[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430879]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.[/QUOTE]
actually the argument was started by myself with you on how libertarianism can care for those at the bottom of the barrel. you have said yourself that people do not need state-funded pensions and that it should be entirely corporate, what about those that cannot find work for a large portion of their life due to a disability and die shortly after retirement age because of this?
i'm a registered libertarian in my state and even i know on some level it doesn't matter which axis of politics you align with, it's corrupt and bullshit and can't benefit everyone correctly.
libertarianism is social liberalism, economic conservatism. this is not directly equal to white supremacy by any means. it promotes free thinkers.
i'll use two of my personal beliefs as examples: abortions should not be regulated (or at least not very heavily regulated; change comes slowly), and economy should not be regulated (though anti-monopoly and anti-unfair business practices are obviously okay). everything in parentheses is an example of government power, but that is where the line is drawn.
No hospital, or school, or any government agency or building should ever be privatized. Libertarianism only works to screw over the non-business class peoples. Capitalism in itself is flawed fatally in that it gives control to the people who work for themselves and not those who work for the country, why would an political-economic doctrine which serves under it be any better?
If it were to work, the government should be completely detached from the market economy, and in a way have (virtually) unlimited funds for operations.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37430879]well, it completely deters innovation, and kills the economy of countries. Plus, most socialist governments have resulted in a single-party, authoritarian system.[/QUOTE]
stop
Though I'd suppose that would mean annexing or coercing all companies which produce products for the government into making them for free or getting payed with a detached dollar.
[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]
Shit man, way to strawman.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431160]No hospital, or school, or any government agency or building should ever be privatized. Libertarianism only works to screw over the non-business class peoples. Capitalism in itself is flawed fatally in that it gives control to the people who work for themselves and not those who work for the country, why would an political-economic doctrine which serves under it be any better?
If it were to work, the government should be completely detached from the market economy, and in a way have (virtually) unlimited funds for operations.[/QUOTE]
And you expect politicians to just magically be working for the country and not for themselves?
What if I as a citizen of a country disagree with what they do? I'm shit out of luck then.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431193]stop[/QUOTE]
go
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431160]No hospital, or school, or any government agency or building should ever be privatized. Libertarianism only works to screw over the non-business class peoples. Capitalism in itself is flawed fatally in that it gives control to the people who work for themselves and not those who work for the country, why would an political-economic doctrine which serves under it be any better?
If it were to work, the government should be completely detached from the market economy, and in a way have (virtually) unlimited funds for operations.[/QUOTE]
what? what is flawed about rewarding those who work hard? sorry, not everyone is as nationalistic as you. We care more about ourselves then our nation as a whole.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431035]actually the argument was started by myself with you on how libertarianism can care for those at the bottom of the barrel. you have said yourself that people do not need state-funded pensions and that it should be entirely corporate, what about those that cannot find work for a large portion of their life due to a disability and die shortly after retirement age because of this?[/QUOTE]
In our modern society, people with a disability (unless it is truly serious) should be able to find work. And if someone dies before or right after they retire, why do they need pensions?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431246]go[/QUOTE]
i am actually shocked by your statement "socialism kills innovation/leads to authoritarian governments"
because basically statements like that tell me "i want to justify being an asshole"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431328]i am actually shocked by your statement "socialism kills innovation/leads to authoritarian governments"
because basically statements like that tell me "i want to justify being an asshole"[/QUOTE]
Do you ever stop with the fucking strawmen?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431328]i am actually shocked by your statement "socialism kills innovation/leads to authoritarian governments"
because basically statements like that tell me "i want to justify being an asshole"[/QUOTE]
is wanting innovation and democratic governments an asshole thing to do? In that case, yes, I am an asshole. Seriously, are you denying that socialist countries are less innovative than capitalist ones? or that socialism (which requires government control of the means of production) can easily lead to authoritarian governments (which it has in all examples I know of)?
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
I feel like you would do better by posting "I hate rational arguments". It would be much more effective than "stop"
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431358]is wanting innovation and democratic governments an asshole thing to do? In that case, yes, I am an asshole. Seriously, are you denying that socialist countries are less innovative than capitalist ones? or that socialism (which requires government control of the means of production) can easily lead to authoritarian governments (which it has in all examples I know of)?[/QUOTE]
why is the united states government considerably more authoritarian than those of sweden, norway, finland, the benelux, the united kingdom circa 1945-1979, and spain?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431221]Shit man, way to strawman.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to reconsider what a straw-man argument actually means
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431246]
In our modern society, people with a disability (unless it is truly serious) should be able to find work. And if someone dies before or right after they retire, why do they need pensions?[/QUOTE]
death from impoverishment. there is nothing in libertarianism that holds people up when they are born into nothing. if you are implying that you should take money away from people who are going to die soon then i seriously hope for your mental health.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]
well sure i guess that roads and sanitation are naturally occurring phenomenon if you say so[/QUOTE]
you obviously dont understand how a market works
if there is a demand for roads then roads will be built
possible solution: if oil companies want to sell oil, there must be a demand for oil (aka, vehicles mostly), so maybe oil companies will provide road services?
besides, practically has little value when your goals are only achievable by stealing from me
[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]
Pretty much this
For once sobotnik I find myself not wishing I had a pack of flying killer assassin monkeys to murder you for making a post
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431403]death from impoverishment. there is nothing in libertarianism that holds people up when they are born into nothing. if you are implying that you should take money away from people who are going to die soon then i seriously hope for your mental health.[/QUOTE]
Charity still exists.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431221]Shit man, way to strawman.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
And you expect politicians to just magically be working for the country and not for themselves?
