NationStates Jolt Archive

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.

Holy shit.

*carts you a buttload of cookies*

You deserve them. Damn good work, dude.

I wonder if the KKK opposes them? Afterall they are colored.

*runs* :p

Yeah, brilliant analogy; I haven't heard this one any less than a dozen.... dozen times. This is a gross oversimplification and you know it. Libertarians oppose the introduction of government policy into rational behavior, they don't oppose everything the government says every time it says it, and without questioning. A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.

You know, since that kind of contradicts the definition of 'Libertarian.' They're not Anarchists.

Holy shit.

*carts you a buttload of cookies*

You deserve them. Damn good work, dude.
As long as the cookies have not been paid for by a cent of hard-earned, taxpayer money, nor has the cookie company received any corporate welfare, nor are they subject to food, health or safety regulations, nor minimum wage laws, I will cautiously accept the cookies.

I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.

Don't you believe that physical force in never justified? Governmental authority is based on the ability to use physical force. This means that you must oppose government.

Yeah, brilliant analogy; I haven't heard this one any less than a dozen.... dozen times. This is a gross oversimplification and you know it. Libertarians oppose the introduction of government policy into rational behavior, they don't oppose everything the government says every time it says it, and without questioning. A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.
Yeah--I tend to think that Libertarianism is a deeply flawed philosophy, but even I knew that this was a bogus example.

Do Libertarians oppose traffic lights?
Only on Thursdays.

Only on Thursdays.

No, only on the bald days, known as Tuesdays, when the koalas get loose and eat all of the chicken nuggets. Thursday is when you don't eat ketchup. Jeez, get it right. :p

What sort of libertarian believes that physical force is never justified? That's a hardline form of pacifism, not libertarianism.

And this thread comparable to asking whether or not socialists think the government should institute a "urinating schedule" dictating when all people must use the restroom during the day.

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

Don't you believe that physical force in never justified? Governmental authority is based on the ability to use physical force. This means that you must oppose government.

Do you mean 'you' like me personally or 'you' like 'Libertarian?' Because if you want to use the strict American definition of the term, I'm not exactly a Libertarian, though if you had to pigeonhole me on a political compass or something that's probably where I'd end up.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

He clearly is.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.
Yes, I am.

Do you mean 'you' like me personally or 'you' like 'Libertarian?' Because if you want to use the strict American definition of the term, I'm not exactly a Libertarian, though if you had to pigeonhole me on a political compass or something that's probably where I'd end up.
I meant you, personally.

Physical force cannot reasonably be universally shunned in a moral context because the simple fact of the matter remains that people do it anyway and there has to be some sort of justifiable response to it. Force is only evil half the time: when it's being initiated. Most people I can get to agree on this but that's when we start getting into such convoluted, circular debates that occur once we start to ask each other just what consitutes the application of force. An Objectivist will tell you that punching someone in the face or sezing their property are the two best simple examples of physical force, and the Socialist is a lot more likely to favor comparisons like saving your money instead of giving it to the poor .

I think we know on which side of [i]that particular fence I reside.

Traffic lights would exist whether roads were publicly or privately maintained. So I don't believe libertarians have a problem with it.

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.

i wish to write a book about the dangers of freedoms. i would call it 2084

Traffic lights would exist whether roads were publicly or privately maintained. So I don't believe libertarians have a problem with it.

Exactly. Excusing the desireablity of public roads to another time, traffic lights on a public road exist for a good reason.

And Melkor Unchained is exactly right in saying that it's the initiation of force that's wrong, not force in and of itself.

(And just for funnsies, here's "A Traffic Light Is a Brainless Machine (http://202.120.60.18/lesson/21CN2/UNIT%208/Text%20B/B2FirstReading/left.htm)" by David Schoenbrun. I often think of this one when traffic lights get brought up. :))

Yeah, brilliant analogy; I haven't heard this one any less than a dozen.... dozen times. This is a gross oversimplification and you know it. Libertarians oppose the introduction of government policy into rational behavior, they don't oppose everything the government says every time it says it, and without questioning. A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.
Oh yeah, but what do you think about THIS?!

http://www.flashback.ca/images/stopsign.gif

Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

No.

Libertarians simply believe in the least amount of government possible, not zero government. I'm glad there have been some intelligent responses to this ignorant thread. I'm glad because it means I don't feel like I have to write 3 pages explaining Libertarianism (upper or lowercase 'L', they're different).

The argument would simply be, we "need" public roads (debatable), we need some basic rules for them to operate under, the end.

The most important part is that NOBODY IS FORCED TO USE THE ROADS.

Actually, that brings up quite a funny argument. I am a Libertarian, and if I ever saw something wrong with the roads or an issue closely tied to them, I would consider simply not using roads. However, I live in Long Beach, where roads are seemingly unavoidable. To not use the roads period would mean hopping across roofs and thru yards. I am not Spider-Man. I cannot hop to school on top of peoples houses. It is illegal and just plain wrong. Therefore, we not in the country are practically tied to the streets, and therefore probably have no way to boycott them.

SwimmingPool... Were you really fucked up when you wrote this?

It seemed unusually douchbaggish for you! :confused:

You knew the answer before you typed it, I'd hope.

Actually, that brings up quite a funny argument. I am a Libertarian, and if I ever saw something wrong with the roads or an issue closely tied to them, I would consider simply not using roads. However, I live in Long Beach, where roads are seemingly unavoidable. To not use the roads period would mean hopping across roofs and thru yards. I am not Spider-Man. I cannot hop to school on top of peoples houses. It is illegal and just plain wrong. Therefore, we not in the country are practically tied to the streets, and therefore probably have no way to boycott them.
Given the size of this country, a meaningful boycott of our national interstate system would be as impossibble as it would be economically disastrous. Fortunately, it is one of the few things that our government does that doesn't gouge my eyes out in the process. However, the leverage used by the Federal Government to keep states from changing the drinking age comes from the interstate [or more specifically the funding to it]; so they're not fucking me they're just fucking states' rights.

Eh...if it weren't for traffic lights, sometimes traffic going one direction may never, ever stop...ever.

A better question, do libertarians oppose the writing of tickets for running red lights?

A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.

We anarchists oppose heirarchical government, not all forms of governance. I'm sure any society would agree that traffic lights are necessary.

We anarchists oppose heirarchical government, not all forms of governance. I'm sure any society would agree that traffic lights are necessary.
As long as you don't pretend to be an individualist...

As long as you don't pretend to be an individualist...

I believe in individual expression but communal responsibility. :)

I believe in individual expression but communal responsibility. :)

Same here!

*And get the hell on MSN, you wanker!

I'd like to point out that due to Federalism and juristiction as found in the Constitution, there's this traffic light in South Lake Tahoe which no one can enforce. It's right on the California-Nevada border, so if you run it from the California side, and go into Nevada, California Highway Patrol can't arrest you, because you're no longer in Cali, and Nevada State Troopers can't arrest you because you ran the light in California, and therefore have broken no law in Nevada. The only way to be arrested is if the Governor of California informs the Governor of Nevada that there is a fugitive of California Law hiding in Nevada, and Cali's Governor requests that Nevada Troopers extridite you to California (that is, allow a CHP officer to arrest you in Nevada, and transport you to California). And Schwartzenegger wouldn't do that for a light-runner. America's just cool that way. People who live in non-federalist nations have no idea.

And if you'd like to know where in Constitution this is found it's Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or Other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executiv Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State from which he fled, be delivered, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

Here, have a roundabout.




There we go.

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.

Another good question would be why do conservatives not complain about having to pay foul taxes to support those traffic lights and the roads they sit on.
You could save all that tax money and buy a huge 4x4 to just go cross country and if you can't afford one...tough, work harder.


:rolleyes:

Yes they do.

Also:

Conservatives oppose change.
Socialists oppose solitude.
Anarchists oppose Anarchy.

Roundabouts

Oh yeah, but what do you think about THIS?!

http://www.flashback.ca/images/stopsign.gif

This Libertarian would say that all stop signs need to be destroyed, and replaced with yeild signs (stop when someone's coming, but cruise on through if no one is there).

The red light should be treated the same way--someone coming--yeild. No one coming, cruise on through.

A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.
The first libertarian I ever came accross wanted the destruction of all government regulations. He was talking like if we want police protection, it shouldn't come out of taxes, but each individual who wants to be protected should find a police service and pay them. Apparantly police and firemen are lazy asses who should only get paid when something goes wrong.

As a Libertarian, I do not oppose Traffic Lights, any more than stop signs; yeild signs, Merge Signs, etc.... They are a normative safety measure placed at locations where traffic conjestion is high enough so that there is little "safe-time" to cross, or make appropriate turns.

The first libertarian I ever came accross wanted the destruction of all government regulations. He was talking like if we want police protection, it shouldn't come out of taxes, but each individual who wants to be protected should find a police service and pay them. Apparantly police and firemen are lazy asses who should only get paid when something goes wrong.

Did they say that police and firemen were lazy, or did you put that conclusion in for them? If they said it, they're an idiot. If you put it in, well...you may have presumed much.

Yes, you should pay for only the things you want to use. I'd pay for firemen, just because I have a house, and I like to have insurance--plus, I'd like to give my kitties every possible chance for survival if I'm not there.

It doesn't really matter, as far as police are concerned, though--at least in the US. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police aren't responsible for protecting people. So, even now, with police subsidized by many, and not by some, yet still providing the same "protection", the individual will not be protected.

So, the police are now only responsible for protecting that which can be REPLACED (buildings, valuables, meeing ticketing quotas for government revenue, etc.). Great job SCOTUS.

Do Libertarians oppose traffic lights?

I do. Roundabouts/islands are used heavily where I live, and they keep the traffic moving far more smoothly than traffic lights ever manage. There are two primary routes to get to my office. One of them is at least half the distance of the other, yet that has a set of traffic lights along the way. It takes a full 15 minutes longer even though the traffic that way is a little lighter. The other way, which is further and less direct, takes a lot less time. Why? There are only roundabouts on that route, but no traffic lights. People mysteriously manage to use roundabouts without killing everybody around them. Strange, that? Anyone would think that perhaps we didn't need to be mollycoddled at every turn, but that would be a totally insane thing to think...

Did they say that police and firemen were lazy, or did you put that conclusion in for them? If they said it, they're an idiot. If you put it in, well...you may have presumed much.

Yes, you should pay for only the things you want to use. I'd pay for firemen, just because I have a house, and I like to have insurance--plus, I'd like to give my kitties every possible chance for survival if I'm not there.
He said that they shouldn't be getting paid for time they sit around and wait for fires or crimes to happen and that they should find some other work during such times.

It doesn't really matter, as far as police are concerned, though--at least in the US. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police aren't responsible for protecting people. So, even now, with police subsidized by many, and not by some, yet still providing the same "protection", the individual will not be protected.

So, the police are now only responsible for protecting that which can be REPLACED (buildings, valuables, meeing ticketing quotas for government revenue, etc.). Great job SCOTUS.
Wow. Your country really is going to hell in a handbasket, isn't it?

He said that they shouldn't be getting paid for time they sit around and wait for fires or crimes to happen and that they should find some other work during such times.


Shit. If it were a volunteer fire department, I could see that, but if they are paid to be ready--that's a different story. That's the nature of the job--fires aren't constant (yeah, I'm ignoring the police aspect of this, as they already patrol). People get paid more to be oncall after hours generally--same should apply to those that fight fires.


Wow. Your country really is going to hell in a handbasket, isn't it?

Here's the rub--they never were responsible for individuals' safety. Police forces didn't exist in the US until the late 1800s. Citizens are responsible for their own safety--that's what the 2nd Amendment is all about. We're supposed to be able to arm and protect ourselves. But we've got over 20,000 laws on the books stopping us from effectively doing so.

So, where does that leave someone? Can't carry a gun in many places, yet aren't protected by police. Neat--totally defenseless. That's all kinds of fucked up, is what it is.

Force is only evil half the time: when it's being initiated.
Translating this into reality, you favour a government that runs a justice system, and nothing else.

Translating this into reality, you favour a government that runs a justice system, and nothing else.

You know, that sounds pretty good--and a DEFENSIVE military.

Yeah, brilliant analogy; I haven't heard this one any less than a dozen.... dozen times. This is a gross oversimplification and you know it. Libertarians oppose the introduction of government policy into rational behavior, they don't oppose everything the government says every time it says it, and without questioning. A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights," since I'm certain you'd be hard pressed to dig up a libertarian radical enough to call for the complete destruction of all government regulations.

You know, since that kind of contradicts the definition of 'Libertarian.' They're not Anarchists.
Agreed … you are looking for anarchists more then libertarians

Libertarians may be a group that likes streetlights the most … a fair inpersonal controlling device that does the minimal to make sure that everyone has fair access to the intersection

Seems rather close to our idea of minimal government making sure our freedoms are ensured

I would pay good money for someone to make that proposal to the NS united nations. Hell I'd even rejoin the UN to see that pass.

Thats good! :D

You know, that sounds pretty good--and a DEFENSIVE military.
Sounds like a great way to create a third world country within a year.

So, where does that leave someone? Can't carry a gun in many places, yet aren't protected by police. Neat--totally defenseless. That's all kinds of fucked up, is what it is.

If there's no police, who's going to stop you carrying a gun?

If there's no police, who's going to stop you carrying a gun?

Oh, the police are still there--they just don't have to protect you. They just have to control you--stop you from carrying a gun. :(

Sounds like a great way to create a third world country within a year.

So you hypothesize.

It sounds like a great way to put individual responsibility back in the hands of the individual.

Ok, that sucks.

Swimmingpool, two things:

First, yes I am saying that the only legitimate function of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens by retaliating appropriately when force is initiated. Conversely it is not [or should not] be within the government's pervue to seek to prevent force in all of its permutations, because the only way to do that is to contradict the very rights you're supposed to be protecting in the first place. "Freedom" does not mean economic rights, "Freedom" means the ability to be free with one's life and to live it as s/he sees fit.

Two, you're not going to 'create a third world nation' with policies like this. You've already admitted in a thread last night that Capitalism outperforms Socialism in the real world. Capitalism, in order to work ideally as an economic system, demands the justice-based government. Third world countires are not created overnight, and it's not likely to happen to us any time soon barring a major catastrophe. There is too much capital in this country for it to become a third world nation in this lifetime.

