[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38556400]Except if you cannot consent to having something forced upon you, then you will never be able to learn the concept in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why would I want to get used to "forceful consent" i.e. not consent
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38556488]What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why would I want to get used to "forceful consent" i.e. not consent[/QUOTE]
Because if coercive force is /never/ used against you, you most likely are of the following:
1: non-human
2: fiction
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38556400]
If you wish to use such negative terminology then yes.
It's much more akin to a symbiotic relationship.[/QUOTE]
Its only a symbiotic relationship if the services you are forced to pay for aren't shit (See: 90% of bureaucracy in the US)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]This is why taxes exist.[/QUOTE]
Missing the point. If the system doesn't base on gaining money it will loose it. But I guess you will just get the taxes high enough to compensate for it, right? Do you seriously think that there are no concequences for high taxes?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]Usually by cutting corners.[/QUOTE]
If "cutting corners" endangers people then it should be regulated. And do you seriously think that underfunded hospitals under social healthcare won't cut corners? Unless again, you are just gonna make the taxes even higher.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]Which is what would happen in human society too under libertarian rule. The rich get higher standards of healthcare, education, nutrition. The poor get comparatively worse standards, and once these factors compound it creates greater divisions.[/QUOTE]
What? You are the one suggesting paying for judicial system. And the richer will always get higher standards of healthcare, education, nutrition, it doesn't matter if you make it "free". They will go to public sector for better service and it will give it to them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]Healthcare would be allowed to discriminate, but not in law? [/QUOTE]
"Discriminate" lmao. Should the car companies be allowed to discriminate? Should TV producers be allowed to discriminate? Lets make everything "free".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]No it isn't. The price of labour is in constant decline. People work less these days than in the past, simply because there's less demand for their services.[/QUOTE]
When you increase costs for businesses they will pass it to their employees by reducing their pay/hours/jobs or they will increase prices of their products which will decrease demand and thus making the businesses need less labour. What do you think happens when people have less money? They spend less so you don't need to produce as much products. And you wonder why "there's less demand for their services"? It's because people don't have the money for those services and plus they are more expensive.
You are basing your entire system on high taxes (with which you'll be able to pay all those benefits) yet you don't know the consequences of it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38555109]no because your arguments are terrible "slippery slope" arguments[/QUOTE]
Oh my arguments are terrible? Tell me if I can use [B]your [/B]arguments to justify banning fastfood and certain harmless to others hobbies, and I can justify forcing people to exercise and eating vegetables on penalty of fines or even jail if they refuse to pay, what does that say about your arguments?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555577]what if i don't care about your freedoms[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555727]and you wonder why noone takes you seriously[/QUOTE]
You are a joke. First you go "it's okay to force people to do what we think is good for them" and then you have the nerve to tell other people that they aren't taken seriously?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38556651](See: 90% of bureaucracy in the US)[/QUOTE]
citation needed
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38557032]citation needed[/QUOTE]
All you have to do is look at SH to see that most of oir government programs are inefficient and poorly managed compared to most first world countries.
Shit, you literally argued it on the last page.
[QUOTE=Noble;38555503]So why can those representatives be trusted with their power? That's what the original argument was about. If the free market allegedly can't work because of irrational actors, then you need to be able to explain why you trust irrational actors to represent entire groups of people.[/quote]
I never argued that the free market wouldn't work because of irrational actors. You keep screaming strawman, while you're the only one doing so. I believe that those in the private sector have only their own interests at heart. While this is good for making money, it may not always be good for the rest of the people in society or for the long term. Of course, that is not to argue that business owners cannot do nice things, but rather their primary goal is to attain the most money possible. This is not a strike against them, as this is the nature of a capitalist society, but rather a simply statement.
Now, politicians also have their own interests at heart. However, in a democratic republic, the peopled decide who they wish to elect. This means that a politician should do the most good possible to the most amount of people in order to get elected. I would also argue that money should stay out of politics so companies can not pay off elected officials, keeping the only force influencing them to be their own values and the values of the people electing them.
[quote]That's a poor comparison because murder is coercive force. How can you even make a comparison like that?[/quote]
This is not a poor comparison. The only way to prevent this form of coercion is also coercion. Coercion is intrinsic and can't be removed. The question is what flavor of coercion we should have.
[quote]Somalia is a land where quasi-governmental entities are fighting for control, where there is no respect or enforcement of private property rights. That isn't representative of free market capitalism. It's a strawman argument that keeps being endlessly repeated.[/quote]
It's not a strawman. I'm not misinterpreting your argument, rather saying that what you're arguing for would lead to something similar to this. What would enforce private property rights? Who legitimizes this? More coercion. There would be nothing stopping Somalia from being repeated, unless there was government, which is a form of "coercion". Force would come up some way or another.
[quote]Coercion is the initiation of force (physical or threatened). Retaliation/defensive force in this context means fighting back as you're being assaulted. That is not coercion.[/quote]
How do you define fighting back? Who would do so? What if the opposing party has a big enough army? Again, there is no possible way to remove coercion, especially when psychology has analyzed things such as the bystander effect. The only way would be a form of law enforcement, and again, who decides that such law enforcement is legitimate?
[quote]With a court summons.[/quote]
Who would enforce these?
[quote]I never said that coercion could actually be eliminated, but I would argue that it can be reduced greatly without a government that has a monopoly on the use of coercive force.[/quote]
I don't know, I would much prefer a democratic republic to have a monopoly on the use of coercive force than not. I like knowing what's defined as bad, and having a say in how society is run. Again, what would be preventing a person from initiating force, if not law enforcement? What profit would be gained from doing so? Would the poor be at the bottom of this? I do not like this idea.
[quote]I'm not cherry picking, I was responding to the claim that Cuba had a higher life expectancy than the US. The data here says otherwise.[/quote]
There's clashing statistics, some showing a 0.1% lead from the US, and others not. Either way, the problems with health care can in large be shown to be the fault of the United States' embargo and various other factors. Not because they adopted a Universal Healthcare system. In fact, the taking away of Soviet funds hurt their healthcare significantly.
Are you avoiding the rest of my arguments on purpose or not?
[quote]Now, businesses also have their own interests at heart. However, in a free market, the people decide who they wish to support. This means that a business should do the most good possible to the most amount of people in order to get support.[/quote]
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
Also how is throwing out "Somalia!" every time libertarianism is mentioned not a strawman?
As previously stated Somalia is far from free market, or libertarian, or even stable as a country. It's not a valid comparison. Somalia never set out one day thinking "well its time to attempt to make a free market economy/society!". The ramshackle government in place collapsed and the giant power vacuum basically turned the country into a feudal-esque warlord ruled nation.
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
damn I remember reading a really well thought out counter to the Somalia blurting argument but I can't find it now. Will keep looking
Every resource, including health care, is scarce. That is a fact. This fact implies that every resource MUST be rationed, either by prices or by some central planning body. The main difference lies in the fact that price rationing increases supply by providing incentive while central planning rationing decreases supply and quality by decreasing incentive.
