're a (American) Social Liberal then you don't belong in libertarianism. Social Liberals (in America) generally support rights and not liberties, and there's a good reason for that from the perspective of a Social Liberal. Rights are guaranteed protections- liberties, on the other hand, are basically "What you can do without being stopped". And while I love liberty, a Social Liberal who believes in a fair and socially just system would not be a fan of liberty, but rights, because rights guarantee protection and social justice, while liberties open the way for all kinds of shit that becomes simple Social Darwinism unless you have some sort of protective economic or social apparatus to prevent that. Libertarianism is bad for Social Liberals because it provides the opposite of what a Social Liberal wants. Libertarianism allows for Social Darwinism and has no concept of rights. Social Liberals have other ideologies they can support and other parties they can join to further a liberal worldview.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37428777']It in effect is, because you have a white-majority, white-biased, institutionally racist system that only really allows for the equal protections of blacks and latinos because of the huge impenetrable walls that the Court and Congress have put in place by the most crazy means. Libertarianism breaks down those walls, especially in private business, opening the way for separate but equal and discrimination in public accommodation, like was had up until the 60s. And don't even think for an instant that women, who are still unequal in most things economic, would be protected or not discriminated against if we removed the small amount of protections we give them. Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so I understand the appeal of minimalist government and maximized personal liberty, but if you're a (American) Social Liberal then you don't belong in libertarianism. Social Liberals (in America) generally support rights and not liberties, and there's a good reason for that from the perspective of a Social Liberal. Rights are guaranteed protections- liberties, on the other hand, are basically "What you can do without being stopped". And while I love liberty, a Social Liberal who believes in a fair and socially just system would not be a fan of liberty, but rights, because rights guarantee protection and social justice, while liberties open the way for all kinds of shit that becomes simple Social Darwinism unless you have some sort of protective economic or social apparatus to prevent that. Libertarianism is bad for Social Liberals because it provides the opposite of what a Social Liberal wants. Libertarianism allows for Social Darwinism and has no concept of rights. Social Liberals have other ideologies they can support and other parties they can join to further a liberal worldview.[/QUOTE] First, who said we have to re-implement discrimination? Libertarianism means small government, not no government. Personally, I would rather see an end to government subsidies and entitlements, than a return to discrimination. I'm confused by your second paragraph. Are you a libertarian socialist or a liberal? do you support liberty or not? Personally, I would put liberty over social justice. Liberty may lead to an unfair system, but that's what happens. You can't have liberty without personal responsibility.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37428643]why doesn't individual liberty work in a modern industrial society? How is that outdated?[/QUOTE] I am saying libertarianism itself is outdated. Not individual liberty. By following it strongly you will end up causing a lot of damage to a country and its people.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37429053]I am saying libertarianism itself is outdated. Not individual liberty. By following it strongly you will end up causing a lot of damage to a country and its people.[/QUOTE] ...but libertarianism is based entirely on individual liberty. If libertarianism is outdated, than liberty is outdated. And what sort of damage will it cause?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429511]...but libertarianism is based entirely on individual liberty. If libertarianism is outdated, than liberty is outdated.[/QUOTE] The political movement is outdated because it is advocating a return to the past. It advocates unrealistic and infeasible policies. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429511]And what sort of damage will it cause?[/QUOTE] Reducing government spending or influence in matters such as pensions, minimum wages, national healthcare, safety regulations, unemployment subsidies, public education and other rather important services as well.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37429597]The political movement is outdated because it is advocating a return to the past. It advocates unrealistic and infeasible policies. Reducing government spending or influence in matters such as pensions, minimum wages, national healthcare, safety regulations, unemployment subsidies, public education and other rather important services as well.[/QUOTE] a return to the past is not always a bad thing. You can't turn something down because it is an old idea. By that logic, we should stop eating. People have been eating for centuries! Pensions are a matter between employers and employees, the government should have nothing to do with it. Minimum wage laws are unnecessary. Healthcare should be provided by private companies, not the government. Individuals should prepare for unemployment themselves. It's not my fault if you lose your job. Now I do agree that we need safety regulations and public education, but that doesn't mean libertarianism is wrong. Not all libertarians want us to remove safety regulations and public education, only the crazy ones.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]a return to the past is not always a bad thing. You can't turn something down because it is an old idea. By that logic, we should stop eating. People have been eating for centuries![/QUOTE] if its ok to go back to old ideas we can always reimplement phrenology, homoeopathy and the divine right of kings, whatever floats your boat, we clearly need to stick to old things [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Pensions are a matter between employers and employees, the government should have nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE] well if you are fine not letting old people have peace of mind for when they become too old to be useful then ok [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Minimum wage laws are unnecessary.[/QUOTE] yeah i guess thats why almost every country has implemented them in some shape or form over the past 200 years, i mean if they are unnecessary then its a wonder why they exist [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Healthcare should be provided by private companies, not the government.