Sounds like a great way to create a third world country within a year.
Ah, and you are basing this opinion on? Nothing, I presume.
Well, gentleperson, I leave you to it, and remember, never let the facts get in the way of an argument for totalitarianistic government!

This is a gross oversimplification and you know it. Libertarians oppose the introduction of government policy into rational behavior, they don't oppose everything the government says every time it says it, and without questioning.

And classifying certain categories of behaviour as rational is NOT a gross oversimplification?

Ok, that sucks.

That would be the general consensus, yes....well, at least those of us who wish to arm ourselves. I don't know what those that don't want anyone armed are going to do, since the police don't have to protect them, either....

And classifying certain categories of behaviour as rational is NOT a gross oversimplification?
Uh... no? Some things are rational [eating, sleeping, fucking, personal habits and preferences, values, etc] and some are not [murder, rape, theft, etc. etc]. The government is wanting to step into the former, which is something a lot of people don't like.

So you hypothesize.

It sounds like a great way to put individual responsibility back in the hands of the individual.
It's not just a theory. It's provable by just looking at the economies across the board in the third world. Most of them have very little government involvement in the economy, because they can't afford it.

Individual responsibility is destructive when there is no collective responsibility.

Two, you're not going to 'create a third world nation' with policies like this. You've already admitted in a thread last night that Capitalism outperforms Socialism in the real world. Capitalism, in order to work ideally as an economic system, demands the justice-based government. Third world countires are not created overnight, and it's not likely to happen to us any time soon barring a major catastrophe. There is too much capital in this country for it to become a third world nation in this lifetime.
Of course capitalism performs better than socialism in reality... if your ultimate aim in life is to get a big GDP. But if you also want to create a good society for people to live in, socialism should be implemented once capitalism has provided the necessary funds. Even Marx recognised this.

Real world example: Tanzania.
After 30 years of unsuccessfully attempting socialism in an undeveloped economy, Tanzania has liberalised its economy in the 1990s. Tax revenues have quadrupled, allowing the government to increase social spending. Tanzania now has universal primary education.

The point is that socialism is not ideal for every country at the current time. Socialism is supposed to be implemented in developed economies. Capitalism provides money and GDP figures, but it also creates societies with unacceptable wealth gaps and rampant crime. Socialism can cure these ills.

It's not just a theory. It's provable by just looking at the economies across the board in the third world. Most of them have very little government involvement in the economy, because they can't afford it.


They also have no structured constitution or structured government to go with it, either.


Individual responsibility is destructive when there is no collective responsibility.

Not when there are penalties for infringing on others' rights.

Not when there are penalties for infringing on others' rights.
I'm talking about the lack of collective responsibility that should be taken for the society's needs for education, healthcare, transport, infrastructure and economic security. Libertarianism takes none of these into account.

I'm talking about the lack of collective responsibility that should be taken for the society's needs for education, healthcare, transport, infrastructure and economic security. Libertarianism takes none of these into account.

That's because I'm NOT responsible for making sure my neighbor is educated, gets medicine, is mobile, or well off monetarily.

I'm responsible for me, and those that allow me to care for them. My neighbor and every other adult on the planet is responsible for themselves. You seem to think you have the right to "help" without someone else's sovereign permission. You don't.

Society is not a tangible being, with will or thought. Only individuals are. In a society, sure you try to get along with your neighbor--but not control them, or tell them how or what to do. You can offer to help all you want, but if someone doesn't want it, you can't force them into doing what you think is best for them. If they aren't hurting you or someone else, you don't have a say in what they do with themselves. And no, not giving a neighbor without a job money isn't hurting them.

There is no collective responsibility over individual responsibility. There never was. In the end, it's all up to you as to how you deal with your life--it's not up to some nebulous non-entity with no conscience, intelligence, or will.

Of course capitalism performs better than socialism in reality... if your ultimate aim in life is to get a big GDP. But if you also want to create a good society for people to live in, socialism should be implemented once capitalism has provided the necessary funds. Even Marx recognised this.

Real world example: Tanzania.
After 30 years of unsuccessfully attempting socialism in an undeveloped economy, Tanzania has liberalised its economy in the 1990s. Tax revenues have quadrupled, allowing the government to increase social spending. Tanzania now has universal primary education.

The point is that socialism is not ideal for every country at the current time. Socialism is supposed to be implemented in developed economies. Capitalism provides money and GDP figures, but it also creates societies with unacceptable wealth gaps and rampant crime. Socialism can cure these ills.

So your point is socialism can work so long as it has a capitalist to kill, butcher, and divide as spoils? That it is a parasitical political entitiy that can only thrive with the assistance of a healthy host on which to feed? Well i can agreee with your analysis of socialism then but forme that's the reason NOT to endorse it...

I'm talking about the lack of collective responsibility that should be taken for the society's needs for education, healthcare, transport, infrastructure and economic security. Libertarianism takes none of these into account.
I'm sorry, but your ignorance concerning libertarianism is showing. Misty eyed idealism aside, libertarianism certainly hopes that a free society would help those in need! Just because the PinkoPolice aren't there to force you at gunpoint to help your neighbor, doesn't mean that people will cease to do so.

If left up to libertarian choice it turned out that nobody wanted to help each other, than it would be time to face some hard, cold facts concerning the ultimate reality of the human condition. In other words, admit your fucking pessimism.
Embrace it.

If that scenario turned out to be the case, then you'd have to certainly agree that socialism, because of its need for a strong authoritarian wealth redistributor would make the worst possible choice of government model.

Where will these benevolent, caring, individuals come from who'd selflessly run the damn system? Obviously, they'd have to come from another species altogether in order to do the job right. :p

If you sincerely are that pessimistic about the true nature of selfish humanity, you cannot in your right mind expect any system of government to change that (being a very human government after all).

I like traffic lights,
Although my name's not Bamber.

I'm sorry, but your ignorance concerning libertarianism is showing. Misty eyed idealism aside, libertarianism certainly hopes that a free society would help those in need! Just because the PinkoPolice aren't there to force you at gunpoint to help your neighbor, doesn't mean that people will cease to do so.

If left up to libertarian choice it turned out that nobody wanted to help each other, than it would be time to face some hard, cold facts concerning the ultimate reality of the human condition. In other words, admit your fucking pessimism.
Embrace it.

If that scenario turned out to be the case, then you'd have to certainly agree that socialism, because of its need for a strong authoritarian wealth redistributor would make the worst possible choice of government model.

Where will these benevolent, caring, individuals come from who'd selflessly run the damn system? Obviously, they'd have to come from another species altogether in order to do the job right. :p

If you sincerely are that pessimistic about the true nature of selfish humanity, you cannot in your right mind expect any system of government to change that (being a very human government after all).

You actually raise a valid point. However, while I have little doubt that most people would be willing to help their brother in need in such a system, the sad fact is that the majority doing so will not have the financial clout to make any difference. Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, the selfish are the ones who are rewarded with wealth. It isn't going to work if the most selfish people are also the only ones who can dispense welfare. I don't think it has anything to do with the human condition, but it's a product of society.

Some Libertarians on another thread were opposing drunk driving legislation (as well as restriction on the use of cell phones in a car).

Some Libertarians on another thread were opposing drunk driving legislation (as well as restriction on the use of cell phones in a car).
These libertarians are clearly the representatives of all other libertarians :)

You actually raise a valid point. However, while I have little doubt that most people would be willing to help their brother in need in such a system, the sad fact is that the majority doing so will not have the financial clout to make any difference. Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, the selfish are the ones who are rewarded with wealth. It isn't going to work if the most selfish people are also the only ones who can dispense welfare. I don't think it has anything to do with the human condition, but it's a product of society.
I can't agree with that (but I'ld like to say "How ya been, Kanabia! Long time no see.")
For the most part, the average American, having much lower taxes would be happy to give what they can. The rich in this country do give lots of money to charity, because if they don't, they'll have a major PR problem and be considered scroogey dickwads (and lose business and publicity). I'm not going to change your views (and vice-versa), but I believe that government in any form makes for a rather shitty Robin Hood. As I've said before, the state wouldn't help me out with a single dollar if I were in desperate need, and I'm actually trying hard to be a good, productive member of society. Go fucking figure. But a local charity (probably a church) would be more then happy to help an ambitious young man make ends meet by paying my electric bill or rent (I have several friends who've gotten this help becuase the government wouldn't hear them out because of their race, gender and lack of illegitimate children). The Catholics seem to be the most helpful when it comes to helping out with charity. Again, go figure. :p

Some Libertarians on another thread were opposing drunk driving legislation (as well as restriction on the use of cell phones in a car). Because of the serious threat to other driver's and pedestrian's lives, it's clearly antilibertarian to oppose drunk driving legislation.
Those are whackjobs sir, not libertarians, and they come in all kinds of political shapes and sizes.
Now it's rediculous to lower legal limits to the point where a 5 year old couldn't possibly be buzzed, that's just nannyish.
As far as cellphones go, it bothers me to see some asshole swerving and driving crazy because they're arguing on the phone with their significant other. I'm not sure how I feel about legislating the use of them in vehicles though. I want to throw up when I find that you can't smoke in your own car in certain states, so this confuses me.

I do not drive though because I hate the aggravation, and it saves me a ton of money just to get rides with friends and with cabs (I'm lucky that I don't really need a car at all). Plus, I'm helping out the environment far more than some asshole with a gas guzzler covered in ecofriendly bumper stickers (God, I hate those assholes). So these issues aren't really high-up on my activist list.

The most important part is that NOBODY IS FORCED TO USE THE ROADS.
I AM! I need to cross it when I want to walk anywhere in this city... In almost EVERY city. ;)

Oh yeah, but what do you think about THIS?!

http://www.flashback.ca/images/stopsign.gif

Off topic, but a professor here triued to get a ticket overturned because he said it did not provide a clear message.

That professor is f***ing stupid.

That's because I'm NOT responsible for making sure my neighbor is educated, gets medicine, is mobile, or well off monetarily.

I think that as we are all humans, we all bear some degree of responsibility for each others' well-being. We obviously disagree at a deep level. This can only be reconciled by compromise.

So your point is socialism can work so long as it has a capitalist to kill, butcher, and divide as spoils? That it is a parasitical political entitiy that can only thrive with the assistance of a healthy host on which to feed?
At first, yes. Socialism needs to work in a developed economy, which is one of the reasons it has failed in so many third world countries. Then it can start working properly.

If left up to libertarian choice it turned out that nobody wanted to help each other, than it would be time to face some hard, cold facts concerning the ultimate reality of the human condition. In other words, admit your fucking pessimism.
Embrace it.

I'm embracing it now! I honestly believe that if there were no income taxes, the majority of people wouldn't give their extra cash to charity. They would buy big cars.

People are selfish. A recklessly individualist system (or lack thereof, I suppose) would cause an increase in the type of "selfishness is righteous" and "greed is good" thinking espoused by MU.

Before you make any more refutations, plkease don't waste your breath attacking my illiberalism. I don't claim that the system I propose would grant maximum freedom. I propose that it would grant maximum quality of life.

Ah I get it. Capitalism works so well and creates so much prosperity that eventually socialism needs to come in and kill all forward momentum? To end progress? To kill the fatted calf. Once again I agree Socialism is a parasite. I don't want to live with a parasite. That's where we differ.

I'm embracing it now! I honestly believe that if there were no income taxes, the majority of people wouldn't give their extra cash to charity. They would buy big cars.

People are selfish. A recklessly individualist system (or lack thereof, I suppose) would cause an increase in the type of "selfishness is righteous" and "greed is good" thinking espoused by MU.

Before you make any more refutations, plkease don't waste your breath attacking my illiberalism. I don't claim that the system I propose would grant maximum freedom. I propose that it would grant maximum quality of life.
SwimmingPool, regardless of your beliefs, you and I get along just fine. That was not a personal attack, and you're smart enough to know that.

Now, you didn't address the main theme of my post... Namely, with such a putrid, pessimistic view of mankind, who will fairly and benevolently attend to the dirty task of resource redistribution? How could you convince me (or yourself) that anyone could do the job correctly, as a group or individual, without succumbing to greed?

How could you possibly avoid the uprising of an elitist Nomenklatura?

That's what I was asking.

Ah I get it. Capitalism works so well and creates so much prosperity that eventually socialism needs to come in and kill all forward momentum? To end progress? To kill the fatted calf. Once again I agree Socialism is a parasite. I don't want to live with a parasite. That's where we differ.

Does your car have brakes? Do you stop at traffic lights? Forward momentum is not always a good thing. Sometimes you need to slow down or you'll crash. Suggesting that socialism kills all forward momentum is like suggesting brakes always stop the car dead in its tracks. That's obviously a flawed statement.

Certainly you've heard of economic overheating. If an economy grows too fast, too few people enjoy said progress. The society is then divided, tensions rise, conflicts start. This has happened numerous times in the past.

If that scenario turned out to be the case, then you'd have to certainly agree that socialism, because of its need for a strong authoritarian wealth redistributor would make the worst possible choice of government model.

Where will these benevolent, caring, individuals come from who'd selflessly run the damn system? Obviously, they'd have to come from another species altogether in order to do the job right. :p


Excellent point.

Socialists and communists want people who they feel are generally selfish and unresponsive to the plight of others to democratically decide who is in need and deserves welfare.

That point had eluded me entirely up until now (although I was close to it).

Excellent point.

Socialists and communists want people who they feel are generally selfish and unresponsive to the plight of others to democratically decide who is in need and deserves welfare.

That point had eluded me entirely up until now (although I was close to it).
Thanks, glad I could help you see the benefits of free minds and free markets more clearly! I'm glad someobody directly acknowledged the question.

Of course, you'll find that obvious points like these will be avoided like the plague. Common sense is a threadkiller. :D

Maybe there should not be roads! Why should the government tell us where we can and can not dirve! And why should the government require us to wear clothing? Winter is a conspiracy set up by clothing companies to make us spend money!