All you have to do is look at examples like rent control in New York, agriculture subsidies, gas price fixing in the 70's, Soviet Russia's attempts for almost all goods, etc.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I never argued that the free market wouldn't work because of irrational actors. You keep screaming strawman, while you're the only one doing so. I believe that those in the private sector have only their own interests at heart. While this is good for making money, it may not always be good for the rest of the people in society or for the long term. Of course, that is not to argue that business owners cannot do nice things, but rather their primary goal is to attain the most money possible. This is not a strike against them, as this is the nature of a capitalist society, but rather a simply statement.[/QUOTE]
If the business owners compete with each other for customers then it's good for customers too.
You seem to think that business owners can just set any price they want and milk people. On free market they would go bankrupt.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38548802]Except getting rid of those institutions is pretty much impossible.[/QUOTE]
Without violent revolution, perhaps.
But that doesn't excuse you from my point in the slightest. You can keep trying to evade it but you are neglecting the fact that this debate is quantitative not qualitative.
This is about ethics, which is why you aren't going to prove Libertarianism is an objectively wrong system through a "scientific" evaluation of its policies.
Even if it were a less effective political system than others, it could still be defended on the basis of principle and morality. Y'know, kind of how socialists have defended protectionist policies for centuries despite the fact that they're [b]always[/b] ineffective and harmful to society on the whole.
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38559986]Also how is throwing out "Somalia!" every time libertarianism is mentioned not a strawman?[/QUOTE]
It is completely, it's a convenient way to attack Libertarianism when one is lacking an actual argument
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38556646]Because if coercive force is /never/ used against you, you most likely are of the following:
1: non-human
2: fiction[/QUOTE]
Have you never heard of ideals?
Is this argument any different then stating that physical force is used on almost everyone at least once?
Does that justify a government to pursue the use of it lavishly and without limit as they deem necessary?
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;38560245]All you have to do is look at examples like rent control in New York, agriculture subsidies, gas price fixing in the 70's, Soviet Russia's attempts for almost all goods, etc.[/QUOTE]
I certainly hope that no one here is ignorant enough to argue that markets in general are ineffective.
#
[QUOTE=Strider*;38561081]Without violent revolution, perhaps.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but this ends up like every, other, single, ideology in history like that.
"We Communists/Libertarians/Radical Feminists/Anarchists/White supremacists just need to have a big final showdown revolution, the world isn't ready for it yet, but we can promise that our side will win the black and white conflict".
These types of revolutions require some kind of totalitarian insane social engineering on an impossible scale over an impossibly short time, and the end result is a half arsed creation that bears no resemblance to what was imagined on paper.
[QUOTE]But that doesn't excuse you from my point in the slightest. You can keep trying to evade it but you are neglecting the fact that this debate is quantitative not qualitative.
This is about ethics, which is why you aren't going to prove Libertarianism is an objectively wrong system through a "scientific" evaluation of its policies.[/QUOTE]
If we can call bullshit on it's policies, they don't need implementation.
[QUOTE]Even if it were a less effective political system than others, it could still be defended on the basis of principle and morality.[/QUOTE]
If you replaced Libertarianism with Communism or Creationism, that point would still hold.
[QUOTE]Y'know, kind of how socialists have defended protectionist policies for centuries despite the fact that they're [b]always[/b] ineffective and harmful to society on the whole.[/QUOTE]
Protectionist policies helped to end Slavery in the USA and started turning it into an industrial power, so I don't know where this argument about them always being ineffective comes from.
[QUOTE]It is completely, it's a convenient way to attack Libertarianism when one is lacking an actual argument[/QUOTE]
Somalia is the closest you will get to Libertarianism. If one were to suggest violent revolution to establish it, Somalia is probably what you would get.
[QUOTE]Have you never heard of ideals?
Is this argument any different then stating that physical force is used on almost everyone at least once?
Does that justify a government to pursue the use of it lavishly and without limit as they deem necessary?[/QUOTE]
This is why we have democracy (although true democracy won't be achieved until economic equality exists.)
[QUOTE]I certainly hope that no one here is ignorant enough to argue that markets in general are ineffective.[/QUOTE]
No, but they can overuse common resources without regard for the effects it will have on others in the long term or themselves.
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=stev3;38561508]If nobody initiates force against you, you wont be able to wrap your head around the idea of someone initiating force against you?
What?[/QUOTE]
Babies can't consent.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I never argued that the free market wouldn't work because of irrational actors. You keep screaming strawman, while you're the only one doing so.[/quote]
That's what it seemed like you were saying originally, but I'm glad we've cleared that up.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I believe that those in the private sector have only their own interests at heart. While this is good for making money, it may not always be good for the rest of the people in society or for the long term. Of course, that is not to argue that business owners cannot do nice things, but rather their primary goal is to attain the most money possible. This is not a strike against them, as this is the nature of a capitalist society, but rather a simply statement.[/quote]
Business owners become rich and successful by providing what people want, and doing it at the best price. They produce at the best prices by being more efficient than their competitors. Even if they only have their own interests at heart, they benefit everyone else in the process.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]Now, politicians also have their own interests at heart. However, in a democratic republic, the peopled decide who they wish to elect. This means that a politician should do the most good possible to the most amount of people in order to get elected. [/quote]
No, it's the 51% who decide who they wish to elect. All it means is that a politician should just act in ways that are politically popular so that they can get re-elected.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I would also argue that money should stay out of politics so companies can not pay off elected officials, keeping the only force influencing them to be their own values and the values of the people electing them.[/quote]
Money will never stay out of politics. Even if you could somehow enforce it the big players will find another way to exert their influence on politicians.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]This is not a poor comparison. The only way to prevent this form of coercion is also coercion. Coercion is intrinsic and can't be removed. The question is what flavor of coercion we should have.[/quote]
It's not coercion if you're defending yourself....
I'm talking about coercion as in, the initiation of force (whether it's physical or threatened) against another individual. Defending yourself is responding to someone else's initiation of force. That isn't coercion.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]It's not a strawman. I'm not misinterpreting your argument, rather saying that what you're arguing for would lead to something similar to this. What would enforce private property rights? Who legitimizes this? More coercion. There would be nothing stopping Somalia from being repeated, unless there was government, which is a form of "coercion". Force would come up some way or another.[/quote]
It's not coercion if you're defending your property against an initiation of force by someone else. I don't think we're using the same definitions here.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]How do you define fighting back? Who would do so? [/quote]
Defending yourself against an initiation of coercive force by someone else. Yourself, private police, dispute resolution organizations, and so on.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]What if the opposing party has a big enough army? [/quote]
You could run away, you could give in and pay them, or you could fight back. Now imagine that you live in an area controlled by an oppressive government, instead. You don't have these choices and the government is free to do virtually whatever it wants to you. Are the North Koreans free to fight back or run away to a freer place to live, for example? An entity with a monopoly on force, the government, is actually a much greater danger.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]Again, there is no possible way to remove coercion, especially when psychology has analyzed things such as the bystander effect.[/quote]
But we can get rid of the government's monopoly on coercive force, though.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]The only way would be a form of law enforcement, and again, who decides that such law enforcement is legitimate?[/quote]
Woah, hold on. What laws? Only contracts, with disagreements settled by Dispute Resolution Organizations.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]Who would enforce these?[/quote]
No one would drag you to court. If you don't go, a default judgement will be entered against you. If you didn't pay, there are a number of things that could happen, including other people who associate and trade with you taking your violations of previous contracts into account when deciding if they want to do business with you in the future.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I don't know, I would much prefer a democratic republic to have a monopoly on the use of coercive force than not.[/quote]
Yeah, because you've lived with this system all your life. Many people have just gotten used to the fact that the government will use their monopoly on force to steal your money and lock you in a cage if you resist.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]I like knowing what's defined as bad[/quote]
How about initiating coercive force against other individuals?