[/QUOTE] well sure, but don't blame me if the hospital turns you down because you have a bad credit rating or have black skin [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Individuals should prepare for unemployment themselves.[/QUOTE] good thing i can predict the economy [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]It's not my fault if you lose your job. [/QUOTE] well it is if you gamble with the company you run because you put the livelihoods of your employees at risk [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Now I do agree that we need safety regulations and public education, but that doesn't mean libertarianism is wrong.[/QUOTE] but you are still saying that pensions, minimum wages, national healthcare and unemployment benefits are unneccessary, and those are pretty important for keeping a society running [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429823]Not all libertarians want us to remove safety regulations and public education, only the crazy ones.[/QUOTE] but some still do, and some (like yourself) are advocating a removal of all the other stuff instead

You just compared eating with an idea... Eating is not an idea. that being said, my old US history Professor once said, "Sometimes progress means taking one step back." Pensions must be ensured by the state so that our old/sick are well provided for. Not companies can support ex-employees to the extent that the state can. I mean c'mon, even the Romans had pensions. On the other hand, calling the Libertarian ideology racist is kind of out of place considering one of the Libertarian heroes is MLK. I know that some of you might be thinking about Ron Paul's opinion of Civil Rights legislation. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is by no means the libertarian messiah that people make him out to be, so basing your opinions of all Libertarians solely off of Ron Paul is a mistake. Edit: I'm addressing Kakistocrat, btw. not Sobotnik. got ninja'd

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37429035]First, who said we have to re-implement discrimination? Libertarianism means small government, not no government. Personally, I would rather see an end to government subsidies and entitlements, than a return to discrimination. I'm confused by your second paragraph. Are you a libertarian socialist or a liberal? do you support liberty or not? Personally, I would put liberty over social justice. Liberty may lead to an unfair system, but that's what happens. You can't have liberty without personal responsibility.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism, or rather Minarchism like what you're talking about, promotes that local government has the maximum power. The entire point of Libertarianism is that if a local community wanted to re-implement discrimination, then they could. Business owners could individually discriminate. The government would be powerless to stop them, because it would be infringing on their liberty. That is Libertarianism. If you are a Social Liberal, you wouldn't want that to be allowed, and are promoting social liberalism, where the government enforces certain rights, like against discrimination. That is NOT Libertarianism. Libertarianism promotes that individual liberty outweighs government administration, so if you wanted to discriminate in public accommodations you could. And the government couldn't stop you. That's the point. There are not rights in libertarianism, only liberties. "I would rather see an end to government subsidies and entitlements," has nothing to do with libertarianism, but a personal preference on the role of government. Libertarianism advocates the minimal interference of state on individuals. At all. That's why it focuses on liberty and not rights. "I would put liberty over social justice" is saying that you pretty much agreeing to the Social Darwinist aspect of Libertarianism. There will be discrimination. The second that the laws preventing discrimination are no longer powerful, then most of the white American South will implement discrimination. It doesn't matter if you believe in that, it's what's going to happen if Libertarianism is put into place. And I was arguing as a Social Liberal. I'm not a Social Liberal by most definitions, nor a Libertarian by the American definition. Additionally, everything Sobotnik has said to counter your points are pretty much good points to make from a Social Liberal perspective. That and the schools statement/safety standards statement are entirely contradictory both to your post and to Libertarianism.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]if its ok to go back to old ideas we can always reimplement phrenology, homoeopathy and the divine right of kings, whatever floats your boat, we clearly need to stick to old things[/QUOTE] I never said we need to stick to old things. I said that we can't turn down old ideas simply because they are old. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]well if you are fine not letting old people have peace of mind for when they become too old to be useful then ok yeah i guess thats why almost every country has implemented them in some shape or form over the past 200 years, i mean if they are unnecessary then its a wonder why they exist[/QUOTE] I never said old people should not have pensions, I said the government shouldn't supply them. Just because a government implemented something does not mean it's necessary. The US has military bases all over the world, do we need those? Plus, as I have shown in the "is America doomed" thread, only 5% of Americans make minimum wage. It doesn't affect most people. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]well sure, but don't blame me if the hospital turns you down because you have a bad credit rating or have black skin[/QUOTE] do have examples of people being rejected because of their skin color? or on that matter, their credit rating? Your credit rating does not affect your likelihood to get sick. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]good thing i can predict the economy[/QUOTE] you don't need to predict the economy to keep an emergency fund. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]well it is if you gamble with the company you run because you put the livelihoods of your employees at risk[/QUOTE] gamble with the company you run? what world do you live in? the last thing business owners want to do is put their business at risk. Well, except bankers. Their just stupid. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430024]but you are still saying that pensions, minimum wages, national healthcare and unemployment benefits are unneccessary, and those are pretty important for keeping a society running[/QUOTE] Minimum wage does not affect the majority of Americans, and same with unemployment. We also don't have national healthcare or state-mandated pensions. So no, they are not required to keep society running.