Being sarcastic here, folks. :p

I think that as we are all humans, we all bear some degree of responsibility for each others' well-being. We obviously disagree at a deep level. This can only be reconciled by compromise.


See, by your reality that's the result. By mine (you know, the whole freedom and responsibility for myself thing), a compromise is not needed. In other words, you aren't getting a compromise--ever. You can be how you want to be, until you try to force me to do anything.


People are selfish. A recklessly individualist system (or lack thereof, I suppose) would cause an increase in the type of "selfishness is righteous" and "greed is good" thinking espoused by MU.


Individuality is not reckless. You're the one that needs to be part of the homogeny--not us. Just because you can't make it on your own doesn't mean that we can't.


Before you make any more refutations, plkease don't waste your breath attacking my illiberalism. I don't claim that the system I propose would grant maximum freedom. I propose that it would grant maximum quality of life.

At the expense of something you have no right taking away. Once the stagnant, egalitarian economy is in place you'll be able to start playing thought police. Idle hands, after all...

Does your car have brakes? Do you stop at traffic lights? Forward momentum is not always a good thing. Sometimes you need to slow down or you'll crash. Suggesting that socialism kills all forward momentum is like suggesting brakes always stop the car dead in its tracks. That's obviously a flawed statement.

Certainly you've heard of economic overheating. If an economy grows too fast, too few people enjoy said progress. The society is then divided, tensions rise, conflicts start. This has happened numerous times in the past.

We're not talking breaks here but out and out THEFT. A capitalist society provides wealth that the socialist needs to succeed. And I've heard of the phenomena you mention did you ever notice that it never occurs in a free market economy. Never.

And I've heard of the phenomena you mention did you ever notice that it never occurs in a free market economy. Never.
That is incorrect. Free Market Economies can easily break apart in social unrest if there is unfair distribution of the wealth created.
Check Chile in Pinochet's ultra-capitalist regime.

I'm embracing it now! I honestly believe that if there were no income taxes, the majority of people wouldn't give their extra cash to charity. They would buy big cars.
Right, and when people buy cars, auto manufacturers start... you know... hiring people. Even if you want to accept 'Marginal Utility' [which is, whether you know it or not, the backbone of nearly any socialist philosophy] as your guiding factor, this is a good thing. More people buying big cars means more big cars need to be built. This is a more productive way to aid the jobless than giving them cash for being jobless.

Here, of course, I'm talking about folks who have the physical capacity to work but don't. So far, every time I've pointed out something like this, my opposnent scurries away while deploying some sort of half-assed appeal about people that cant work, ignoring my original premise.

People are selfish. A recklessly individualist system (or lack thereof, I suppose) would cause an increase in the type of "selfishness is righteous" and "greed is good" thinking espoused by MU.
Glad I could get a mention. You got the wrong 'r' word though; the one you were looking for was 'rational.'

Before you make any more refutations, plkease don't waste your breath attacking my illiberalism. I don't claim that the system I propose would grant maximum freedom. I propose that it would grant maximum quality of life.
Here you're detatching the concept 'freedom' from the concept of 'life.' This constitutes an enormous epistemic mistake.

Right, and when people buy cars, auto manufacturers start... you know... hiring people. Even if you want to accept 'Marginal Utility' [which is, whether you know it or not, the backbone of nearly any socialist philosophy] as your guiding factor, this is a good thing. More people buying big cars means more big cars need to be built. This is a more productive way to aid the jobless than giving them cash for being jobless.
That is assuming that car manufacturers will actually hire people, rather than buy more machines. Marx reckoned that was one factor that could bring capitalism down, and so far we hadn't had a chance to see if he was right...

Here, of course, I'm talking about folks who have the physical capacity to work but don't. So far, every time I've pointed out something like this, my opposnent scurries away while deploying some sort of half-assed appeal about people that cant work, ignoring my original premise.
The point of transfer payments is not to make poor people rich, you know. It's just about giving them the resources not to starve or freeze to death while they don't have a job, which happens in a capitalist system.
I have never met anyone who's actually made a good living from transfer payments. The vast majority of long term unemployed would rather work than not work, and the few who don't obviously are getting too much in payments. In such a case, I am for cutting them, as has been done in Germany with the HARTZ Reforms recently.

These libertarians are clearly the representatives of all other libertarians :)

No, but they seem to be the representatives of all Libertarians on these forums!

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.

To a certain degree - I somewhat agree; Traffic lights should be optional. At 2AM at an intersection with no traffic visible there is no reason why a rational person should be forced to stop to wait for a colored light. Same for any time of day when there is no competing traffic. Trafic lights/laws could use some modernizing.

As a side note; (probably worthy of a thread on its own)

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janfeb02/timing.htm
"Traffic signal management can be defined as using improved tools, techniques, and equipment to make existing traffic signal control systems operate more efficiently. It helps:

Improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption.
Reduce congestion and save time for commercial and emergency vehicles, buses, and the public.
Reduce the number of serious accidents.
Reduce aggressive driving behavior, including red-light running.
Postpone or eliminate the need to construct additional road capacity. "

AND

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04nov/07.htm

"Properly timed signals—with appropriate cycle lengths, clearance intervals, and coordination—can help alleviate or avoid these negative consequences. To date, traffic signal retiming programs have resulted in travel time and delay reductions of 5 to 20 percent, and in fuel savings of 10 to 15 percent nationwide.
Research has shown that of the nearly 330,000 traffic signals in the United States, more than 75 percent of them could be improved by updating equipment or simply adjusting the timing."

10 TO 15 PERCENT NATIONWIDE!!!! OMG!

HERE is the agenda the Democrats could JUMP on and gain momentum. We don't need drilling in Alaska - we need a few hundred engineers with screwdrivers, ladders and stopwatches!!! I can't believe this isn't getting more attention these days! ARGH! There should be a national mandate to fix our intersections. This is a fuel policy ripe to be taken!

Some Libertarians on another thread were opposing drunk driving legislation (as well as restriction on the use of cell phones in a car).

Of course there should be limits on drunk driving legislation - Even the founder of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers), Candy Lightner, agrees with that.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/DrinkingAndDriving/1059064892.html
http://www.voai.org/madd.htm

and my FAVORITE;
http://www.getmadd.com/

regarding cell - phones - ugh. We need the enforcement of already existing laws against unsafe driving - not new laws restricting our freedom to determine for ourselves what is or is not safe. Maybe you'd like to propose laws against music, loud children, eating while driving, smoking while driving (it is currently being proposed), conversation while driving, driving while sleepy or a gazillion other potential and proven unsafe conditions.

We don't need more laws to complicate life- we need enforcement of the existing ones.

See, by your reality that's the result. By mine (you know, the whole freedom and responsibility for myself thing), a compromise is not needed. In other words, you aren't getting a compromise--ever. You can be how you want to be, until you try to force me to do anything.
Well, you live in a society, so there must be compromise. Funny how libertarians talk as if we are all floating in space or something.

That is assuming that car manufacturers will actually hire people, rather than buy more machines. Marx reckoned that was one factor that could bring capitalism down, and so far we hadn't had a chance to see if he was right...

?? Last I checked the UAW was not a bunch of machines. Even IF they bought more machines, who do you think builds and operates the machines? If machines increase productivity (which they do) it would suggest then that you advocate a less productive worker - or maybe you feel more inclined to support over-production. So much for a planned economy.


The point of transfer payments is not to make poor people rich, you know. It's just about giving them the resources not to starve or freeze to death while they don't have a job, which happens in a capitalist system.
Really? Unemployment = Death in capitalism? far out. I always thought personal savings and unemployment insurance were there to protect against that.

I have never met anyone who's actually made a good living from transfer payments. The vast majority of long term unemployed would rather work than not work, and the few who don't obviously are getting too much in payments. In such a case, I am for cutting them, as has been done in Germany with the HARTZ Reforms recently.
If that were the case then they would work. The correct answer is that they are not compelled to work any of the avaliable jobs - which the 'transfer payments' allow them to continue doing for a considerably longer period than they otherwise would.

Swimmingpool, two things:

First, yes I am saying that the only legitimate function of the government is to protect the rights
What in your opinion are the rights that people have?

What in your opinion are the rights that people have?
That's a bit like asking "What are the foods that people can eat?"

To list them all would be an enormous undertaking, and a waste of time just to answer that question for you.

So I'll give you the short list: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now let's bring on the retarded pinko debate as to what those terms really mean. :rolleyes:

What in your opinion are the rights that people have?

The more important question is, what should be the governments role in protecting and limits on infringment of those rights?

The declaration of independance does not grant rights so mouch as it limits the governments ability to infringe on them.

The Federalist Papers make a very good complimnet to the BOR in describing this.

The more important question is, what should be the governments role in protecting and limits on infringment of those rights?

The declaration of independance does not grat rights - it limits the governments ability to infringe on them.

The Federalist Papers make a very good complimnet to the BOR in defining this.
<<--- Not american


That's a bit like asking "What are the foods that people can eat?"

To list them all would be an enormous undertaking, and a waste of time just to answer that question for you.
:( you don't care about me (joking (about the smilie part not the caring about me part))

Ok is education a right,
is having a roof over your head a right,
is having enough money to buy nescessities a right?

What in your opinion are the rights that people have?
Opinion? It has nothing to do with opinion. Rights, like any other aspect of reality, exist independent of my or your opinions. Rights are moral principles which sanction man's actions within a social context.

To date, the founding fathers above any other politicians I can think of came closest to actually getting it right: we have, as a primary, the right to Life, and subsidiary to this it follows rationally that we have rights like privacy and property, pursuit of happiness and so on. It doesn't guarantee that we have the right to attain happiness, since happiness is not the standard of virtue, but rather its purpose.

The opposing viewpoint, which generally states that man has a right to the product of other men is flawed on many levels, not the least of which is it's just simply not how nature works. Animals survive by adapting themselves to the environment, and men do the opposite. To claim that a man should have the "Right" to live off the labors of others is to delegate to him the role of the animal; unable to find what he needs in reality he must rely on the labors of others: he must, in essence, adapt himself to their work.

Once again I'm talking about people with the physical capacity to survive in today's reality; if you're going to answer this I'd answer it with the above premise in mind; as I mentioned earlier leftists generally favor deflecting arguments like this while asking me about what I would have happen to the disabled, which is a special circumstance: the rights of this demographic should not exceed reasonable bounds. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me that the Left uses that example on purpose: they want the state to be a rule by minority by favor of the majority.

Opinion? It has nothing to do with opinion. Rights, like any other aspect of reality, exist independent of my or your opinions. Rights are moral principles which sanction man's actions within a social context.

I say opinion because in my opinion everyone has a right to health care, (at least) basic education and a minimum wage, which I assume you disagree with.

No, but they seem to be the representatives of all Libertarians on these forums!

I represent myself, when I so choose. OK?

I say opinion because in my opinion everyone has a right to health care, (at least) basic education and a minimum wage, which I assume you disagree with.
Those are sound, rational priciples yes, but the fact of the matter is there is no way to guarantee these things for every citizen without making us into slaves for health care, basic education, and [to a lesser extent] minimum wages. "Economic Rights," [which is what these are, essentially--a "Right" to the product of someone else's labor] becomes a contradiction once the idea is divorced from the individual.

It's nice to dream about universal healthcare, but the fact of the matter is its political and financial implications far outweigh its actual effect. Education--same deal. While I'm not currently being compromised by this particular system [not being a homeowner, and thus not being subject to the property tax that pays for most local schools], I'm opposed to the theory of it. Basically what happens here is the government comes along and says: "Oh, since your house happens to be built right here I'm going to take another x percent out of your paycheck. Yoink!" I mean damn!

-snip-
So you don't like a minimum wage because it may force you to give up some of the product of your labour. Is that correct?

What do you say then determines the value of your labour? Market Forces - Demand and Supply? What if those forces are disturbed by the inequality of power between the worker and the entrepreneur?

You reject paying for Health Care and Education for others because you will not benefit from them. Is that correct?

When do you think you would be better off - in a society of cavemen or in a society of educated, healthy and happy people?

?? Last I checked the UAW was not a bunch of machines. Even IF they bought more machines, who do you think builds and operates the machines? If machines increase productivity (which they do) it would suggest then that you advocate a less productive worker - or maybe you feel more inclined to support over-production. So much for a planned economy.
You should know that I am not advocating anything at this point. I merely told you what Marx thought.
Your workers are also your customers, and if you get rid of them for more productive capital, you lose your consumer's income.

Really? Unemployment = Death in capitalism? far out. I always thought personal savings and unemployment insurance were there to protect against that.
But we know that if demand and supply determine wages and prices, there may be cases in which there is not enough income left for savings or insurance. A system without worker's rights and without unemployment benefits was last seen during the Industrial Revolution, and people did starve there. Although there were other factors involved too.
And you may also want to think about the children of those unemployed parents. Those kids will not have a chance to optimise their choices, and that is a wasted resource, an inefficiency.

If that were the case then they would work. The correct answer is that they are not compelled to work any of the avaliable jobs - which the 'transfer payments' allow them to continue doing for a considerably longer period than they otherwise would.
You are assuming that the market always provides jobs. But above you said that it was okay to replace jobs with machines.
Are there not cases in which job growth lags behind population growth?

Gah! I've been misinterpreted again.

So you don't like a minimum wage because it may force you to give up some of the product of your labour. Is that correct?
Incorrect. With a market as diverse as ours, and with living costs being what they are, I don't really think any employer is really going to be able to get away with paying their employees anything less than $6 or $7 an hour for most jobs--anything above maybe a grocery packer or a fast food worker. Yeah, minimum wage is only $5.15, but I've been in the job hunt a few times in the last 4 years and I'm here to say that I've never seen an ad or a sign in the window for a minimum wage job. I'm sure they exist, but they're far more scarce than your average Democrat would have you believe.

Minimum wage laws strike me more or less as a contrivance anymore; it's not the kind of thing I really feel comfortable with the government regulating ceaseslessly. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of intervening in the event of some sort of wage collusion, but taken at face value minimum wage laws are worth little more than the paper they're written on. Think about it: if companies were dead-set on screwing the worker at every turn, there would be nary a $10 an hour job in sight. Leftists love to forget that the market actually sets wages, not the government.