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]and having a say in how society is run.[/quote]
Do you really?
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]Again, what would be preventing a person from initiating force, if not law enforcement? What profit would be gained from doing so?[/quote]
I already answered that one. Are you asking whether private police would be able to make a profit? Of course they would, just like any organization who offers better service and prices than their competitors.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]Would the poor be at the bottom of this?[/quote]
What do you mean?
[QUOTE=Zally13;38559759]There's clashing statistics, some showing a 0.1% lead from the US, and others not. Either way, the problems with health care can in large be shown to be the fault of the United States' embargo and various other factors. Not because they adopted a Universal Healthcare system. In fact, the taking away of Soviet funds hurt their healthcare significantly.
Are you avoiding the rest of my arguments on purpose or not?[/QUOTE]
This particular argument is being derailed though. All I wanted to see was a source backing up Sobotnik's claim that those pictures were taken at a "volunteer hospital" and that the filthy, unclean conditions depicted there were not representative of the country's health care system. Then that argument went off in a whole other direction.
[QUOTE=Noble;38563361]That's what it seemed like you were saying originally, but I'm glad we've cleared that up.[/quote]
Then that's fine.
[quote]Business owners become rich and successful by providing what people want, and doing it at the best price. They produce at the best prices by being more efficient than their competitors. Even if they only have their own interests at heart, they benefit everyone else in the process.[/quote]
Except that this doesn't always work in practice. The current companies providing oil could do so at a much cheaper price, except that they control nearly all reserves and it is very hard to start up an oil company. It's not cheap at all. Standard Oil for example, controlled 88% of oil in 1890, and this was prevented through law. I also do not wish to have an environment that is filled with pollutants, which is happening and affecting everybody else around us. The only way we've actually made progress in this area is through legislation, once again. The free market does not always work in the favor, and can create problems with health, worker's pay, and so forth.
[quote]No, it's the 51% who decide who they wish to elect. All it means is that a politician should just act in ways that are politically popular so that they can get re-elected.[/quote]
Of course, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal]because candidates have never done the unpopular thing.[/url]
[quote]Money will never stay out of politics. Even if you could somehow enforce it the big players will find another way to exert their influence on politicians.[/quote]
Restricting the amount of money individuals can give to a candidate and making it all grassroot donations sure would help, wouldn't it?
[quote]It's not coercion if you're defending yourself....
I'm talking about coercion as in, the initiation of force (whether it's physical or threatened) against another individual. Defending yourself is responding to someone else's initiation of force. That isn't coercion.[/quote]
How do you define defending yourself? What if you back up water on a river (on say, property you claim to own) in order to flood a field of crops so you can feed yourself and your family, but this causes another farm down the way to lose access to water. Who is in the right here? And who decides that?
[quote]It's not coercion if you're defending your property against an initiation of force by someone else. I don't think we're using the same definitions here.[/quote]
How do you define who owns what property? If somebody takes it, is it not theirs? There wouldn't be a centralized law system that allows us to know what's going on.
[quote]Defending yourself against an initiation of coercive force by someone else. Yourself, private police, dispute resolution organizations, and so on.[/quote]
Who legitimizes the private police? What rules would they follow? Again, who would force you to act in these situations? It would have to be the use of force, and he may have done something wrong according to one definition of the "law", while not wrong according to another definition.
[quote]You could run away, you could give in and pay them, or you could fight back. Now imagine that you live in an area controlled by an oppressive government, instead. You don't have these choices and the government is free to do virtually whatever it wants to you. Are the North Koreans free to fight back or run away to a freer place to live, for example? An entity with a monopoly on force, the government, is actually a much greater danger.[/quote]
Except that we do have things in place to protect us from the government. We can sue the government, vote for candidates that we believe fit our beliefs, and ultimately if that doesn't work, then you can also "run away". There are other areas that you can move to if you wish to not pay taxes.
[quote]But we can get rid of the government's monopoly on coercive force, though.[/quote]
Except that doing so would create even more coercive force.
[quote]Woah, hold on. What laws? Only contracts, with disagreements settled by Dispute Resolution Organizations.[/quote]
What if I never agreed to this contract and I assaulted somebody on their property? Do they then have the right to still hold me to this contract?
[quote]No one would drag you to court. If you don't go, a default judgement will be entered against you. If you didn't pay, there are a number of things that could happen, including other people who associate and trade with you taking your violations of previous contracts into account when deciding if they want to do business with you in the future.[/quote]
Sounds like a pseudo-government. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case either. There will always be people willing to look the other way with "contracts". For example, in the case of a decentralized country (I use this term geographically, not lawfully), what prevents a man who sold bad food to somebody from moving across the country and setting up a new shop, possibly selling even more bad food?
[quote]Yeah, because you've lived with this system all your life. Many people have just gotten used to the fact that the government will use their monopoly on force to steal your money and lock you in a cage if you resist. [/quote]
That's hardly a good argument. I like many people having a say in things, because the government has done much more harm than good. The government does a good job at lowering wealth inequality (by providing options for people to get to the top), making good investments, and overall improving the quality of living.
[quote]How about initiating coercive force against other individuals?[/quote]
I don't understand. This is defined as bad by the government, which derives its power from social contracts and the will of the people. Nobody is preventing you from staying here like in North Korea (what a horrible example).
[quote]Do you really?[/quote]
More than if I was born poor in a society that would have no way of helping me. There would be such a high wealth division it would be ridiculous.
[quote]I already answered that one. Are you asking whether private police would be able to make a profit? Of course they would, just like any organization who offers better service and prices than their competitors.
What do you mean?[/quote]
How would they profit off of those that can not afford police protection, insurance, or whatever system you would propose?
[quote]This particular argument is being derailed though. All I wanted to see was a source backing up Sobotnik's claim that those pictures were taken at a "volunteer hospital" and that the filthy, unclean conditions depicted there were not representative of the country's health care system. Then that argument went off in a whole other direction.[/QUOTE]
Did I ever defend Sobotnik in that regard? I'm saying that Cuba's healthcare became of much higher quality after it adopted a nationalized healthcare system. Everything is relative.
[quote]If we can call bullshit on it's policies, they don't need implementation.[/quote]
You've done none of this because you've pretty much refused to touch anything economic in this debate.