[QUOTE=SystemGS;37427590]Monopolies will indefinitely crop up, and the political sphere will crumble as a result, because without any proper oversight, politicians will easily be able to be purchased to effect the social changes that those holding economic power desire.[/QUOTE] Name one monopoly that has come up in the past in a free market. Note: this means no Microsoft because they enforce their position with patents and copyright, etc.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37430097]You just compared eating with an idea... Eating is not an idea. that being said, my old US history Professor once said, "Sometimes progress means taking one step back." Pensions must be ensured by the state so that our old/sick are well provided for. Not companies can support ex-employees to the extent that the state can. I mean c'mon, even the Romans had pensions. On the other hand, calling the Libertarian ideology racist is kind of out of place considering one of the Libertarian heroes is MLK. I know that some of you might be thinking about Ron Paul's opinion of Civil Rights legislation. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is by no means the libertarian messiah that people make him out to be, so basing your opinions of all Libertarians solely off of Ron Paul is a mistake. Edit: I'm addressing Kakistocrat, btw. not Sobotnik. got ninja'd[/QUOTE] I know eating is not on the same level as political ideas, I was just trying to point out the absurdity of his statement. Why does the state have to supply pensions? People should save throughout their life. All the money they are currently paying into Social Security could be used to save for their retirement. And thanks for pointing out that Ron Paul is not the only libertarian. He makes libertarians as a whole look bad.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430217]I know eating is not on the same level as political ideas, I was just trying to point out the absurdity of his statement. Why does the state have to supply pensions? People should save throughout their life. All the money they are currently paying into Social Security could be used to save for their retirement. And thanks for pointing out that Ron Paul is not the only libertarian. He makes libertarians as a whole look bad.[/QUOTE] Cause I think government should only do for the people what the people cannot do better themselves. Thus state pensions for sick/old.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37430112']You don't seem to understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism, or rather Minarchism like what you're talking about, promotes that local government has the maximum power. The entire point of Libertarianism is that if a local community wanted to re-implement discrimination, then they could. Business owners could individually discriminate. The government would be powerless to stop them, because it would be infringing on their liberty. That is Libertarianism. If you are a Social Liberal, you wouldn't want that to be allowed, and are promoting social liberalism, where the government enforces certain rights, like against discrimination. That is NOT Libertarianism. Libertarianism promotes that individual liberty outweighs government administration, so if you wanted to discriminate in public accommodations you could. And the government couldn't stop you. That's the point. There are not rights in libertarianism, only liberties. "I would rather see an end to government subsidies and entitlements," has nothing to do with libertarianism, but a personal preference on the role of government. Libertarianism advocates the minimal interference of state on individuals. At all. That's why it focuses on liberty and not rights. "I would put liberty over social justice" is saying that you pretty much agreeing to the Social Darwinist aspect of Libertarianism. There will be discrimination. The second that the laws preventing discrimination are no longer powerful, then most of the white American South will implement discrimination. It doesn't matter if you believe in that, it's what's going to happen if Libertarianism is put into place. And I was arguing as a Social Liberal. I'm not a Social Liberal by most definitions, nor a Libertarian by the American definition. Additionally, everything Sobotnik has said to counter your points are pretty much good points to make from a Social Liberal perspective. That and the schools statement/safety standards statement are entirely contradictory both to your post and to Libertarianism.[/QUOTE] I think you're seeing politics as more bipolar than they are. Not everyone has to be all the way to one end or the other. Rights and liberties can coexist. I would even say you can't have one without the other. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37430251]Cause I think government should only do for the people what the people cannot do better themselves. Thus state pensions for sick/old.[/QUOTE] but people can provide for their own retirement. They do it all the time.