The minimum wage does nothing but go up; it rises with inflation, it rises and rises and rises--it never falls. Infaltion fluctuates, cost of living fluctuates, so why too doesn't the minimum wage? Two reasons: one, it would be political suicide to lower minimum wage, and two, the government likes its money. The thing a lot of people don't realize when they read about a wage increase is that it's essentially the government voting itself a wage increase. We get angry when congressmen vote raises and benefits to themselves, but we don't bat an eye when the government itself takes a bigger bite into our bank accounts.

What do you say then determines the value of your labour? Market Forces - Demand and Supply? What if those forces are disturbed by the inequality of power between the worker and the entrepreneur?
The value of my labor is determined by whoever I'm trading with. Also, this 'inequality of power' likely isn't as prevalent as you think; you should probably remember that a company can never succeed without 'workers' buying their products. These things come around full circle in the end.

You reject paying for Health Care and Education for others because you will not benefit from them. Is that correct?
Tentatively yes; if you want to talk about why I oppose it personally, then yeah, this is the reason. The reason I oppose it in theory and in practice, however, has already been covered:

The opposing viewpoint, which generally states that man has a right to the product of other men is flawed on many levels, not the least of which is it's just simply not how nature works. Animals survive by adapting themselves to the environment, and men do the opposite. To claim that a man should have the "Right" to live off the labors of others is to delegate to him the role of the animal; unable to find what he needs in reality he must rely on the labors of others: he must, in essence, adapt himself to their work.

When do you think you would be better off - in a society of cavemen or in a society of educated, healthy and happy people?
Damn, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Needless to say I don't really deem this comment worthy of reply. Beyond what I've already said of course.

Well, you live in a society, so there must be compromise. Funny how libertarians talk as if we are all floating in space or something.

No, actually, not really. We talk about being able to do what we want, as long as we're not interfering with anyone else.

You're the one that's describing it as above.

I know I live in a world populated with others. I also know that they have no claim to what is mine (especially my body or my thoughts). As I have no claim to what is theirs. You seem to think I owe you some sort of acknowledgement that you exist. I honestly don't care what you do where you live--it's your life, live it how you see fit. It isn't affecting me--as it shouldn't.

Here's an example of freedom--I DESPISE cigarette smoke. However, I was one of the first to decry a smoking ban on private property (IE bars and taverns) in my city. It still went through because it is relatively accepted that the government knows best. This is my whole problem with socialism--it never stops at economic equality. It always strays into behavior--always--because those people that will be greedy (that you like to tout) will also be in the government. The power will ALWAYS be abused, regardless the spirit of what is trying to be accomplished. Those in power will try to control those that aren't. This is why government has to be severely limited.

You seem to think that it is your right to determine how others live--when they aren't affecting you directly. If someone zips by your house at 2AM at 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, there is NO logical reason why that person should be stopped if he's not hitting anyone (or coming close to hitting someone).

I am writing to complain about the overbearing nanny state that manifests itself in the form of traffic lights. When people are driving on the roads the big government just tells them what to do and when. Are we not able to look around and see when it is safe do drive?

This beurocratic annexation of our personal responsibility is an affront to our liberty. If people are stupid enough not to look where they're going, then it is not the government's job to stop them being idiots. It's time to abolish traffic lights.


YOu cant be serious. Have you ever noticed what happens when a traffic light goes down? Over 90% of the cars dont treat it as a 4 way stop.. they do whatever they damn well please. They dont Stop! People are idiots that is why we need some basic rules for law and order or everything would be anarchy! Just because I believe stopping is right doesnt mean Joe Blow down the street believes in it and will bully his way through town every time if he had the chance and how would one prove an accident was someone else's fault. People can be stupid, mean, ignorant but why should society as a whole suffer for poor choices made by someone else. YOur rights end where mine begin.


Oh I noticed a debate on healthcare and education...one question to those who oppose the taxes if you have taken from the educational system (your education) should you not yourself pay back into it? That is all you are doing is paying for the education you received. Im pretty broke and I have to go without healthcare so tough shit for me I guess! My kids might be orphans but who cares? **no im not on welfare or any other thing that would give you seizures...but since when has society deemed those who are working poor worthless and unworthy of help 6 $ hour doesnt pay much and it sure wont cover the rent ...but hey that aint my problem...lets toughen up those welfare laws so nobody can get any... I have had all sorts of taxes taken out and I understand and accept it...you never know when you might need those services someday ..be grateful they exist. I hope Newt Gringrich and his lot rot in hell.

YOu cant be serious. Have you ever noticed what happens when a traffic light goes down? Over 90% of the cars dont treat it as a 4 way stop.. they do whatever they damn well please. They dont Stop! People are idiots that is why we need some basic rules for law and order or everything would be anarchy! Just because I believe stopping is right doesnt mean Joe Blow down the street believes in it and will bully his way through town every time if he had the chance and how would one prove an accident was someone else's fault. People can be stupid, mean, ignorant but why should society as a whole suffer for poor choices made by someone else. YOur rights end where mine begin.

Um.. have you actually seen an intersection after the traffic light went down? Judging by your description of the resultant chaos, I would venture to guess you probably haven't. While I agree with you in the larger sense, I have to say this response is a bit ridiculous. I've been at a number of malfunctioning traffic lights, and it's never been anything like this.

Gah! I've been misinterpreted again.
I'm doing my best. Libertarianism and Objectivism is a very foreign subject to me, and I try to get to the bottom of it, though it may take time....

Incorrect. With a market as diverse as ours, and with living costs being what they are, I don't really think any employer is really going to be able to get away with paying their employees anything less than $6 or $7 an hour for most jobs--anything above maybe a grocery packer or a fast food worker. Yeah, minimum wage is only $5.15, but I've been in the job hunt a few times in the last 4 years and I'm here to say that I've never seen an ad or a sign in the window for a minimum wage job. I'm sure they exist, but they're far more scarce than your average Democrat would have you believe.
So there is no actual reasoning that there shouldn't be a minimum wage, just that there needn't be one, because in this case the market wage is already higher than the set one.
In that case, why would you want to abolish it?

Leftists love to forget that the market actually sets wages, not the government.
Believe me, I seldomly get the chance to forget about the markets... :)


The minimum wage does nothing but go up...
Well, to be honest, inflation may fluctuate (although pretty much never to actual deflation) but Cost of Living only seldomly becomes less. If there was a viable case for that, I'm sure various industry councils would've lobbied it through.
How does the minimum wage take money out of people's pockets and puts it into the Government's treasure chests?
Isn't minimum wage one of the few things that strictly speaking you can't argue against from a purely "egoistic" (for want of a better word) standpoint, unless you are an employer?

The value of my labor is determined by whoever I'm trading with. Also, this 'inequality of power' likely isn't as prevalent as you think; you should probably remember that a company can never succeed without 'workers' buying their products. These things come around full circle in the end.
We talked about that briefly once before, didn't we?
Does the employer actually consider that? Can he afford to hand out more money to his workers in order to make a greater long-term profit? Wouldn't the competition eat him alive?
Maybe this is a type of Prisoner's Dilemma.

Tentatively yes; if you want to talk about why I oppose it personally, then yeah, this is the reason. The reason I oppose it in theory and in practice, however, has already been covered.
So it is a moral reasoning - giving someone "free" education turns him into an animal (loosely said), and as such you do a disservice to others. Correct?

Damn, I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Needless to say I don't really deem this comment worthy of reply. Beyond what I've already said of course.
I'm sorry, maybe I used the wrong words. But what I meant is: Don't you actually benefit from others enjoying a higher level of education, or others' health?
And if you do, isn't it fair for you to help finance it, provided that others help you finance your education and health as well?

A more pertinent question would have been "Do ANARCHISTS oppose traffic lights,"

Not if they're only offering an informed suggestion that we are under no legal obligation to follow. (Note however that under most versions of Anarchism the community might take action against you if you ignored the lights and ended up killing someone...)

A capitalist society provides wealth that the socialist needs to succeed. And I've heard of the phenomena you mention did you ever notice that it never occurs in a free market economy. Never.

Really? So the Tulips never happened? Nor did the Great Depression of the US? You've got quite the selective memory. If those weren't free markets...just what IS an example of a free market economy?

I'm doing my best. Libertarianism and Objectivism is a very foreign subject to me, and I try to get to the bottom of it, though it may take time....


So there is no actual reasoning that there shouldn't be a minimum wage, just that there needn't be one, because in this case the market wage is already higher than the set one.
Um... there is an actual reasoning; you just read it.

In that case, why would you want to abolish it?
For the reasons listed above....? Do I really need to explain myself more than once? I'm starting to get confused here.

Well, to be honest, inflation may fluctuate (although pretty much never to actual deflation) but Cost of Living only seldomly becomes less. If there was a viable case for that, I'm sure various industry councils would've lobbied it through.
Yeah, I'll give you that. But while there is room for these things to go down, the minimum wage has not decreased once since it was instituted. At least not to my knowledge. There's probably a lot to be said about this form an inflation point of view, but the wages would have adjusted themselves to that anyway; no business would be able to compete in the market while ignoring something like inflation. It's one of the reasons why I may be quitting my job today: if I don't get another raise now I won't stay ahead of inflation.

How does the minimum wage take money out of people's pockets and puts it into the Government's treasure chests?
Here I assume you're referring to the part where I bitch about the government voting itself a wage increase, even if it isn't quoted.

Think about it: if the national minimum wage increases, so does the tax revenue brought in by the government's main source of income: the income tax. They may not even have to take a bigger percentage out of it, but the dollar count will undoubtedly be higher.

Isn't minimum wage one of the few things that strictly speaking you can't argue against from a purely "egoistic" (for want of a better word) standpoint, unless you are an employer?
I'd think not since it seems to me that I'm doing it right now.

We talked about that briefly once before, didn't we?
Does the employer actually consider that? Can he afford to hand out more money to his workers in order to make a greater long-term profit? Wouldn't the competition eat him alive?
Maybe this is a type of Prisoner's Dilemma.
Again, if this were the case we wouldn't see high paying jobs in any sector. Employers [as a general rule] are usually more on the ball than you think when it comes to hiring and distributing wages. Except mine, of course.

So it is a moral reasoning - giving someone "free" education turns him into an animal (loosely said), and as such you do a disservice to others. Correct?
Pretty much. Yeah.

I'm sorry, maybe I used the wrong words. But what I meant is: Don't you actually benefit from others enjoying a higher level of education, or others' health?
Yeah, maybe I do but then again I'd also probably benefit from a postmortem procedure attaching my still living head to a massive armored spider. That doesn't mean it's actually worth doing or morally solid.

And if you do, isn't it fair for you to help finance it, provided that others help you finance your education and health as well?
Again, no.

YOu cant be serious. Have you ever noticed what happens when a traffic light goes down? Over 90% of the cars dont treat it as a 4 way stop.. they do whatever they damn well please. They dont Stop! People are idiots that is why we need some basic rules for law and order or everything would be anarchy! Just because I believe stopping is right doesnt mean Joe Blow down the street believes in it and will bully his way through town every time if he had the chance and how would one prove an accident was someone else's fault. People can be stupid, mean, ignorant but why should society as a whole suffer for poor choices made by someone else. YOur rights end where mine begin.


First off, Swimmingpool was "joking"--he/she doesn't believe that stoplights should be removed. He/she was taking a shot at Libertarians. You may have already figured that out, though. Yup, my rights end where yours begin, and vice versa--which means you don't get to tell me how to act, when it's not affecting anyone else--in other words, you don't get to control others--by any means.


Oh I noticed a debate on healthcare and education...one question to those who oppose the taxes if you have taken from the educational system (your education) should you not yourself pay back into it?


Let's see...do I have kids? No. Should I pay for my non-existant children's education? No. Here's the responsibility part of being a parent: YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHILD. My parents paid for my education when I was a child. It was already paid for, so I "owe" no one other than my parents.


That is all you are doing is paying for the education you received. Im pretty broke and I have to go without healthcare so tough shit for me I guess!


Actually, yes. If you are an adult, why didn't you make different choices?


My kids might be orphans but who cares? **no im not on welfare or any other thing that would give you seizures...


Why on earth did you have children if you didn't have the means to support them and yourself comfortably? Why did YOU make that choice? Here's the deal, you have to be responsible for all the choices you make in your life--all of them. This means any possible ramifications--wage reductions, job loss, poor employment market, etc.


but since when has society deemed those who are working poor worthless and unworthy of help 6 $ hour doesnt pay much and it sure wont cover the rent


If I didn't have to pay so damn much in taxes, I'd be giving more to charitable organizations.


...but hey that aint my problem...lets toughen up those welfare laws so nobody can get any...


Nobody? No. Those who have had incredible circumstantial hardships should still be getting support from somewhere. But those that put themselves in that financial hardship....I'm not so sure they need to be rescued so much as possibly learn a lesson. Maybe a very hard one.


I have had all sorts of taxes taken out and I understand and accept it...you never know when you might need those services someday ..be grateful they exist. I hope Newt Gringrich and his lot rot in hell.

I used to make minimum wage when I dropped out of college. Somehow, without any help from parents, relatives, friends, etc., I managed to live in hell for two years, to finally get a slightly better job, to make a little more money, to be able to afford a small amount of fun. This allowed me to work fewer hours, and start to learn about computers (without a computer of my own). You use neighborhood facilities, friends' machines, whatever you can (after you buy your own books on the topic, of course). I then got an entry job as a help desk employee, helping others with their computer issues. The career sprung from that. Basically, you don't get to live the "American Dream" until you've sacrificed a LOT to get on the path--this means time, money, and energy. You don't get the stuff without the work first. I'm not a superman. I'm an average person. I got out from below the poverty line on my own, and work as an information technology security analyst.

So anyone that bitches about how poor they are, and how they're held down and can't make it up the ladder tends to have their "plight" ignored by me--because I KNOW it can be done. I did it. It comes down to this: If you just accept the situation, it will stay that way. You have a will--change the situation. Don't have the fun time out on Friday, and save that cash to better yourself somehow. It will take a lot of time and a lot of energy, but anyone with some sort of will can do it.