[quote]Protectionist policies helped to end Slavery in the USA and started turning it into an industrial power, so I don't know where this argument about them always being ineffective comes from.[/quote]
That's not what protectionism is and no they didn't help turn the USA into an industrial power. They are [b]always[/b] bad for any and every economy. They will only benefit the small sector of society that they are intended to help.
[quote]Somalia is the closest you will get to Libertarianism. If one were to suggest violent revolution to establish it, Somalia is probably what you would get.[/quote]
No it's not and until you show why it is, this is a moot and completely irrational point. Somalia is closer to anarchism and you're neglecting the fact that Somalia has a frail economy and infrastructure due to years of violent dictatorship.
If you want to call out Somalia as symbol of Libertarian failure, then I'm just as entitled to point to Hong Kong as an example of its success.
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38562797]
This is why we have democracy (although true democracy won't be achieved until economic equality exists.)
[/QUOTE]
Democracy is a terrible ideal, and thank the heavens it will never truly be attainable.
And how was that related to my point about coercion in the slightest?
[QUOTE=Strider*;38571203]You've done none of this because you've pretty much refused to touch anything economic in this debate.[/QUOTE]
They don't work.
[QUOTE]That's not what protectionism is and no they didn't help turn the USA into an industrial power. They are [b]always[/b] bad for any and every economy. They will only benefit the small sector of society that they are intended to help.[/QUOTE]
Except the policy followed was that imported manufactured goods had tariffs placed on them, allowing American industry to develop at the expense of southern cotton plantation based economies (forced to spend more in order to import needed goods, or use Northern products).
[QUOTE]No it's not and until you show why it is, this is a moot and completely irrational point. Somalia is closer to anarchism and you're neglecting the fact that Somalia has a frail economy and infrastructure due to years of violent dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Yet should not the lack of government control assist it?
[QUOTE]If you want to call out Somalia as symbol of Libertarian failure, then I'm just as entitled to point to Hong Kong as an example of its success.[/QUOTE]
Minus the fact the government owns all land in Hong Kong and leases it out, having direct control over all land transactions: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20091020055110/http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC12.html[/url]
Plus the fact it doesn't need to maintain a military force, is in a geographically advantageous position and has been more or less protected by the British for most of it's history (with the British taxpayer paying for Hong Kong).
The government there also owns the railways and spends a massive amount of money on social welfare. Hong Kong is practically the diametric opposite of laissez faire because the state literally owns almost everything.
[QUOTE]Democracy is a terrible ideal, and thank the heavens it will never truly be attainable.[/QUOTE]
Well strangely enough, it's working pretty well out of most systems we have had yet (a benevolent dictator or computer would be better, but we haven't got round to getting a successive line of benevolent dictators or a computer powerful enough for that).
[QUOTE]And how was that related to my point about coercion in the slightest?[/QUOTE]
The reason the state has a monopoly on coercive force is because the residents of that state consent to the state using that force in a controlled and justifiable manner.
It's a transaction, where you give some of your power and liberty in return for physical protection.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38572360]They don't work.[/quote]
Great argument.
[quote]Except the policy followed was that imported manufactured goods had tariffs placed on them, allowing American industry to develop at the expense of southern cotton plantation based economies (forced to spend more in order to import needed goods, or use Northern products).[/quote]
Slavery did not end until the 14th amendment, the tariffs only benefited northern producers at the expense of the overall economy. American industry would have developed just as quickly without those tariffs, the Northern states were already more productive at that point.
[quote]Yet should not the lack of government control assist it?[/quote]
I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.
[quote]Minus the fact the government owns all land in Hong Kong and leases it out, having direct control over all land transactions: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20091020055110/http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC12.html[/url]
Plus the fact it doesn't need to maintain a military force, is in a geographically advantageous position and has been more or less protected by the British for most of it's history (with the British taxpayer paying for Hong Kong).
The government there also owns the railways and spends a massive amount of money on social welfare. Hong Kong is practically the diametric opposite of laissez faire because the state literally owns almost everything.[/quote]
Except for the fact that there are (or at least were) no duties or tariffs on imports or exports. Sure the government owns all land, but as I said it is just as much a "Libertarian" paradise as Somalia is a hell. If you're going to call the anarchic Somalia Libertarian then I don't see why you cannot accept Hong Kong as an equivalent counterexample.
I'll need to see a source of your claim that the government owns "almost everything" which is the exact opposite of the truth. And if you're going to use your aforementioned source, please quote from the article showing this. I have no time to waste reading the work of an anarchist.
How does its military advantage correlate with its economic success? And please don't tell me you consider Britain responsible for its transformation because it is well known that Hong Kong became an economic powerhouse because of the fact that the United Kingdom ignored it.
[quote]Well strangely enough, it's working pretty well out of most systems we have had yet (a benevolent dictator or computer would be better, but we haven't got round to getting a successive line of benevolent dictators or a computer powerful enough for that).[/quote]
Okay Churchill, but I was talking about political ideals not current political necessities. And regardless, most "democracies" across the globe aren't truly their namesake.
[quote]The reason the state has a monopoly on coercive force is because the residents of that state consent to the state using that force in a controlled and justifiable manner.
It's a transaction, where you give some of your power and liberty in return for physical protection.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the point Libertarians make, that governments are given the power of force only for the use of defending its people.
Libertarians want to give up liberty only for protection and not for governments to pervert markets and play Robin Hood.
[QUOTE]Slavery did not end until the 14th amendment, the tariffs only benefited northern producers at the expense of the overall economy. American industry would have developed just as quickly without those tariffs, the Northern states were already more productive at that point.[/QUOTE]
They weakened the southern economy whilst strengthening the northern economy, give this a few decades and the effect builds up.
Heck, when they introduced the tariffs in the 1820s, some states threatened to secede over it.
Except British manufactured goods undercut American goods already being produced. By setting high tariffs on British goods, it allowed Northern manufacturers to sell these goods for greater profit (and use the cash to develop their industry and whatnot [b]at the expense of southern agriculture.[/b]
[QUOTE]I'll need to see a source of your claim that the government owns "almost everything" which is the exact opposite of the truth. And if you're going to use your aforementioned source, please quote from the article showing this. I have no time to waste reading the work of an anarchist.[/QUOTE]
I'll use this instead: [url]http://www.clic.org.hk/en/topics/saleAndPurchaseOfProperty/basic_knowledge_of_land_ownership_in_hong_kong/[/url]
[quote]The People's Republic of China owns all the land in Hong Kong , except the land on which St John's Cathedral stands.[/quote]
[QUOTE]How does its military advantage correlate with its economic success?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't need to maintain an army and was protected by firstly the British empire, then the Chinese (another growing power).
[QUOTE]And please don't tell me you consider Britain responsible for its transformation because it is well known that Hong Kong became an economic powerhouse because of the fact that the United Kingdom ignored it.[/QUOTE]
Except the British protected it (for free might I add), it was in a [b]good[/b] position for trade as it was a convenient stop for local shipping and is an island with high property prices nearby a cheap labour pool from the most populous country on earth.
I.e It's in a good location, and the British subsidized it.