Not always. People sometimes experience circumstances where they cannot provide for their own retirement. In a perfect world, yes, every one would have perfect conception of their financial responsibility and properly prepare for retirement, but we live in an imperfect world where this is not the case. In the past the family physically and financially cared for the old/sick, but in the modern day and age, it is very difficult for families to support the sick/old physically and financially. Especially financially. Thus the state must always be there to provide a safety net for those old citizens who cannot support themselves, so that they may enjoy a better quality of life.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37430357]Not always. People sometimes experience circumstances where they cannot provide for their own retirement. In a perfect world, yes, every one would have perfect conception of their financial responsibility and properly prepare for retirement, but we live in an imperfect world where this is not the case. Thus the state must always be there to provide a safety net for those old citizens who cannot support themselves.[/QUOTE] First, are current system provides a safety net for all old citizens, rich or poor. Everyone gets Social Security. Second, if it is the state's job to protect us from bad luck, then we should also provide bailout any businesses that fail. Heck, we should socialize the entire economy. Capitalism is bound to produce losers.

yes its a good idea nobody has the right to tell me how i should spend my money and nobody has the right to deciding what monopoly of force should rule over me and others aka statism

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430438]First, are current system provides a safety net for all old citizens, rich or poor. Everyone gets Social Security. Second, if it is the state's job to protect us from bad luck, then we should also provide bailout any businesses that fail. Heck, we should socialize the entire economy. Capitalism is bound to produce losers.[/QUOTE] I never talked about the current system of SS. In fact, I talked about how the state should support old citizens who cannot support themselves. So what are you going on about? Individuals are not corporations, and I fail to see how providing pensions is equal to socialism.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430255]I think you're seeing politics as more bipolar than they are. Not everyone has to be all the way to one end or the other. Rights and liberties can coexist. I would even say you can't have one without the other. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] but people can provide for their own retirement. They do it all the time.[/QUOTE] how do you explain those who are born into poor families with serious mental or physical impairments? libertarianism is a cruel, violent and unfair system where everyone is so selfish that they bring themselves to ruin. no good comes from a free market.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]I never said we need to stick to old things. I said that we can't turn down old ideas simply because they are old.[/QUOTE] we turn down old ideas because we found better ones [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]I never said old people should not have pensions, I said the government shouldn't supply them. Just because a government implemented something does not mean it's necessary. The US has military bases all over the world, do we need those? Plus, as I have shown in the "is America doomed" thread, only 5% of Americans make minimum wage. It doesn't affect most people.[/QUOTE] why do you compare pensions to military presence? thats awful [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]do have examples of people being rejected because of their skin color? or on that matter, their credit rating? Your credit rating does not affect your likelihood to get sick.[/QUOTE] er no stop misreading things. if a government isnt in place to enforce stuff, a hospital could prevent you medical assistance for whatever arbritrary reason also we do have examples of people being rejected due to their skin colour, its as easy as an employer going "oh hey we don't employ niggers, get out" [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]you don't need to predict the economy to keep an emergency fund.[/QUOTE] because everybody can afford to keep an emergency fund [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]gamble with the company you run? what world do you live in? the last thing business owners want to do is put their business at risk. Well, except bankers. Their just stupid.[/QUOTE] except they do it and having a free market doesnt stop it [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430178]Minimum wage does not affect the majority of Americans, and same with unemployment. We also don't have national healthcare or state-mandated pensions. So no, they are not required to keep society running.[/QUOTE] well sure you can argue they aren't needed, but theres a lot of people in america who dont have as good a life as you do, and it might be due to economic or social problems that they find difficult to overcome because the free market doesn't give a shit about them [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430217] And thanks for pointing out that Ron Paul is not the only libertarian. He makes libertarians as a whole look bad.[/QUOTE] no true scotsman [QUOTE=Kentz;37430440]yes its a good idea nobody has the right to tell me how i should spend my money and nobody has the right to deciding what monopoly of force should rule over me and others aka statism[/QUOTE] well sure i guess that roads and sanitation are naturally occurring phenomenon if you say so