So anyone that bitches about how poor they are, and how they're held down and can't make it up the ladder tends to have their "plight" ignored by me--because I KNOW it can be done. I did it. It comes down to this: If you just accept the situation, it will stay that way. You have a will--change the situation. Don't have the fun time out on Friday, and save that cash to better yourself somehow. It will take a lot of time and a lot of energy, but anyone with some sort of will can do it.

So one person managed to scrape by through a combination of luck and persistance, so nobody should be helped out through government programs eh? The "I can't imagine life going another way" argument.

You realize you're just giving the same argument as the Mcguffy Readers did back in the 1800's? The arguments were bunk then, and times haven't changed much. Poor people have a slim chance of crawling their way up the ladder from which you look down at them now.

Even something as stupid as a car breaking down at an inopportune time, or a sudden sickness can ruin years of planning. Luck, misfortune, chance, the closer you are to the bottom, the more these things can hurt you. The worse off financially you are, the swifter you can be ruined, the less you can compensate for.

Just as you "made it" by the skin of your teeth and the sweat on your brow, thousands of others can be crushed, ignored and forgotten. So before you condemn them to the hell you crawled out of, think of how much of a gamble you took when you started your journey.

Its simple self-centered conceit you realize; you easily could not have been so lucky. And even the thousands of others who are as lucky as you were, might not as physically able as you were, etc. You may be average, what about those who are below average? Should they suffer?

That is incorrect. Free Market Economies can easily break apart in social unrest if there is unfair distribution of the wealth created.
Check Chile in Pinochet's ultra-capitalist regime.


Pinochet was hardly a capitalist he was if anything totalitarian. Calling Pinochet a capitalist because he pandered to other capitalists to fund his totalitarian regigm makes as much sense as calling a computer chip a desert because silicone is made of sand.

So one person managed to scrape by through a combination of luck and persistance, so nobody should be helped out through government programs eh? The "I can't imagine life going another way" argument.

You realize you're just giving the same argument as the Mcguffy Readers did back in the 1800's? The arguments were bunk then, and times haven't changed much. Poor people have a slim chance of crawling their way up the ladder from which you look down at them now.


I only look down on those that don't try.


Even something as stupid as a car breaking down at an inopportune time, or a sudden sickness can ruin years of planning. Luck, misfortune, chance, the closer you are to the bottom, the more these things can hurt you. The worse off financially you are, the swifter you can be ruined, the less you can compensate for.

Just as you "made it" by the skin of your teeth and the sweat on your brow, thousands of others can be crushed, ignored and forgotten. So before you condemn them to the hell you crawled out of, think of how much of a gamble you took when you started your journey.


Yeah, and I had the determination to make that gamble work. Many don't, I understand that--it doesn't make them any more entitled to what I worked my ass off for. There wasn't THAT much luck involved.


Its simple self-centered conceit you realize; you easily could not have been so lucky. And even the thousands of others who are as lucky as you were, might not as physically able as you were, etc. You may be average, what about those who are below average? Should they suffer?

Like I said, there are some who are genuinely disadvantaged--but not nearly the millions upon millions that are sucking at the welfare teat currently in the US. Again, as a Libertarian, I want LIMITED governmental interferance, not the absence of government or programs. There is some need.

Your high and mighty stance doesn't make me any more conceited and self-centered than you. You want to do your charity work, great, I'm all for it. Stop forcing others to conform to your values and systems.

Pinochet was hardly a capitalist he was if anything totalitarian. Calling Pinochet a capitalist because he pandered to other capitalists to fund his totalitarian regigm makes as much sense as calling a computer chip a desert because silicone is made of sand.
He was an ultra-capitalist. He put his economy in the command of a bunch of Chicago Friedman-trained libertarian ideologues. The Chilean economy promptly grew slowly and created the worst wealth gap in South America.

In fact, he was such a capitalist that Milton Friedman is known to proudly praise Pinochet's "Miracle of Chile" (phrase coined by Friedman).

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet#Pinochet.27s_economic_policy

For the reasons listed above....? Do I really need to explain myself more than once? I'm starting to get confused here.
Good, sorry for poking at this, I just wanted to make sure I understand where you're coming from here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages
And just in terms of Economic Performance...Germany doesn't have a minimum wage, and look at the mess they're in right now.
So abolishing it is probably not a wonder tonic for unemployment.

And if the minimum wage rises, wouldn't all low-skilled wages rise, in order to keep the same relative position utility-wise?
I mean, the minimum wage was $5 and A offered a job for $7 in order to attract better people than B with a $6 job.
Then minimum wage rises to $6.
Wouldn't both A and B raise their wages to $8 and $7 respectively, to keep the same attractiveness to potential employees?

So that the market would be operating in a zone above the minimum wage, but still influenced by it because it sets that zone?

Think about it: if the national minimum wage increases, so does the tax revenue brought in by the government's main source of income: the income tax. They may not even have to take a bigger percentage out of it, but the dollar count will undoubtedly be higher.
True. Although that is probably not high on their priority list. More like looking good with the common man.

Except mine, of course.
Hmmm?
Would you personally benefit from an increase in the minimum wage in your state?

Yeah, maybe I do but then again I'd also probably benefit from a postmortem procedure attaching my still living head to a massive armored spider. That doesn't mean it's actually worth doing or morally solid.
Why not?
If Objectivism is the use of rational reasoning to pursue one's self-interest, and you would survive having your head put on a spider and benefit from it, why wouldn't it be morally solid?
I think I misunderstood you again.

Pinochet was hardly a capitalist he was if anything totalitarian. Calling Pinochet a capitalist because he pandered to other capitalists to fund his totalitarian regigm makes as much sense as calling a computer chip a desert because silicone is made of sand.
What I mean is the radical capitalism that he and his Chicago-School cronies implemented in Chile.
It went down the drain in many criteria.

"Pinochet's economic policy

Pinochet as self-proclaimed PresidentOnce in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.

Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this "miracle" label, [5] pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. However, Pinochet did manage to address at least part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.

The privatizations, cuts in public spending and anti-union policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata.

The former President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason for the external Western opposition to Allende's government, in addition to his friendliness with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] which had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet#Pinochet.27s_economic_policy

What I mean is the radical capitalism that he and his Chicago-School cronies implemented in Chile.
It went down the drain in many criteria.

"Pinochet's economic policy

Pinochet as self-proclaimed PresidentOnce in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.

Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this "miracle" label, [5] pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. However, Pinochet did manage to address at least part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.

The privatizations, cuts in public spending and anti-union policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata.

The former President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason for the external Western opposition to Allende's government, in addition to his friendliness with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] which had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet#Pinochet.27s_economic_policy

Did you even read the whole article you posted? Pinochet was a dictator who used death squads and outlawed opposition parties. One might think perhaps that the fact that he lead a totalitaarian regigm that came to power after a military coup and used murder and torture to keep itself in power might possibly have had a little more to do with popular discontent.
That's just my theory mind you I'm full of strange ideas. Charley Manson was a big fan of the Beattles and the Beach Boys but somehow I have'nt used this fact to conclude that listening to Classic Rock leads to fouding an apocalapse cult.

-snip-
You said Pinochet was hardly a capitalist. But he was.

I also never thought about totalitarianism, but about social unrest and when "too few people enjoy the wealth".

To which you had answered previously "I have never seen that happen in a capitalist country".

To which I replied that it happened in Chile.

One might think that his type of regime had more to do with it, but I really don't think so. There is various similar regimes which had much less popular unrest, because people were free to work and live their life (Nazi Germany, Iraq etc). Yet there are many democracies in which economic collapse has led to huge social unrests (Weimar Germany, Argentina etc)

He was an ultra-capitalist. He put his economy in the command of a bunch of Chicago Friedman-trained libertarian ideologues. The Chilean economy promptly grew slowly and created the worst wealth gap in South America.

In fact, he was such a capitalist that Milton Friedman is known to proudly praise Pinochet's "Miracle of Chile" (phrase coined by Friedman).

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet#Pinochet.27s_economic_policy


See above. To continue from the sourse BOTH of you used:

, the newly democratic Chile enjoyed an economic boom. Growth far exceeded anything in the rest of Latin America. As of 2004, Chile is considered an example of success, having sustained export and GDP growth through many years. The relationship between Pinochet's policies and this post-Pinochet boom remains an issue of controversy.

Ah but who was in charge for the 90s?

Chile's congressional elections are governed by a unique binomial system that rewards coalition slates. Each coalition can run two candidates for the two Senate and two lower chamber seats apportioned to each chamber's electoral districts. Typically, the two largest coalitions split the seats in a district. Only if the leading coalition ticket out-polls the second-place coalition by a margin of more than 2-to-1 does the winning coalition gain both seats. In the 2001 congressional elections, the conservative Independent Democratic Union surpassed the Christian Democrats for the first time to become the largest party in the lower house. The Communist Party again failed to gain any seats in the 2001 elections.

And they are?

Independent Democratic Union (Unión Demócrata Independiente, UDI) is Chile's most conservative political party. Its current president is Jovino Novoa. UDI and National Renewal (RN) form a coalition of right-wing parties called Alianza por Chile (Alliance for Chile).

So we see that capitlaism is best for Chile and as history has proved totalitarianism is good for no one.

You said Pinochet was hardly a capitalist. But he was.

I also never thought about totalitarianism, but about social unrest and when "too few people enjoy the wealth".

See above. Read you history.

Independent Democratic Union (Unión Demócrata Independiente, UDI) is Chile's most conservative political party. Its current president is Jovino Novoa. UDI and National Renewal (RN) form a coalition of right-wing parties called Alianza por Chile (Alliance for Chile).

So we see that capitlaism is best for Chile and as history has proved totalitarianism is good for no one.
Maybe you want to check the kind of policies those parties implemented too?

I don't dispute that totalitarianism is a bad idea, but we've seen that absolute, total Capitalism, as implemented by Pinochet, did exactly what you would expect it to: It raised unemployment, it made the rich richer and the poor poorer - and thus led to social unrest.

Despite being conservative parties, the current Chileans now are not as right-wing as Pinochet was, so they stabilised the economy by reintroducing regulation etc

Chile has pursued generally sound economic policies for nearly three decades. The 1973-90 military government sold many state-owned companies, and the three democratic governments since 1990 have continued privatization at a slower pace.

Ahem. So capitalist economic policies instituted by a totalitarian when continued and expanded by a democratically ellected government sans death squads (The Communist party runs they just don't win). Is not only successful but popular.....

Ahem. So capitalist economic policies instituted by a totalitarian when continued and expanded by a democratically ellected government sans death squads (The Communist party runs they just don't win). Is not only successful but popular.....
Since 1990, meaning the presidency of Patricio Aylwin until 1994, followed by the presidency of Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, yes?

Good, because both of them come from the same party - The Christian Democrats.
"Customarily, the PDC backs specific initiatives in an effort to bridge communism and capitalism. This idea has been called “communitarian socialism.” In addition to this objective, the PDC also supports a strong national government. Specifically, in the 1990’s, the PDC modernized by adopting a position closer to economic liberalism. Many of the parties in Chile have come to accept the free market that has helped to revitalize Chile’s economy. The leader of the Christian Democratic Party is Adolfo Zaldivar."

Not what you would call a capitalist, or libertarian party, is it?

And before you point out the last few lines, let me show you what wiki says about the French socialist party, oh so commonly called upon by the US Free Market Type as an example of stagnation.
"In 1984 Mitterrand and his second Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, made a sharp change of course and abandoned any further socialist measures. Since then, the Socialists have been in practice a moderate social democratic party, largely embracing the market economy. Because of this, the Socialist party is often criticised by groups further to the left such as the Workers' Struggle (Lutte Ouvrière) and the Revolutionary Communist League as being no longer a truly socialist party."

In conclusion I would merely point out that the Chicago-style policies implemented by Pinochet have been bad for many, while good for the few.
The following governments reduced the extremeness of these policies and have been rewarded with a good, innovative regulated capitalist system, which I certainly applaud. I hope various European Governments can make a leap to the same position.

Good, sorry for poking at this, I just wanted to make sure I understand where you're coming from here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages
And just in terms of Economic Performance...Germany doesn't have a minimum wage, and look at the mess they're in right now.
So abolishing it is probably not a wonder tonic for unemployment.
Guess who's not Germany? The United States. Furthermore, I said nothing of a "wonder tonic." Such a thing probably does not exist.

I do find it odd however that you'd use an example like this: as if the lack of a minimum wage is the only reason for Germany's apparent mess. Also, Europe is just a smidge to the Left of the United States, in case you hadn't noticed. That sort of undermines things.

And if the minimum wage rises, wouldn't all low-skilled wages rise, in order to keep the same relative position utility-wise?
I mean, the minimum wage was $5 and A offered a job for $7 in order to attract better people than B with a $6 job.
Then minimum wage rises to $6.
Wouldn't both A and B raise their wages to $8 and $7 respectively, to keep the same attractiveness to potential employees?

So that the market would be operating in a zone above the minimum wage, but still influenced by it because it sets that zone?

Probably, but beleive it or not I've already thought of this. It does little to change my mind. If every employer under the sun was out to screw their employees; if every employer under the sun wanted to pay their workers the lowest they possibly could--guess what! They'd probably be paying them minimum wage already. The vast majority don't pay anything near minimum wage. I'm one of the lowest paid workers in my kitchen and I get $7.25 an hour, which is a good $2.10 over the Federal wage and just about $3 over the state minimum wage.

True. Although that is probably not high on their priority list. More like looking good with the common man.
Well, as far as I'm concerned whether or not it's their primary motive is more or less irrelevant; the effect is the same in the end. Still, I think you're giving our politicians a little too much credit.


Hmmm?
Would you personally benefit from an increase in the minimum wage in your state?
Very doubtful. Funny you should bring this up, as I'm about to actually quit my job unless I get a raise. Am I whining to my congressman about it? No. I'm dealing with the problem like a man: face to face with my boss. If I have an issue with my employer, I make it a personal matter, not a political one.