[QUOTE]Okay Churchill, but I was talking about political ideals not current political necessities. And regardless, most "democracies" across the globe aren't truly their namesake.[/QUOTE]
You go for the necessities. Pretty much all ideals don't work perfectly in practice.
[QUOTE]That's exactly the point Libertarians make, that governments are given the power of force only for the use of defending its people.[/QUOTE]
And why not give them more power in return for greater protection? Their power can be removed anytime by simply voting for a different political party or having protests (like the French do).
[QUOTE]Libertarians want to give up liberty only for protection and not for governments to pervert markets and play Robin Hood.[/QUOTE]
The rest of the population, on the contrary, actually wants social services of some kind (which is why non-libertarian parties exist to cater to that need).
It's a further simple transaction, whereby you give up some of the fruits of your labour in return for a guarantee that you will be provided with healthcare/pensions/etc.
It's hardly different than an insurance company (except in this case the insurance company also is held accountable by the democratic process, media, etc).
Arguing against libertarianism using somalia as an example is like arguing against socialism using soviet russia as an example. And it's pretty ironic considering you'd probably make fun of someone doing that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38581459]
The rest of the population, on the contrary, actually wants social services of some kind (which is why non-libertarian parties exist to cater to that need).
It's a further simple transaction, whereby you give up some of the fruits of your labour in return for a guarantee that you will be provided with healthcare/pensions/etc.
It's hardly different than an insurance company (except in this case the insurance company also is held accountable by the democratic process, media, etc).[/QUOTE]
This is utter bullshit. Everyone who has money can guarantee himself healthcare/pensions/etc. Only the people who can't afford those things benefit from this. No one else needs those things "guaranteed". Stop making it look like the only way to get those things is to pay for it in taxes.
And no those things are never held accountable. A private insurance company would go bankrupt and disappear if they would mess up while your "public insurance" will just continue loosing money.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38587177]This is utter bullshit. Everyone who has money can guarantee himself healthcare/pensions/etc.[/QUOTE]
What if despite working hard, the insurance company refuses to pay, or you get an injury that your insurance doesn't cover? What happens if an outbreak of smallpox occurs and no centralized authority exists to quarantine people and to administer vaccinations?
[QUOTE]Only the people who can't afford those things benefit from this.[/QUOTE]
Which is a lot of people. What happens to them?
[QUOTE]No one else needs those things "guaranteed". Stop making it look like the only way to get those things is to pay for it in taxes.[/QUOTE]
It's not the only way, it's the best way we have. If every resident of the state put a good half of their money into the big money pot, we can use that money to benefit society more than if individuals had chosen themselves.
[QUOTE]And no those things are never held accountable. A private insurance company would go bankrupt and disappear if they would mess up while your "public insurance" will just continue loosing money.[/QUOTE]
Except the media would absolutely eviscerate it, an inquiry would be called, key people would be sacked and replaced, followed by reorganization of the department in order to make it run more smoothly and manageable.
In Europe, it's been working pretty well for us, and it's a great shame that Americans can't have their basic provisions looked after, with the justification of some ancient philosophy that says "No we cannot infringe on the rights of the individual", to justify infringing on the rights of more people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]What if despite working hard, the insurance company refuses to pay,[/QUOTE]
There are laws for that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]or you get an injury that your insurance doesn't cover?[/QUOTE]
You get what you pay for.
And public healthcare doesn't cover everything either or you have to wait so long that you'll die in the process.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]What happens if an outbreak of smallpox occurs and no centralized authority exists to quarantine people and to administer vaccinations? [/QUOTE]
"no centralized authority exists"? Are you talking about anarchy or what?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]Which is a lot of people. What happens to them?[/QUOTE]
In america with the inflated prices maybe.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]It's not the only way, it's the best way we have. If every resident of the state put a good half of their money into the big money pot, we can use that money to benefit society more than if individuals had chosen themselves.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think you know better what's best for people than themselves? And what makes it okay for you to force people to live their lives by your standards? Totalitarian bullshit.
And just out of curiosity, I'm not making an argument just wanna know the answer, why not make people pay 100% of their income in taxes and make everything "free". Surely if putting half of your money into the big money pot is good then putting it all should be twice as good?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]Except the media would absolutely eviscerate it, an inquiry would be called, key people would be sacked and replaced, followed by reorganization of the department in order to make it run more smoothly and manageable.[/QUOTE]
You are naive. Media wouldn't go on a war against government. And everything that isn't designed to make money will loose it. No reorganization is going to change that.
So you've made your system of public healthcare and pensions. It just keeps getting in debt. What are you going to do? You'll obviously not disband it. You don't want public uproar about it either. You'll just sweep it under the rug and either let it continue getting in dept or increase the taxes enough to cover it right? Making even more people loose their jobs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38587299]In Europe, it's been working pretty well for us, and it's a great shame that Americans can't have their basic provisions looked after, with the justification of some ancient philosophy that says "No we cannot infringe on the rights of the individual", to justify infringing on the rights of more people.[/QUOTE]
Compared to your "We will tell people what's good for them and force them to spend their money on what we think is best for them" it suddenly doesn't sound that stupid.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38587564]There are laws for that.[/QUOTE]
In a Libertarian society, these laws wouldn't exist.
[QUOTE]You get what you pay for.[/QUOTE]
So what happens to the vast majority of people who are poor and cannot afford say, a heart operation?
[QUOTE]And public healthcare doesn't cover everything either or you have to wait so long that you'll die in the process.[/QUOTE]
This is a terrible argument, based on two things.
1: It covers what people need to help them live long and healthy lives (if you want gold teeth, go to a specialist).
2. Waiting lists aren't that long, and people who have more life threatening conditions are bumped up the list. Plus in this system, less people die overall (since everybody is covered, instead of just the wealthy, and middle class people struggling with debts).
[QUOTE]"no centralized authority exists"? Are you talking about anarchy or what?[/QUOTE]
In Libertarianism, the intention is to reduce the power of central authority.
[QUOTE]In america with the inflated prices maybe.[/QUOTE]
What happens to them?
What makes you think you know better what's best for people than themselves?[/QUOTE]
Because there are people who are more intelligent or better suited to judging things than other people. The individual is incapable of running their entire life by themselves.
Whats more, the people [b] RECOGNIZE[/b] that they have some intelligent members of the community, who they vote for in order to best represent their interests.
The argument that "we get oppressed" implodes when we actually have some power over who gets power.
[QUOTE]And what makes it okay for you to force people to live their lives by your standards? Totalitarian bullshit.[/QUOTE]
It makes them happier than if they hadn't been.
[QUOTE]And just out of curiosity, I'm not making an argument just wanna know the answer, why not make people pay 100% of their income in taxes and make everything "free". Surely if putting half of your money into the big money pot is good then putting it all should be twice as good?[/QUOTE]
I'd be all for that, but practicality reasons (the state cannot predict prices perfectly) means that if you had a computer to do it, it would probably take several thousand years to write up a 5 year plan.
[QUOTE]You are naive. Media wouldn't go on a war against government.[/QUOTE]
They do that everyday.
[QUOTE]And everything that isn't designed to make money will loose it. No reorganization is going to change that.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and why should profit be the sole objective?