What if I as a citizen of a country disagree with what they do? I'm shit out of luck then.[/QUOTE]
I know that there is corruption, and even if economic corruption was immediately halted it wouldn't stop political corruption. My desired alternative to Libertarianism only comes with the dissolving of massive payoffs to government officials from the state as well as the corporations, so it is more so hypothetical. It isn't as if you can't use democracy as a tool, changing the economy isn't going to affect democracy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37430599]well sure i guess that roads and sanitation are naturally occurring phenomenon if you say so[/QUOTE]
Counterpoint: Railroads. Barely any government intervention on that one.
[QUOTE=Kentz;37431420]besides, practically has little value when your goals are only achievable by stealing from me[/QUOTE]
Taking your money and putting it into things that everybody can benefit from, such as healthcare, does not equal "stealing".
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431437]Charity still exists.[/QUOTE]
i'm not understanding this argument. does the context of libertarianism make people donate to charity more or something? because if charity is so brilliant then why does america have such a fucking horrible problem with insurance, health, rehabilitation in crime, and various other social factors
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431458]I know that there is corruption, and even if economic corruption was immediately halted it wouldn't stop political corruption. My desired alternative to Libertarianism only comes with the [B]dissolving of massive payoffs to government officials from the state[/B] as well as the corporations, so it is more so hypothetical. It isn't as if you can't use democracy as a tool, changing the economy isn't going to affect democracy.[/QUOTE]
So who would run for office when you don't get paid?
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431489]i'm not understanding this argument. does the context of libertarianism make people donate to charity more or something? because if charity is so brilliant then why does america have such a fucking horrible problem with insurance, health, rehabilitation in crime, and various other social factors[/QUOTE]
You're completely missing the point here. People don't do these things because the government is expected to take care of them. In fact, it is exclusively the government's duty to do all of those things in the US.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431473]Taking your money and putting it into things that everybody can benefit from, such as healthcare, does not equal "stealing".[/QUOTE]
Merriam-Webster definition of STEAL
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Specifically, I do not give the government permission to take what I earn by threat of violence.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431492]So who would run for office when you don't get paid?[/QUOTE]
People who don't care much for getting paid as they do for keeping a stable and livable country?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37431390]why is the united states government considerably more authoritarian than those of sweden, norway, finland, the benelux, the united kingdom circa 1945-1979, and spain?[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstood what socialism means. None of those countries are socialist, they are social democracies, a mixed market system. Plus, America is anything but a libertarian government.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431492]Specifically, I do not give the government permission to take what I earn by [B]threat of violence.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh Christ, thread of violence, that is brilliant. If the government that takes your money puts it into something that everyone can benefit from, why should you care about it, besides wanting to be greedy and hold onto all your money.
[QUOTE=Kentz;37431420]you obviously dont understand how a market works
if there is a demand for roads then roads will be built
possible solution: if oil companies want to sell oil, there must be a demand for oil (aka, vehicles mostly), so maybe oil companies will provide road services?
besides, practically has little value when your goals are only achievable by stealing from me[/QUOTE]
but roads are a public good. The Free market cannot supply public goods effectively.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431358]or that socialism (which requires government control of the means of production) can easily lead to authoritarian governments (which it has in all examples I know of)?[/QUOTE]
big deal. superficially democratic or capitalist systems can be tainted by authoritarianism too. eg germany's third reich, china, and america (indirectly; money and high level government form a sort of feedback loop, the result of which is regardless of who the [I]citizens[/I] want running the state, the control will always rest in the money)
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431559]Oh Christ, thread of violence, that is brilliant. If the governments takes your money and puts into something that everyone can benefit from, why should you care about it, besides wanting to be greedy and hold onto all your money.[/QUOTE]
because they want to hold on to all their money? is their something wrong with wanting to keep what you have earned?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431492]So who would run for office when you don't get paid?
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
You're completely missing the point here. People don't do these things because the government is expected to take care of them. In fact, it is exclusively the government's duty to do all of those things in the US.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
Merriam-Webster definition of STEAL
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Specifically, I do not give the government permission to take what I earn by threat of violence.[/QUOTE]
i'm not misunderstanding the point, i'm not understanding why you can't clarify on why you don't believe in paying taxes toward improving social factors. after all, not paying as much tax is a very libertarian concept
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431576]because they want to hold on to all their money? is their something wrong with wanting to keep what you have earned?[/QUOTE]
Wanting to have enough to live comfortably and support yourself and a family is fine. Wanting to hold onto every last cent, even when some of it could be put to good use, is just greedy.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431492]Specifically, I do not give the government permission to take what I earn by threat of violence.[/QUOTE]
they actually put you inside a room, give you some hot meals, give you some books to read, help with any issues you have, then rehabilitate you back into society once you become a big boy
well, at least thats what happens in a society that funds their prison system
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431559]Oh Christ, thread of violence, that is brilliant. If the governments takes your money and puts into something that everyone can benefit from, why should you care about it, besides wanting to be greedy and hold onto all your money.[/QUOTE]
And if I disagree with that purpose of the money? What if I think that privatized healthcare is a better option? What if I don't like some war the country's in?
The answer is all the same, it doesn't matter. I don't get to choose where in the government my tax money goes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