Why not?
If Objectivism is the use of rational reasoning to pursue one's self-interest, and you would survive having your head put on a spider and benefit from it, why wouldn't it be morally solid?
I think I misunderstood you again.
You're misunderstanding my whole hyperbole. Generally I use deflections like this when I'm tired of whatever argument I'm responding to: it's all to commom these days that I run into people who say "$RESOURCE would be better applied in $AREA, therefore it is morally justified."

Needless to say I don't lend much credance to this line of thinking.

"I'm one of the lowest paid workers in my kitchen and I get $7.25 an hour, which is a good $2.10 over the Federal wage and just about $3 over the state minimum wage."

>>Uh oh you did it now! See you've identified yourself as working class. To a socialist that means that you have no right to express any opinion on economics other than a socialist one. You see socialists consider workers to be idiots and slaves (They say we lack class consciousness but it means we're idiots) toiling for the business owners. When we should be 'enlightened' slaves working for the great people's state! See according to the socialists those of us who work for a living and are'nt socialists are simply too stupid to know what is good for us.
Of course I have worked in a kitchen, a warehouse, a factory, and onnumerous construction sites so I know the one thing they don't and you do. You probably don't want to work in a kitchen forever and if you do maybe you'd like it to be in your own resturaunt. And if that resturaunt makes money you want to be allowed to keep that money.

Yes, actually I've been slowly starting to notice that most of the Libertarian movement is actually working-class, while Socialism and more Leftist ideologies are favored by middle class intellectuals, which is Kind of ironic since most of them like to paint Libertarians as rich business owners. I may be wrong, but I can't think of many Corporate giants who also happen to be Libertarians. Somehow I'd think if they were we'd have some more pull: maybe even a Senator or something. If we're all rich and corrupt why the hell aren't we in power?

I don't happen to think that the composition of an ideology's followers determines its validity, but this taken in the appropriate context says some interesting things about Socialism.

From my involvement at the local party level almost all small businesses and companies. You have to understand that for the truly top wealth individuals and corporations the regulated market is an advantage. Regulation means that the company that can afford the most congressman will always get the better end of the deal. Consider many on the left complain about the loopholes that the wealthy use to avoid paying tax. Why is the tax code so confusing? Perhaps because that way the only way to get a break on your taxes is to be able to afford a lot of tax lawyers and accountants. Follow the way the mega-rich pander to the left and ask why if they are so greedy they endorse these things? Is it because they want a government big enough to hide behind perhaps? Ao they realize that they could never hope to compete were it an open level playing feild?

Yet there are many democracies in which economic collapse has led to huge social unrests (Weimar Germany, Argentina etc)
Bad, bad example for you to use. The collapse of the Weimar Republic can be directly attributed to the bullshit reparations imposed upon Germany by those rat bastards Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Without the imposition of reparations the WR's economy probably would have gone along swimmingly and it is doubtful that Hitler would have had the leverage to rise to power.

Bad, bad example for you to use. The collapse of the Weimar Republic can be directly attributed to the bullshit reparations imposed upon Germany by those rat bastards Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Without the imposition of reparations the WR's economy probably would have gone along swimmingly and it is doubtful that Hitler would have had the leverage to rise to power.
And?
Did Economic Collapse (regardless of the cause) lead to social unrest, and in this case the collapse of the system?

Also, Europe is just a smidge to the Left of the United States, in case you hadn't noticed. That sort of undermines things.
Indeed. But is there anyone left who is seriously advocating a truly anti-market system?

Well, as far as I'm concerned whether or not it's their primary motive is more or less irrelevant; the effect is the same in the end. Still, I think you're giving our politicians a little too much credit.
Were you in favour of the Bush Tax Cuts?

Very doubtful. Funny you should bring this up, as I'm about to actually quit my job unless I get a raise. Am I whining to my congressman about it? No. I'm dealing with the problem like a man: face to face with my boss. If I have an issue with my employer, I make it a personal matter, not a political one.
Do you have a family to support though? Some people may not be able to afford risking to get fired, shouldn't they have some sort of political support, if they can't fend for themselves?

"$RESOURCE would be better applied in $AREA, therefore it is morally justified."
But in this case that wasn't actually my argument. My argument here was that if everyone had better education and health, you would be better off. So it would be in your rational self-interest to use at least a tiny smidgeon of your income (ie whatever the value of others being better off is to you) to finance that.
We may have different reasons for supporting the same thing, but we could still pull together on the same string, so to speak.

I don't happen to think that the composition of an ideology's followers determines its validity, but this taken in the appropriate context says some interesting things about Socialism.
Like?
At this moment I for one am poor as hell. My family is too (but that is a long story - we weren't always). We are also not eligible for any Government support.
I scrape all the money I can get (working hard), I get some money from my "rich" grandparents, and I finance my car and my university with that.
And I can't help but think of all the resources wasted by the lot of us by just trying to stay alive, when we could be using them to achieve great things.

Indeed. But is there anyone left who is seriously advocating a truly anti-market system?
You'd be surprised.

Were you in favour of the Bush Tax Cuts?
It's a start.

Do you have a family to support though? Some people may not be able to afford risking to get fired, shouldn't they have some sort of political support, if they can't fend for themselves?
Again, you're giving the employer too little credit. As a general rule, people are not fired when they ask for a raise. This is just pandering to the rampant anti-corporate stereotypes that have been flying around for the last 50 or so years.

But in this case that wasn't actually my argument. My argument here was that if everyone had better education and health, you would be better off. So it would be in your rational self-interest to use at least a tiny smidgeon of your income (ie whatever the value of others being better off is to you) to finance that.
But actually it is you're argument; you're telling me that my money is put to better use doing these things as opposed to whatever I was going to do with it. You're telling me, in effect, just what my best interests are. Doesn't that seem a little odd?

We may have different reasons for supporting the same thing, but we could still pull together on the same string, so to speak.
But we don't. What?

Like?
Like Socialism is out of touch with what the working man really wants: more money? That maybe--just maybe-- that their quality of life could be improved by letting them have more money as opposed to a lot less.

At this moment I for one am poor as hell. My family is too (but that is a long story - we weren't always). We are also not eligible for any Government support.
I scrape all the money I can get (working hard), I get some money from my "rich" grandparents, and I finance my car and my university with that.And I can't help but think of all the resources wasted by the lot of us by just trying to stay alive, when we could be using them to achieve great things.
We all have shit like this: I make less than $1000 a month usually and I still owe probably a little over a thousand dollars on a car loan for a car that died in April. Before I moved here, I lived in Akron Ohio for about ten months on $600 a month--on my own. However, I didn't quite regard keeping myself alive as a "waste of resources." I happen to think keeping me alive is a pretty good use for my money actually.

But honestly I can't really see where you're coming from when the rationale here amounts to "I'm working hard, I need to make ends meet, so therefore take all of my money instead of a chunk of it."

What gives?

It's a start.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00006237_2003.pdf
Filthy bastards just playing straight into their own pockets...

Again, you're giving the employer too little credit. As a general rule, people are not fired when they ask for a raise. This is just pandering to the rampant anti-corporate stereotypes that have been flying around for the last 50 or so years.
A single worker in a car factory walks up to the office and asks for a raise.
That worker can threaten to quit. Is that a credible threat? No, in most cases, because that worker has to sustain himself and a family somehow.
The employer can threaten to fire the worker. Is that a credible threat? In a libertarian system absolutely, the damage done to the factory would be minimal.
So just from the theoretical standpoint of game theory there is a power difference. Government intervention in the labour market would be addressing that difference, no more, no less (ideally).

But actually it is you're argument; you're telling me that my money is put to better use doing these things as opposed to whatever I was going to do with it. You're telling me, in effect, just what my best interests are. Doesn't that seem a little odd?
Please, ignore anything you might know about me from before.
You said you would be better off if others were in good health and if they were educated (ie you would be better off if everybody didn't have the plague for example).
So strictly speaking, you should be investing some amount of money (ie the amount that this would be worth to you) into other people's education and health. That would be rational, wouldn't it?

Like Socialism is out of touch with what the working man really wants: more money? That maybe--just maybe-- that their quality of life could be improved by letting them have more money as opposed to a lot less.
Indeed. The problem is though that we have never actually seen a libertarian system work, other than in the industrial revolution. Then there were many distorting factors, so it is difficult to assess what would happen.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible that workers could actually end up with a lot less money if the Government kept out of it. It didn't work for Chile, but as we've seen, that probably wasn't what you would call libertarian either.

However, I didn't quite regard keeping myself alive as a "waste of resources." I happen to think keeping me alive is a pretty good use for my money actually.
Fair enough, I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But is there just a remote possibility that you could have used that money to found a business that ends up developing a cure for AIDS? An opportunity that may have been wasted?

But honestly I can't really see where you're coming from when the rationale here amounts to "I'm working hard, I need to make ends meet, so therefore take all of my money instead of a chunk of it."
It depends on how you value what is being done with the money. Obviously I wouldn't want all my money taken away. But if I pay some taxes, and those go to something I value (like the health and education of others), then that is a good idea.
Besides, the common "working man" wouldn't be paying large amounts anyways, that's what a progressive tax system is for.

A single worker in a car factory walks up to the office and asks for a raise.
That worker can threaten to quit. Is that a credible threat? No, in most cases, because that worker has to sustain himself and a family somehow.
The employer can threaten to fire the worker. Is that a credible threat? In a libertarian system absolutely, the damage done to the factory would be minimal.
So just from the theoretical standpoint of game theory there is a power difference. Government intervention in the labour market would be addressing that difference, no more, no less (ideally).

>>For one thing the worker did'nt finance and organise the business. So without the owner there would'nt be a job to quit or be fired from. As an employee I have before quit and cost my employer LARGE financial losses by taking my intellectual properties (ie. skills and knowledge) with me. Collectively workers also have bargianing ability but it is only so great as the average ability of the group as a whole. And without special laws catering to them in groups of laborers have done so in the past. Why involve the state?


Indeed. The problem is though that we have never actually seen a libertarian system work, other than in the industrial revolution. Then there were many distorting factors, so it is difficult to assess what would happen.

What distorting factors?

It depends on how you value what is being done with the money. Obviously I wouldn't want all my money taken away. But if I pay some taxes, and those go to something I value (like the health and education of others), then that is a good idea.
Besides, the common "working man" wouldn't be paying large amounts anyways, that's what a progressive tax system is for.

If you wish to contribute funds to what you consider a worthy cause no Libertarian would dispute your right to do so. It is the desire to compell others to contribute through force or the threat thereof we oppose. And the 'working man' despite what you might think is wise enough to know that a large tax on the fellow writing his paycheck makes the likelyhood of a raise much lower...

As an employee I have before quit and cost my employer LARGE financial losses by taking my intellectual properties (ie. skills and knowledge) with me. Collectively workers also have bargianing ability but it is only so great as the average ability of the group as a whole. And without special laws catering to them in groups of laborers have done so in the past. Why involve the state?
I'm talking about unskilled lineworkers. They have no knowledge or intellectual property, other than to put pieces together.
As I said before in another thread, I don't think skilled workers need the same kind of protection, because their threat to quit is more credible and serious.
If you could have unions without state involvement, then that is a good idea too. But currently, union membership is shrinking, public perception of unions is terrible (undeservedly so in my opinion) and as so often, the little guy doesn't seem to be acting that completely rational afterall...

What distorting factors?
Population Growth, everyone fleeing from the country into the city, political upheaval etc etc
Unless you want to disregard those factors and we can use the 19th century as a good example of libertarianism...

If you wish to contribute funds to what you consider a worthy cause no Libertarian would dispute your right to do so. It is the desire to compell others to contribute through force or the threat thereof we oppose. And the 'working man' despite what you might think is wise enough to know that a large tax on the fellow writing his paycheck makes the likelyhood of a raise much lower...
And there we come to the core of it all.
You think a person can always make a good decision for him/herself. I think there are serious constraints to that. The same thing goes through the discipline of Economics, and I know that I don't think that perfect information is always there, or even that Humans are necessarily rational beings.

Population Growth, everyone fleeing from the country into the city, political upheaval etc etc
Unless you want to disregard those factors and we can use the 19th century as a good example of libertarianism...



First, let me start off by saying that I am a libertarian. But if you are saying that the 19th century is a good example of libertarianism, but libertarianism wasn't adequate because of population growth, everyone fleeing from the country into the city (I'll give you "political upheaval" if you are talking about the Civil War, but not if you are talking about the secession of the Southern states), then I would say that we should scrap libertarianism immediately. Seriously, what good is a system that can't deal with population growth or a change in population densities?

What I consider the real factors that we should be disregarding about the 19th century are things like the high protective tariffs, the Specie Circular, greenbacks, the issue of free silver, and much of the anti-libertarian issues of the state governments.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00006237_2003.pdf
Filthy bastards just playing straight into their own pockets...
Yeah, I almost care. I've got bigger problems than what the rich do with their money, unlike... well, most of us.


A single worker in a car factory walks up to the office and asks for a raise.
And in most cases if it makes sense to give him one, he'll get it. A lot of factors come into play here, some of which are being revealed to me presently by my employer. Wage increases are not good for increasing productiveness; in general people work as they work at a certain job regardless of pay. In general. And here I'm talking about situations where the pay won't vary wildly; I'm not trying to claim an American steelworker would be totally into it for $.50 an hour.

Wage increases are used by employers to retain an employee; and in a lot of industries its generally done to keep veterans or people with promise and/or comprehensive training in a competitive industry.

That worker can threaten to quit.
If he's willing to risk it. If we're talking about an out-of-options steel worker that has a family to feed, he'd be out of his mind to threaten that, no matter what his wage is. Context my friend, context.

Is that a credible threat? No, in most cases, because that worker has to sustain himself and a family somehow.
Aha! So he does have a family to feed. He's an idiot for threatening to quit in the first place. Besides, why is it always necessary to traffic in threats? After re-evaluating my situation with my employers, I have discovered that what I have done, essentially, is attempt to dictate my own wage. The problem is, it doesn't work that way. They probably won't give it to me, and I may just quit anyway so as not to look like a puss. But I spoke to my boss today and we're on the level for the first time in over 6 months.

The employer can threaten to fire the worker. Is that a credible threat? In a libertarian system absolutely, the damage done to the factory would be minimal.
Again, it depends. It depends on whether a lot of his workers feel this way or just a few, it depends on other jobs in the area and local competitors and so on and so forth; it's not quite that cut and dry.