[QUOTE]So you've made your system of public healthcare and pensions. It just keeps getting in debt. What are you going to do?[/QUOTE]
Raise taxes, reduce spending on the military, get rid of corn subsidies, etc.
[QUOTE]Making even more people loose their jobs.[/QUOTE]
Depends.
[QUOTE]Compared to your "We will tell people what's good for them and force them to spend their money on what we think is best for them" it suddenly doesn't sound that stupid.[/QUOTE]
It works here. It should work in America.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]In a Libertarian society, these laws wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]In Libertarianism, the intention is to reduce the power of central authority.[/QUOTE]
Apparently libertarianism is anarchy.
If you could prove that libertarianism is wrong by proving that some super extreme, anarchist version of it is wrong, then I could prove that socialism is wrong by using the soviet russia example.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]So what happens to the vast majority of people who are poor and cannot afford say, a heart operation?[/QUOTE]
I'm all for private healthcare with donations for poor people especially if their condition is bad and they need help fast.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]This is a terrible argument, based on two things.
1: It covers what people need to help them live long and healthy lives (if you want gold teeth, go to a specialist).
2. Waiting lists aren't that long, and people who have more life threatening conditions are bumped up the list. Plus in this system, less people die overall (since everybody is covered, instead of just the wealthy, and middle class people struggling with debts).
[/QUOTE]
1. Bullshit. You will get the cheapest type of treatment for your condition because the hospitals are underfunded under public healthcare. So people who can afford it go to the private sector and get better help exactly like in the system that you hate so much.
2. Yeah just like my appointment with a doctor that had a huge red "urgent" (because I was really bad) on it and I got assigned for 2014. If I didn't go to private doctor I'd be dead by now.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]What happens to them?[/QUOTE]
You base your argument that a lot of people wouldn't have money for healthcare because it's really expensive. That situation is true in america that has inflated prices. Normally if you wouldn't have to pay ridiculous taxes and prices weren't inflated you'd have money for it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]It makes them happier than if they hadn't been.[/QUOTE]
Only by your standards. Because you think everyone is the same and follows your values.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]They do that everyday.[/QUOTE]
Why would your totalitarian rule let the media slander you? You'd just ban it as it's not good for the society and makes people less happy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]Yes, and why should profit be the sole objective?[/QUOTE]
That's not the point. The objective is not to loose money and not getting in debt.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]Raise taxes, reduce spending on the military, get rid of corn subsidies, etc.[/QUOTE]
Raise taxes raise taxes. You base your system on high taxes yet you don't know what it does to people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]Depends.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't depend. Increase the costs for business and they will reduce pay/hours of their employees. Reduce how much money people have and they will buy less stuff meaning less labour is needed. Both lead to people loosing jobs. It doesn't depend on anything. It just how it is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]It works here. It should work in America.[/QUOTE]
Totalitarian socialism works. You heard it here first.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]The argument that "we get oppressed" implodes when we actually have some power over who gets power.[/QUOTE]
The argument doesn't implode at all just because it's the majority dictating how the rest should live their lives. All you're doing is saying "the majority have the right to force everyone else to live by their standards".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]Because there are people who are more intelligent or better suited to judging things than other people. The individual is incapable of running their entire life by themselves.
Whats more, the people [B] RECOGNIZE[/B] that they have some intelligent members of the community, who they vote for in order to best represent their interests.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38588037]I'd be all for that [paying 100% of income in tax and making everything "free"[/QUOTE]
Wow... I don't even know what to say. You are so far gone it's not even funny.
You have no fucking right to tell people how to live their lives. Same way I can't go into your house with a gun and tell you that you should do this and that because I think that's what everybody should do and that you should donate half of your money to military because it's important for me. Not to mention that you don't know what's best for me. All you have is information what your "average" citizen is like. Well guess what the "average" citizen doesn't exist. Everyone is different and has their own idea how to live their life the way it's going to make them happy.
And your argument that people elect people to make these laws... People who vote for politicians who'll push banning X are the ones who are not using/doing X in the first place. Those who vote want [B]everyone [/B]to follow their values and that's why they vote for those politicians who will make these kinds of laws. Because they think their values are the best and that everyone should follow them. It's simply wrong. It's just like banning all religions except one and then forcing everyone to follow it. But at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you advocated that too. And the only reason why someone would vote for someone "smarter" to tell them how to live their lives is because some people started to believe that exact nonsense you people have been spreading and because of all your protectionist laws that stripped people of common sense.
Why can't you people let other people live the lives they want? Leave us alone. You have your idea how to live your life and I have mine. Stop telling me what's best for me. You have no authority or knowledge to do that.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38588631]Apparently libertarianism is anarchy.
If you could prove that libertarianism is wrong by proving that some super extreme, anarchist version of it is wrong, then I could prove that socialism is wrong by using the soviet russia example.[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism in itself is demanding a reduction of [b]ALL[/b] government intervention in practically every area. If you try to reduce the power of the central authority to administer quarantines for example, you are helping disease to spread.
[QUOTE]I'm all for private healthcare with donations for poor people especially if their condition is bad and they need help fast.[/QUOTE]
Charity can't cover everyone.
[QUOTE]1. Bullshit. You will get the cheapest type of treatment for your condition because the hospitals are underfunded under public healthcare.[/QUOTE]
They are actually funded pretty well in Europe.
[QUOTE]So people who can afford it go to the private sector and get better help exactly like in the system that you hate so much.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't entitle you to push the price of many surgeries out of the reach of the poor.
[QUOTE]2. Yeah just like my appointment with a doctor that had a huge red "urgent" (because I was really bad) on it and I got assigned for 2014. If I didn't go to private doctor I'd be dead by now.[/QUOTE]
Which country are you in, and what was the medical problem?
[QUOTE]You base your argument that a lot of people wouldn't have money for healthcare because it's really expensive. That situation is true in america that has inflated prices.[/QUOTE]
It actually is, and its getting more expensive because people are living longer and new diseases and problems have to be tackled yearly. This is not a problem inherent to any political system, its due to people living longer.
[QUOTE]Normally if you wouldn't have to pay ridiculous taxes and prices weren't inflated you'd have money for it.[/QUOTE]
Except for the poor.
[QUOTE]Only by your standards. Because you think everyone is the same and follows your values.[/QUOTE]
Actually we can quantify happiness.
[QUOTE]Why would your totalitarian rule let the media slander you? You'd just ban it as it's not good for the society and makes people less happy.[/QUOTE]
Because the media highlights faults within a government, and can help to keep down corruption and waste (plus it means the people know whats up).
[QUOTE]That's not the point. The objective is not to loose money and not getting in debt.[/QUOTE]
Newsflash: Every country takes on debt at some point, no matter what policies you follow. As long as you can pay off the interest then you won't hit deep shit.
[QUOTE]Raise taxes raise taxes. You base your system on high taxes yet you don't know what it does to people.[/QUOTE]
"Lower taxes!" the cry of the local political party whenever there is a economic recession! Lower and lower, it shall fix our economy.