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37430565]I never talked about the current system of SS. In fact, I talked about how the state should support old citizens who cannot support themselves. So what are you going on about? Individuals are not corporations, and I fail to see how providing pensions is equal to socialism.[/QUOTE] Individuals are not corporations, but individuals do run corporations. When a corporation fails, the individuals working for it suffer. Also, not all businesses are corporations. While providing pensions does not equate to socialism, the idea that we must protect individuals from bad luck and misfortune could lead to socialism. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37430587]how do you explain those who are born into poor families with serious mental or physical impairments? libertarianism is a cruel, violent and unfair system where everyone is so selfish that they bring themselves to ruin. no good comes from a free market.[/QUOTE] I do feel bad for those with serious problems, the question is whether the government should provide for them, or should charity. And no good comes from the free market? If not for the free market, you wouldn't be able to post this comment.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430634]. While providing pensions does not equate to socialism, the idea that we must protect individuals from bad luck and misfortune could lead to socialism.[/QUOTE] whats bad about socialism?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430634]Individuals are not corporations, but individuals do run corporations. When a corporation fails, the individuals working for it suffer. Also, not all businesses are corporations. While providing pensions does not equate to socialism, the idea that we must protect individuals from bad luck and misfortune could lead to socialism. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] I do feel bad for those with serious problems, the question is whether the government should provide for them, or should charity. And no good comes from the free market? If not for the free market, you wouldn't be able to post this comment.[/QUOTE] actually, if it were not for ww2 the comment would have never been posted. the commercialization of the internet is only a by-product of capitalism's nature, but i'll ignore trying to follow the path of strawmanning for now. charity provides for a lot of things, but if charity were so successful in modern society then why do countries with socialized aspects perform so much better than those without? you could never [i]possibly[/i] compare the success of the NHS to the various medical charities that take you in for treatment in america. the government can provide for people, but only through the money they recieve. that is why it is imperative that taxes are placed on extremely high earning sources in the country to ensure that the underdogs and lesser-fortunate of society are protected.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]we turn down old ideas because we found better ones[/QUOTE] Sometimes people turn down old Ideas and replace them with bad ones. Romans had a republic for centuries, before becoming an empire. Does that mean an empire is better than an empire? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]why do you compare pensions to military presence? thats awful[/QUOTE] why not? there both things that are government does, so by your logic they are a good thing. As you said, if lots of countries have implemented an idea, it must be a good one. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]er no stop misreading things. if a government isnt in place to enforce stuff, a hospital could prevent you medical assistance for whatever arbritrary reason also we do have examples of people being rejected due to their skin colour, its as easy as an employer going "oh hey we don't employ niggers, get out"[/QUOTE] unless you have an example, I have a hard time believing that they would deny patients over arbitrary reasons. Last time I checked, companies like making money. Denying patients loses money. Plus, if you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I support laws against racial discrimination. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]because everybody can afford to keep an emergency fund[/QUOTE] they can if they work. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]except they do it and having a free market doesnt stop it[/QUOTE] they do? have an example? because it sounds pretty irrational to risk your business like that. A business that does that would die pretty quickly. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]well sure you can argue they aren't needed, but theres a lot of people in america who dont have as good a life as you do, and it might be due to economic or social problems that they find difficult to overcome because the free market doesn't give a shit about them[/QUOTE] yes, they're are people in worse conditions than me. But you know what? there are ways out. We have a great public education system, and there are many ways to get scholarships. So, their condition is partly their fault. On top of that, there are charities that can help them out of their condition. Finally, as I have shown before, the vast majority of people are unaffected. So claiming that unemployment benefits and mimimum wage laws "hold our society together" is a VAST over statement. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37430740]actually, if it were not for ww2 the comment would have never been posted. the commercialization of the internet is only a by-product of capitalism's nature, but i'll ignore trying to follow the path of strawmanning for now. charity provides for a lot of things, but if charity were so successful in modern society then why do countries with socialized aspects perform so much better than those without? you could never [i]possibly[/i] compare the success of the NHS to the various medical charities that take you in for treatment in america. the government can provide for people, but only through the money they recieve. that is why it is imperative that taxes are placed on extremely high earning sources in the country to ensure that the underdogs and lesser-fortunate of society are protected.[/QUOTE] Yes, DARPA is to thank for the internet, but I'm pretty sure that you also used a computer, an operating system, and a web browser to post this comment. You also have to thank the people who run the server this forum is hosted on. And of course, you must thank Garry for making this forum in the first place. Yes, the NHS does do better than American charities, but you have to be careful how you compare countries. There's a lot more to a country than healthcare. And if you value individualism over collectivism, than socialized anything is a bad thing. I'm not sure where the taxes argument came for. Of course we have to tax people enough to pay for our spending. My argument is that we should cut spending, not make money out of thin air. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430732]whats bad about socialism?[/QUOTE] well, it completely deters innovation, and kills the economy of countries. Plus, most socialist governments have resulted in a single-party, authoritarian system.