Still, in your example the worker is an idiot for walking out on a paycheck without at least another job lined up.

So just from the theoretical standpoint of game theory there is a power difference. Government intervention in the labour market would be addressing that difference, no more, no less (ideally).
Of course there's a power difference. The employer created the job.

Please, ignore anything you might know about me from before.
What? You said it to me in this thread.

You said you would be better off if others were in good health and if they were educated (ie you would be better off if everybody didn't have the plague for example).
So strictly speaking, you should be investing some amount of money (ie the amount that this would be worth to you) into other people's education and health. That would be rational, wouldn't it?
Wait a second... plague? You have to use a plague as a hyperbole to justify what [epistemologically] constitutes the crux of your philosophy? Of course I'd be better off if the entire populace wasn't riddled with disease, but that sort of thing is called a catastrophe for a reason. That doesn't mean I'd be better off in the normal state of things to be paying out the nose for trying to prevent those catastrophes. For all the animosity most of us have for the Insurance industry, Socialists seem to like making it be a primary function of government. Government Insurance. Call me a cynic but even typing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Indeed. The problem is though that we have never actually seen a libertarian system work, other than in the industrial revolution. Then there were many distorting factors, so it is difficult to assess what would happen.
The Industrial Revolution policies weren't exactly to-the-letter Libertarianism, but it was about as close as we've ever got. I think the economic growth during that period speaks for itself.

In my opinion it is perfectly possible that workers could actually end up with a lot less money if the Government kept out of it. It didn't work for Chile, but as we've seen, that probably wasn't what you would call libertarian either.
God no.

Fair enough, I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But is there just a remote possibility that you could have used that money to found a business that ends up developing a cure for AIDS? An opportunity that may have been wasted?
You have got to be kidding me. Leo, if you took the money that was ripped from my paycheck without my consent and put it right back in there, I'd be in friggin' college right now. Well, I'd probably start in the fall.

It's the taxes that are killing us my friend, not the lack of free checkups.

It depends on how you value what is being done with the money. Obviously I wouldn't want all my money taken away. But if I pay some taxes, and those go to something I value (like the health and education of others), then that is a good idea.
Besides, the common "working man" wouldn't be paying large amounts anyways, that's what a progressive tax system is for.

And there we come to the core of it all.
You think a person can always make a good decision for him/herself. I think there are serious constraints to that. The same thing goes through the discipline of Economics, and I know that I don't think that perfect information is always there, or even that Humans are necessarily rational beings.
We're not rational? What? Compare us to every other living thing we've ever observed and tell me that again. Man is by definition the 'rational animal.' This does not mean that all of his decisions will be wise and just, but it does mean that those decisions are his and not mine. If you come to me after he blows his savings on bald wigs and say "you owe this man money for the greater good," you're essentially awarding free tickets for failure and you're punishing success. It's moral cannibalism. It's a desire to have one's cake and eat it too.

It's the doctrine of thought-hate at its finest.

I'm talking about unskilled lineworkers. They have no knowledge or intellectual property, other than to put pieces together.
As I said before in another thread, I don't think skilled workers need the same kind of protection, because their threat to quit is more credible and serious.
If you could have unions without state involvement, then that is a good idea too. But currently, union membership is shrinking, public perception of unions is terrible (undeservedly so in my opinion) and as so often, the little guy doesn't seem to be acting that completely rational afterall...

>>This is the common misconception of the left that is that the working man is a unit of labor without individual ability or intellegence. Unions without state involvement as groups of individuals working toward a common goal did work because they served a purpose. Union membership is dropping for a very good reason they do not serve a purpose. Unions are now a government supported oligarchy. As an 'unskilled' lineworker at a structural metals fabricator I pointed out that my tonnage per-manhour was higher than those making the same pay. I got a raise. Working at an industrial gas supplier that was a closed shop where union membership was mandatory I received one grade raise in the course of over two years. And I was consistantly paid lesss than older less productive workers untill I resigned. Later I did some onsite work for them as an outside contracter at a much higher rate of pay. The Union message has come through clearly: "if you want to be paid for what you are worth avoid us."

Population Growth, everyone fleeing from the country into the city, political upheaval etc etc
Unless you want to disregard those factors and we can use the 19th century as a good example of libertarianism...

>>I'll agree that even under rapidly changing circumstances (not unlike the degree of uncertainty found in the modern technology boom) that Libertarian governance is superior.

And there we come to the core of it all.
You think a person can always make a good decision for him/herself. I think there are serious constraints to that. The same thing goes through the discipline of Economics, and I know that I don't think that perfect information is always there, or even that Humans are necessarily rational beings.

>>Indeed a free economy encourages and awards good decision making. Here is our core difference. I think that encouraging people to think about their actions is a good idea. You think that you know what's best for people and should be allowed to tell them what they can do because it's in their best interest.

And in most cases if it makes sense to give him one, he'll get it...
Fair enough. I must say that I don't have much experience in the job market myself, so those Micro Examples may very well prove me wrong.
I only know the theory of labour markets as described by Economics.
Better still though: In Australia, at this very point in time, unions are about to end. John Howard is a very right-wing, almost but not quite libertarian politician. His personal vendettas with the unions go way back, and now he's been given almost dictatorial power in that he holds both houses of parliament.
He's now introducing a system of individual contracts, in which there no longer are collective bargaining agreements, and every employee has to fend for himself. I'll keep you updated as it progresses.

Aha! So he does have a family to feed. He's an idiot for threatening to quit in the first place. Besides, why is it always necessary to traffic in threats?
What else does he have? He only has his labour. You don't expect the employer to give him a raise just out of the goodness of his heart, and since our worker is an unskilled, easily replacable person, he's powerless in such a situation.

Wait a second... plague? You have to use a plague as a hyperbole to justify what [epistemologically] constitutes the crux of your philosophy? Of course I'd be better off if the entire populace wasn't riddled with disease, but that sort of thing is called a catastrophe for a reason. That doesn't mean I'd be better off in the normal state of things to be paying out the nose for trying to prevent those catastrophes.
That's why it's called a hyperbole, isn't it?
You should still get the meaning of this, ie
But what I meant is: Don't you actually benefit from others enjoying a higher level of education, or others' health?
Yeah, maybe I do but then again I'd also probably benefit from a postmortem procedure attaching my still living head to a massive armored spider. That doesn't mean it's actually worth doing or morally solid.

For all the animosity most of us have for the Insurance industry, Socialists seem to like making it be a primary function of government. Government Insurance. Call me a cynic but even typing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I don't mind it. Rather than a business, which will try to take risks with my insurance payments, a government is at least guaranteed to return my money to me when I need it.

The Industrial Revolution policies weren't exactly to-the-letter Libertarianism, but it was about as close as we've ever got. I think the economic growth during that period speaks for itself.
But so does the enormous divide between rich and poor, the abominable living conditions of the average worker, the kids in the mines and so on.

You have got to be kidding me. Leo, if you took the money that was ripped from my paycheck without my consent and put it right back in there, I'd be in friggin' college right now. Well, I'd probably start in the fall.
Do you pay that much tax?

We're not rational? What? Compare us to every other living thing we've ever observed and tell me that again. Man is by definition the 'rational animal.' This does not mean that all of his decisions will be wise and just, but it does mean that those decisions are his and not mine.
Maybe we have a different definition of rationality?
I just see that what I take to be "rational behaviour" is very much inspired by economics, rather than philosophy.
What is an Objectivist's Definition of Rationality?

If you come to me after he blows his savings on bald wigs and say "you owe this man money for the greater good," you're essentially awarding free tickets for failure and you're punishing success. It's moral cannibalism. It's a desire to have one's cake and eat it too.
What do you mean by "Moral Cannibalism"?
If we're talking about cake, then I'd rather say that we should all share the cake, even with those who didn't help much in baking it. You're saying only those that made it should eat it, the rest starves to death and only the strongest survive. That's Social Darwinism, and that's what I don't like.

Unions without state involvement as groups of individuals working toward a common goal did work because they served a purpose.
Creating better working and living conditions for its members.

Union membership is dropping for a very good reason they do not serve a purpose.
So unions no longer try to improve working and living conditions for their members?
I agree that modern unions are often ineffective in what they do. They aren't always, and on average workers in a union are still better off than workers who aren't.
But things like very negative media coverage, stories like the one you told, stories about the Mafia etc etc just leads to people making decisions that aren't optimal for them, because their preconceived ideas and emotions are in the way of the optimising process.

I'll agree that even under rapidly changing circumstances (not unlike the degree of uncertainty found in the modern technology boom) that Libertarian governance is superior.
And what is your reasoning for this? If anything, Libertarianism needs as complete information as possible, so that everyone can make informed decisions about what is best for them. In times of uncertainty, that clearly can't be the case, because no one knows what happens in the future.

Indeed a free economy encourages and awards good decision making. Here is our core difference. I think that encouraging people to think about their actions is a good idea. You think that you know what's best for people and should be allowed to tell them what they can do because it's in their best interest.
Good Decision Making is first and foremost about having all necessary information. Perfect Information is a primary assumptions for pretty much all Chicago-type Economic Theories and models.
Yet when I make the decision to purchase something, or the decision to buy a house, or any other decision - I don't have perfect information. I don't know that this good couldn't be available cheaper down the road, and finding that out wastes resources that should've been part of my payoff.
You say that people should be encouraged to make good decisions.
I say that, while I trust people to make sound decisions with all the information they have (usually), they cannot make good decisions in many cases because of a lack of information.

And by the way: I'm for a "free economy", but I don't want to take it to the extreme, because I don't see it working any better in practice than the extreme on the other end of the scale.

Good Decision Making is first and foremost about having all necessary information. Perfect Information is a primary assumptions for pretty much all Chicago-type Economic Theories and models.
Yet when I make the decision to purchase something, or the decision to buy a house, or any other decision - I don't have perfect information. I don't know that this good couldn't be available cheaper down the road, and finding that out wastes resources that should've been part of my payoff.
You say that people should be encouraged to make good decisions.
I say that, while I trust people to make sound decisions with all the information they have (usually), they cannot make good decisions in many cases because of a lack of information.


I think it's obvious to everyone that 'perfect information' is never the case, and I am assuming that we both agree that the more perfect the information is, the better people's choices will be. I find that one of the primary purposes of having any government at all is to make sure that the information that consumers are receiving is factual, correct, true, whatever you want to call it. However, what you are talking about is a lack of information, not faulty information. So, what would you say is the solution to increasing a consumer's sum total of pertinent information?

If I had to take a stab at what you would say, I would guess things like proper food labelling, government inspections of facilities, laws requiring licensing, etc.

Fair enough. I must say that I don't have much experience in the job market myself, so those Micro Examples may very well prove me wrong.
That should tell you something.

I only know the theory of labour markets as described by Economics.
Better still though: In Australia, at this very point in time, unions are about to end. John Howard is a very right-wing, almost but not quite libertarian politician. His personal vendettas with the unions go way back, and now he's been given almost dictatorial power in that he holds both houses of parliament.
He's now introducing a system of individual contracts, in which there no longer are collective bargaining agreements, and every employee has to fend for himself. I'll keep you updated as it progresses.
Well, I'm not a big fan of dealing with international policy; I don't think it's a particularly productive use of my time to tell other countries how to do things. I prefer to keep myself busy with the one I happen to be in. For the record though, I'd tend to think that any government regulation encouraging or prohibiting such practices isn't right. It is no more justified for this clown to forbid collective bargaining as it is for him to forbid wearing white socks on a Tuesday. I'd leave something like that to the establishment itself.

What else does he have? He only has his labour. You don't expect the employer to give him a raise just out of the goodness of his heart, and since our worker is an unskilled, easily replacable person, he's powerless in such a situation.
What else does he have? He has a fucking family to feed for one; I'm sorry but as I said earlier this guy would have to be outrageously stupid to threaten to walk away from what is [apparently] the only local source of income for him. Even if he's not getting quite enough, something is always better than nothing. It would be like a Sudanese peasant abandoning a full-sized ham because he thinks the glaze on it sucks.

That's why it's called a hyperbole, isn't it?
You should still get the meaning of this, ie
You completely missed the point of my initial statement. What I was trying to say was that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. The fact that someone else can in fact benefit from a third of my paycheck isn't in and of itself a reason for doing it. In fact, really all it is is a restatement of your premise. To me, the logic sounds something like this:

"I need a third of your paycheck because some bums are SOL."

"Why?

"Because they need it."

"You already said that. Why else?"

"Because you're capable of helping them."

See what I'm getting at? The third and fifth lines sum up Socialism nicely: in fact, they're pretty much the only two arguments for it, when you boil everything down.

I don't mind it. Rather than a business, which will try to take risks with my insurance payments, a government is at least guaranteed to return my money to me when I need it.
I'm glad I read this before I went to work, because thinking about this line put a smile on my face every time I got close to feeling frustrated. Really, you've done me no small service here.

This makes little or no sense. Guaranteed? Guaranteed by who? The Government? I honestly have no idea where you get this 'guarantee,' business, since the government has no higher authority to enforce said guarantee. The private sector, on the other hand, does.

I'll spare your feelings by not elaborating [much], but it's pretty safe to say that the idea that the government is guaranteed to do anything is a horribly naïve one. In 1998, Senate Republicans guaranteed a "Drug Free" America within five years. In 1995, Republican congressional leaders vowed to cut spending on many Federal programs. 10 years later, 28 of them have seen significant budget increases under the Bush Administration.Say what you will about the Republicans , but the fact of the matter remains that they're part of the [i]government and they're capable of contradicting themselves and forgetting their promises just like everyone else. Changing our government over to some sort of liberal happy-slappy compassion-fest will change none of this. Men will be Men.