Have you ever considered that taxes are low enough as they are, and that we need some cash to actually maintain public services (which you argue as being underfunded).
[QUOTE]No it doesn't depend. Increase the costs for business and they will reduce pay/hours of their employees. Reduce how much money people have and they will buy less stuff meaning less labour is needed. Both lead to people loosing jobs. It doesn't depend on anything. It just how it is.[/QUOTE]
The money doesn't get thrown into a black hole. The government pays people money with the taxes they have collected. It still remains in the economy.
[QUOTE]Totalitarian socialism works. You heard it here first.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say the French or British live under "Totalitarian Socialism".
[QUOTE]The argument doesn't implode at all just because it's the majority dictating how the rest should live their lives. All you're doing is saying "the majority have the right to force everyone else to live by their standards".[/QUOTE]
This is why we have civil rights laws protecting the rights of minorities. Gay people are represented in politics, and have laws to protect their employment.
[QUOTE]Wow... I don't even know what to say. You are so far gone it's not even funny.
You have no fucking right to tell people how to live their lives. Same way I can't go into your house with a gun and tell you that you should do this and that because I think that's what everybody should do and that you should donate half of your money to military because it's important for me. Not to mention that you don't know what's best for me. All you have is information what your "average" citizen is like. Well guess what the "average" citizen doesn't exist. Everyone is different and has their own idea how to live their life the way it's going to make them happy.[/QUOTE]
This is rhetoric.
[QUOTE]And your argument that people elect people to make these laws... People who vote for politicians who'll push banning X are the ones who are not using/doing X in the first place. Those who vote want [B]everyone [/B]to follow their values and that's why they vote for those politicians who will make these kinds of laws. Because they think their values are the best and that everyone should follow them. It's simply wrong.[/QUOTE]
These politicians also keep in mind that they have to look after everybodies interests. Britain banned the death penalty, legalized homosexual behaviour and abortion (even though these were highly unpopular laws at the time).
[QUOTE]It's just like banning all religions except one and then forcing everyone to follow it.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
[QUOTE]But at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you advocated that too. And the only reason why someone would vote for someone "smarter" to tell them how to live their lives is because some people started to believe that exact nonsense you people have been spreading and because of all your protectionist laws that stripped people of common sense.[/QUOTE]
Common sense is bullshit that relies on anecdotes and tradition.
[QUOTE]Why can't you people let other people live the lives they want? Leave us alone. You have your idea how to live your life and I have mine. Stop telling me what's best for me. You have no authority or knowledge to do that.[/QUOTE]
Because we need a society that balances freedoms and rights. I'm all for free speech, freedom of association, freedom of trade, freedom to do private business, etc. What we [b]ALSO[/b] need is an extensive net to protect the downtrodden of society (such as blacks, women, homosexuals, poor, and so on and so forth).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]Libertarianism in itself is demanding a reduction of [B]ALL[/B] government intervention in practically every area. If you try to reduce the power of the central authority to administer quarantines for example, you are helping disease to spread.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying socialism can [B]ONLY[/B]push for paying 100% of your income in taxes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]Charity can't cover everyone.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant the the poorest would get help from the government. Without making the entire healthcare public. Sorry.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]They are actually funded pretty well in Europe.[/QUOTE]
Dream on. Strikes every year. Underfunded shit quality hospitals. Doctors working 24 hours in a row or even more. Doctors leaving public sector on the first opportunity creating extremely long lists. And so on. Unless again, you pull the taxes even higher.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]This doesn't entitle you to push the price of many surgeries out of the reach of the poor.[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with what I said? You say it's wrong that under private healthcare the wealthy will get better treatment and I'm saying that it happens in the public healthcare as well. And if you didn't make the taxes so high there wouldn't be so many people without a job.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]Which country are you in, and what was the medical problem?[/QUOTE]
I almost couldn't sleep or hold down food for weeks but that's irrelevant. The doctor gave me highest priority he could and the best timetable I could get was 2014.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]It actually is, and its getting more expensive because people are living longer and new diseases and problems have to be tackled yearly. This is not a problem inherent to any political system, its due to people living longer.[/QUOTE]
You're not making the service any cheaper tho by making it public? It still needs the same money to happen. You are still taking the same amount of money from people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]Except for the poor.[/QUOTE]
Except your high taxes are the reason why so many people don't have a job. And while wealthy people can afford high taxes the poor won't so you're making it even worse for them to get out of the shitter.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Actually we can quantify happiness.[/QUOTE]
On "average", there are no "average" people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Because the media highlights faults within a government, and can help to keep down corruption and waste (plus it means the people know whats up).[/QUOTE]
But if people know that the politicians they voted for are wasting their money people will feel unhappy. Won't that reduce your quantified happiness of people?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Newsflash: Every country takes on debt at some point, no matter what policies you follow. As long as you can pay off the interest then you won't hit deep shit.[/QUOTE]
Like I said. System that doesn't want to earn money will loose it. It's not that "at some point you might get in debt", you will.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
"Lower taxes!" the cry of the local political party whenever there is a economic recession! Lower and lower, it shall fix our economy.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah. When people have more money they can spend more so more labour is needed. And if the production costs are low for businesses they will hire more people so yeah.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Have you ever considered that taxes are low enough as they are, and that we need some cash to actually maintain public services (which you argue as being underfunded).[/QUOTE]
Then what can be made private should be private?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]The money doesn't get thrown into a black hole. The government pays people money with the taxes they have collected. It still remains in the economy.
[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? If you increase taxes, does it create additional costs for businesses? And does it make citizens have less money? Explain to me how am I still having the same mount of money if you keep taking more and more % of my income?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]I wouldn't say the French or British live under "Totalitarian Socialism".[/QUOTE]
What I described was totalitarian socialism. It hasn't go that far in France and Britain. When it goes that far, it'll fail.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]This is why we have civil rights laws protecting the rights of minorities. Gay people are represented in politics, and have laws to protect their employment.[/QUOTE]
First you make a stupid system that tramples minorities and then you have to make things that protect those minorities. What if the issue isn't about sexuality, religion, etc? If you'd start going after fastfood and extreme sports because one is unhealthy and the other is dangerous should people who enjoy them have their representatives in politics? Why not just NOT do that shit?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]This is rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
Can you or can you not make everyone happy with the same formula?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]These politicians also keep in mind that they have to look after everybodies interests. Britain banned the death penalty, legalized homosexual behaviour and abortion (even though these were highly unpopular laws at the time).
[/QUOTE]
But you said yourself that it's okay to impose your values on people if you are in majority. And those politicians are the tool for that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
No it isn't.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is. Your way is the best way and makes people happy and everyone should do the same. It's exactly the same mindset.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Common sense is bullshit that relies on anecdotes and tradition.[/QUOTE]
I know you don't believe in common sense because you don't have it. You babysitted people and they got used to it and then believed that they are incapable of living on their own. You people caused this problem and you just want to make it even worse.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38589318]
Because we need a society that balances freedoms and rights. I'm all for free speech, freedom of association, freedom of trade, freedom to do private business, etc. What we [B]ALSO[/B] need is an extensive net to protect the downtrodden of society (such as blacks, women, homosexuals, poor, and so on and so forth).[/QUOTE]
What the hell does that have to do with your quantifying of happiness and imposing your formula on everyone by force?
You are all for telling people how to live their lives and telling them how to spend their money because they are too stupid to think for themselves (you said that your self that they are incapable of running their entire life by themselves). Don't mask it with protecting people who are getting abused. You are lying through your teeth.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38590851]That's like saying socialism can [B]ONLY[/B]push for paying 100% of your income in taxes.[/QUOTE]
Socialism is for society to become more equal through redistribution of resources and/or the means of production. Libertarianism is for the exact opposite.
[QUOTE]Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant the the poorest would get help from the government. Without making the entire healthcare public. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
So the government can manage the health of the poor then?
[QUOTE]Dream on. Strikes every year. Underfunded shit quality hospitals. Doctors working 24 hours in a row or even more. Doctors leaving public sector on the first opportunity creating extremely long lists. And so on. Unless again, you pull the taxes even higher.[/QUOTE]
Source?
[QUOTE]What does this have to do with what I said? You say it's wrong that under private healthcare the wealthy will get better treatment and I'm saying that it happens in the public healthcare as well. And if you didn't make the taxes so high there wouldn't be so many people without a job.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, the poor and rich get [b]equal[/b] treatment in hospitals in a public system.
Secondly, the government employs people too.
[QUOTE]I almost couldn't sleep or hold down food for weeks but that's irrelevant. The doctor gave me highest priority he could and the best timetable I could get was 2014.[/QUOTE]
And which country was this? Also, what were you officially diagnosed with?
[QUOTE]You're not making the service any cheaper tho by making it public? It still needs the same money to happen. You are still taking the same amount of money from people.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. You are taking money from the rich and using it to care for the poor. The rich have enough money.
[QUOTE]Except your high taxes are the reason why so many people don't have a job.[/QUOTE]
Source?
[QUOTE]And while wealthy people can afford high taxes the poor won't so you're making it even worse for them to get out of the shitter.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.primeeconomics.org/?p=1068[/url]
[quote]There is no observable correlation among EU member states between higher top rate of income tax and rates of unemployment.[/quote]
[quote]On "average", there are no "average" people.[/quote]
We can quantify happiness in individuals too.
[quote]But if people know that the politicians they voted for are wasting their money people will feel unhappy. Won't that reduce your quantified happiness of people?[/quote]
This is why they don't vote for people they don't like.
[quote]Like I said. System that doesn't want to earn money will loose it. It's not that "at some point you might get in debt", you will.[/quote]
There's economic booms/busts, trade surpluses and deficits, it's actually impossible for a country to stay out of debt forever (the USA only had NO public debt ONCE in its entire history).
[quote]Well yeah. When people have more money they can spend more so more labour is needed. And if the production costs are low for businesses they will hire more people so yeah.[/quote]
People can hoard money too and not spend any of it. Plus there's still the fact that the price of [b]labour[/b] is in a constant terminal decline.
The work you do is literally becoming worth less and less every day.
[quote]Then what can be made private should be private?[/quote]
Pretty much anything can be. Public and private sectors can exist at the same time.
[quote]What are you talking about? If you increase taxes, does it create additional costs for businesses? And does it make citizens have less money? Explain to me how am I still having the same mount of money if you keep taking more and more % of my income?[/quote]
The amount of money in circulation remains the same. The economy doesn't suddenly shrink because you are taxing it.
[quote]What I described was totalitarian socialism. It hasn't go that far in France and Britain. When it goes that far, it'll fail.[/quote]
Why not give the USA what the French or British have?
[quote]First you make a stupid system that tramples minorities and then you have to make things that protect those minorities. What if the issue isn't about sexuality, religion, etc? If you'd start going after fastfood and extreme sports because one is unhealthy and the other is dangerous should people who enjoy them have their representatives in politics? Why not just NOT do that shit?[/quote]
Because protecting the right of a transsexual woman to identify as a woman is infinitely more important than "the right to eat a burger".
[quote]Can you or can you not make everyone happy with the same formula?[/quote]
Well given that humans share a great deal of behaviours and emotions thanks to genetic determinism, there's a lot of things we can do for [b]ALL[/b] humans to make them happier.
[quote]But you said yourself that it's okay to impose your values on people if you are in majority. And those politicians are the tool for that.[/quote]
These politicians keep in mind that the entire country exists. They seek to protect the rights of people for important things (like healthcare and intercourse) instead of trivial bullshit like "freedom from taxes".
[quote]Yeah it is. Your way is the best way and makes people happy and everyone should do the same. It's exactly the same mindset.[/quote]
Except religions are based on the metaphysical. Politics is based in reality.
[quote]I know you don't believe in common sense because you don't have it.[/quote]
Well yeah, I tend to use scientific methodology (which is superior to common sense for explaining the world around me).
For example, give me a common sense argument for why people commit crime.
[quote]You babysitted people and they got used to it and then believed that they are incapable of living on their own. You people caused this problem and you just want to make it even worse.[/quote]
Surely 7 billion humans can police themselves? I mean, why do we even need government?
[quote]What the hell does that have to do with your quantifying of happiness and imposing your formula on everyone by force?[/quote]
Because I'm not advocating imposing a formula on everybody by force.
[quote]You are all for telling people how to live their lives and telling them how to spend their money because they are too stupid to think for themselves (you said that your self that they are incapable of running their entire life by themselves). Don't mask it with protecting people who are getting abused. You are lying through your teeth.[/QUOTE]
We really are too stupid to think for ourselves. I used to be Libertarian because I thought it was a good way to deal with the world's problems. I then reached the ripe old age of 14 and abandoned it, because it is a childish and selfish way to view the world, based on contradicting ideas.
The right to property itself, is merely a social construct.
Sobotnik needs to learn some basic economics. I'm fine with people making the argument that they think equality is more important than economic success and therefore it's OK to have high tax rates in order to help the poor... but to claim that these high taxes and high levels of regulation have no real economic effect... it's just plain ignorance.
A system not run on a free market will use resources less efficiently, that's a fact, it isn't debatable. Now, if you think the cost is worth it... fine, but don't try and say it can run just as efficiently.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38591848]Sobotnik needs to learn some basic economics. I'm fine with people making the argument that they think equality is more important than economic success and therefore it's OK to have high tax rates in order to help the poor... but to claim that these high taxes and high levels of regulation have no real economic effect... it's just plain ignorance.[/QUOTE]
[quote][url]http://www.primeeconomics.org/?p=1068[/url][/quote]
There is no correlation between tax rates and unemployment.
As for markets being more efficient:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38591888]There is no correlation between tax rates and unemployment.[/QUOTE]
Since when did unemployment become the end all factor of economic success? How about growth rates? Every resource is scarce and has alternate uses. If the government mandates a resource is used it necessitates that it isn't being considered for all it's possible alternate uses. Also, notice how I mentioned regulation, not just tax rates.
Just to add another thing: inflation is also another form of taxation, especially on older people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