But so does the enormous divide between rich and poor, the abominable living conditions of the average worker, the kids in the mines and so on.
Man, I could have recited that reply almost word for word sixteen hours ago: damn, you lefties are predictable. At any rate, I would hazard to guess that these problems weren't quite as widespread as today's politicians would have you believe. Somehow, I think if the majority of the wrokforce were so horribly oppressed, things would have come to a head much sooner. I won't pretend to assume that no one was exploited or treated unfairly, but we're talking about a period that began over 100 years ago. Change seldom comes about quickly, but now we're to the point where factory foremans can't get away with charging $.10 an hour. This is every bit as much a product in the development of our understanding of market economics as it is a product of your beloved liberal labor restrictions. Men have many abilities, but the ability to instantly understand every consequence of new technology is not one of them. The Industrial Revolution was a good example of developing more technology than we know what to do with.

Color me a plutocrat, but I for one am a teeeeeensy bit grateful for the progress that was made in this era, since it set the framework for what we've got today.

Do you pay that much tax?
Well, yeah. Think about it; if I make $15,000 a year gross, that means roughly $3,5-$4,000 will be taken out per annum. Since I've been working for my employer for just about a year, these figures are probably actually pretty close. An extra $3500 would enable me to pay living expenses on campus for the foreseeable future, allowing my parents to worry about the tuition. Frankly, I'd rather pay for it all myself but you know how parents can get.

Such as it stands now, I have a little less than a grand in the bank and it will be a long haul to get the other 2 and a half, considering some of my expenses. So yes, I do pay that much tax. Way too much.

Maybe we have a different definition of rationality?
I just see that what I take to be "rational behaviour" is very much inspired by economics, rather than philosophy.
What is an Objectivist's Definition of Rationality?
"Rationality," according to Objectivism, is defined as "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge."

"Reason," according to Objectivism, is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

In this context, the definition of man as the 'Rational Animal' is the essential element to distinguishing man from the remainder of the animal kingdom. No animal can conceptualize like man; no animal can undergo an identical process of cognition. As a general rule, people tend to like arguing this point by pointing out that many of us are idiots, as if I hadn't already noticed. However, just because someone makes poor decisions does not mean that they are unable to reason, and it does nothing to undermine Man's rightful title of the 'Rational Animal.' Even the dumbest of us has something that no other animal has: a human mind.


What do you mean by "Moral Cannibalism"?
I mean doing things like forcing me to help other people. The parallel here should be pretty obvious.

If we're talking about cake, then I'd rather say that we should all share the cake, even with those who didn't help much in baking it. You're saying only those that made it should eat it, the rest starves to death and only the strongest survive. That's Social Darwinism, and that's what I don't like.
No, I'm saying that only those who made it should decide where it goes. Just because I beleive that the self is the proper moral beneficiary of one's own actions does not mean I necessarily abhor the idea of said cake being distributed at the owner's consent. It's forcing that consent that I am opposed to.

And if you're going to turn around and tell me that 'not enough people would share,' then that's more or less an implicit admission that society doesn't give two shits about its poor. If that's the case, Socialists lose whatever already muddy moral ground they were standing on, since nearly all of them claim to have the best interests of the masses at heart. However, once it's revealed that the masses want something else, all of a sudden our neighborhood friendly liberals are at a loss. You can't claim to be a champion of society and then denounce its decisions.

Of course, as it stands now, society hardly decides anything anymore. Too many of us would apparently prefer to sit on our asses and wait for the Government to tell us right from wrong.

So unions no longer try to improve working and living conditions for their members?
I agree that modern unions are often ineffective in what they do. They aren't always, and on average workers in a union are still better off than workers who aren't.
>>Only the seniority whores and reps. The ones who work the least make the most. As I said an oligarchy.

But things like very negative media coverage, stories like the one you told, stories about the Mafia etc etc just leads to people making decisions that aren't optimal for them, because their preconceived ideas and emotions are in the way of the optimising process.
>>I'd agree that experiences likemine are one of the reason for the decline of unions. But it leads to making decissions that ARE optimal for them. Like leaving the Union and getting a better job.


And what is your reasoning for this? If anything, Libertarianism needs as complete information as possible, so that everyone can make informed decisions about what is best for them. In times of uncertainty, that clearly can't be the case, because no one knows what happens in the future.
>>No free markets work best when things are in a high state of growth and change because they are adaptable.

Good Decision Making is first and foremost about having all necessary information. Perfect Information is a primary assumptions for pretty much all Chicago-type Economic Theories and models.
Yet when I make the decision to purchase something, or the decision to buy a house, or any other decision - I don't have perfect information. I don't know that this good couldn't be available cheaper down the road, and finding that out wastes resources that should've been part of my payoff.
You say that people should be encouraged to make good decisions.
I say that, while I trust people to make sound decisions with all the information they have (usually), they cannot make good decisions in many cases because of a lack of information.
>>Nobody has perfect information. But a free system that encourages and awards being informed creates a higher level of information availability.

And by the way: I'm for a "free economy", but I don't want to take it to the extreme, because I don't see it working any better in practice than the extreme on the other end of the scale.
>>See when I say that freedom works better I say hey lets do more of that!

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me that the Left uses that example on purpose: they want the state to be a rule by minority by favor of the majority.
How do you figure this? The Left is in favour of the workers controlling the means of production. The Right is in favour of one person controlling the means of production. And yet the Left is more tyrannical/authoritarian?

While I'm not currently being compromised by this particular system [not being a homeowner, and thus not being subject to the property tax that pays for most local schools], I'm opposed to the theory of it. Basically what happens here is the government comes along and says: "Oh, since your house happens to be built right here I'm going to take another x percent out of your paycheck. Yoink!" I mean damn!
I don't care about the theory. You really don't appreciate the benefits to the society that you live in that are brought by universal education. Do you really believe that the government has absolutely no right to any of your money? How do you expect the government to pay for even a limited sset of functions.

On a further level, I notice that almost all of your political arguments come down to "yarr, get yer hands off my paycheck". This is theoretical. Have you thought about what your society would be like without government funded roads, military, education and all those other things you object to?

If you have thought about it, are the ends (good quality of life) not justified by the means (taxes)? Or do you take the view that the means (no taxes) justify the end (bad quality of life).

Explain why selfishness is rational. Selfishness is suffering.

Yes, actually I've been slowly starting to notice that most of the Libertarian movement is actually working-class, while Socialism and more Leftist ideologies are favored by middle class intellectuals, which is Kind of ironic since most of them like to paint Libertarians as rich business owners.
I earn about as much as you do, and I am also one of the lowest paid in my workplace. Most of the working class are socialist because they vote for socialist parties, at least where I live. The libertarian/conservative parties are popular in the wealthy districts of the city where I live (Dublin, Ireland).

I may be wrong, but I can't think of many Corporate giants who also happen to be Libertarians. Somehow I'd think if they were we'd have some more pull: maybe even a Senator or something. If we're all rich and corrupt why the hell aren't we in power?
They are all libertarians. Either libertarians or conservatives, both groups' economic agenda is both sufficiently pro-corporate for them to support.

I don't happen to think that the composition of an ideology's followers determines its validity, but this taken in the appropriate context says some interesting things about Socialism.
Does it say that people enjoy punishment? Because if your ridiculous claims are to be believed, the rich are all socialists who love to be taxed to death, while the workers are all capitalists who love getting exploited.

So, what would you say is the solution to increasing a consumer's sum total of pertinent information?

If I had to take a stab at what you would say, I would guess things like proper food labelling, government inspections of facilities, laws requiring licensing, etc.
Those things are a good start, yes. But essentially, perfect information is a fiction of the Chicago School.
The more information, the better, but things like making the cost structures of firms openly available would probably be opposed by the very same libertarians who'd require it in the first place.

What else does he have? He has a fucking family to feed for one; I'm sorry but as I said earlier this guy would have to be outrageously stupid to threaten to walk away from what is [apparently] the only local source of income for him. Even if he's not getting quite enough, something is always better than nothing. It would be like a Sudanese peasant abandoning a full-sized ham because he thinks the glaze on it sucks.
Point is that when you have two parties negotiating, and both are acting out of rational self-interest, than at least from an Economic viewpoint they would only do what makes them better off.
All both parties have therefore is
a) the ability to make the other better off. That is near zero for an unskilled lineworker in a large production factory.
b) the ability to make the other worse off. That's the threat part. The employer can threaten to fire the employee. The employee can threaten to quit, but that doesn't worry the employer much, because it isn't a credible threat, as you pointed out.
Thus there is a power difference, that makes a proper working of the demand & supply exercise as required by Smith and Friedman impossible.

"I need a third of your paycheck because some bums are SOL."

"Why?

"Because they need it."

"You already said that. Why else?"

"Because you're capable of helping them."
What if I added: "Because it makes you better off, too."
And you said: "My money makes me better off!"
And I answer: "So I'll only take so much to make you indifferent between the amount of money you lost and the amount of utility/happiness you gained."

The private sector, on the other hand, does.
Such as? We've pointed out that there is no perfect information, and in a libertarian system there would be even less control over a firm like Enron than there is now. Who is going to judge them if the firm goes broke because it took a stupid risk? How is it my fault, for what would I be punished?

I'll spare your feelings by not elaborating [much], but it's pretty safe to say that the idea that the government is guaranteed to do anything is a horribly naïve one.
So far there has been no Government (other than failed states) that actually did not pay out its "Government Insurance" money. Social Security still works, although it may run at a deficit, the same goes for a system of unemployment benefits. Governments have a greater ability to get money from somewhere (and I don't mean printing it) than businesses do.

The Industrial Revolution was a good example of developing more technology than we know what to do with.
What about a more tangible example then. In Chile (which was a dictatorship, granted), a country effectively run by Chicago-school Economists as far as the Economy was concerned, Unemployment skyrocketed, and the Rich-Poor Gap grew to gigantous proportions.

So yes, I do pay that much tax. Way too much.
So maybe the tax cuts should have been more focussed on people like you, rather than on people that have long finished their Uni and are multi-millionaires. Because say what you will, they were the ones targeted because they were the ones who were thought to spend more money.

"Rationality," according to Objectivism, is defined as "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge."

"Reason," according to Objectivism, is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."
In that case we do have a different definition. In Economics, a rational decision is one that optimises ie you try to get to a point where you maximise utility. People often don't do that and can't get to that point, which is why I said that people are not necessarily rational.

And if you're going to turn around and tell me that 'not enough people would share,' then that's more or less an implicit admission that society doesn't give two shits about its poor. If that's the case, Socialists lose whatever already muddy moral ground they were standing on, since nearly all of them claim to have the best interests of the masses at heart.
Turns out I am rather more selfish than that. I don't think society as a whole is always right either.
Market Failures do exist, and they need to be addressed by the only thing capable of doing so: Government Institutions.
People usually make good decisions. They don't always make good decisions though, whether it is because they can't or they just don't seem to want to.
My Social Democracy comes to a large part from the need to stop others from hurting me with their "stupid" decisions. In most social issues (if not all of them) I'm actually fairly libertarians, because as I said, people often do the right thing. If someone wants to shoot me, then there's laws against that too afterall.
And another part is one that you reject: That people who are left by the wayside are a wasted resource, and that helping them along helps everyone, including me.
I'm not advocating taking it too far though. Incentives are important, and in Germany (which is the system I know best) they have taken it too far, and a part of their current problem stems from that.

>>Only the seniority whores and reps. The ones who work the least make the most. As I said an oligarchy.
Say what you will, but statistically, union workers are better off.
Earnings
In 2004, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had
median usual weekly earnings of $781, compared with a median of $612 for
wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions. (See table 2.)
The difference reflects a variety of influences in addition to coverage by
a collective bargaining agreement, including variations in the distributions
of union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm size,
or geographic region. (For a discussion of the problem of differentiating
between the influence of unionization status and the influence of other
worker characteristics on employee earnings, see "Measuring union-nonunion
earnings differences," Monthly Labor Review, June 1990.)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

>>I'd agree that experiences likemine are one of the reason for the decline of unions. But it leads to making decissions that ARE optimal for them. Like leaving the Union and getting a better job.
See above.

>>No free markets work best when things are in a high state of growth and change because they are adaptable.
Why did you ignore my point? Obviously they are more adaptable than a planned economy, but the uncertainty would prevent agents from making rational decisions.

>>Nobody has perfect information. But a free system that encourages and awards being informed creates a higher level of information availability.
So you're saying I could go out and search for information?

>>See when I say that freedom works better I say hey lets do more of that!
But it apparently doesn't. Both Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence suggests that you can have too much of everything, even freedom.
And why aren't you an anarchist?

Like Socialism is out of touch with what the working man really wants: more money? That maybe--just maybe-- that their quality of life could be improved by letting them have more money as opposed to a lot less.

Well, to believe this I would have to ignore the past 120 years of European history. Socialism certainly isn't out of touch with this working man.

Why conservatives and libertarians always attack the welfare aspect of socialism? It gets boring, and it's not even the most important part. When I say "reduce the wealth gap" why do people assume that I'm talking about handing money to poor people for nothing? I'm more likely talking about hiring the poor as workers on public works and infrastructure projects. Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?

Wait a second... plague? You have to use a plague as a hyperbole to justify what [epistemologically] constitutes the crux of your philosophy? Of course I'd be better off if the entire populace wasn't riddled with disease, but that sort of thing is called a catastrophe for a reason. That doesn't mean I'd be better off in the normal state of things to be paying out the nose for trying to prevent those catastrophes.
That's because the normal state of things has at least partially been created by government health assistance.

Health services should be nationalised because healthcare is a right, not just a privelege. People shouldn't be denied access to health care just because they can't afford it.

The Industrial Revolution policies weren't exactly to-the-letter Libertarianism, but it was about as close as we've ever got. I think the economic growth during that period speaks for itself.

The corporatism, workers' suffering under terrible conditions, high mortality rates (particularly infant mortality), bad public health and high crime rates of the free-market era also speak for themselves.

This does not mean that all of his decisions will be wise and just, but it does mean that those decisions are his and not mine. If you come to me after he blows his savings on bald wigs and say "you owe this man money for the greater good," you're essentially awarding free tickets for failure and you're punishing success. It's moral cannibalism. It's a desire to have one's cake and eat it too.
You have to use such hyperbole to justify what [epistemologically] constitutes the crux of your philosophy? (which is what you accused Leonstein of doing.)

Change seldom comes about quickly, but now we're to the point where factory foremans can't get away with charging $.10 an hour.
Thanks to the socialist laws that you criticise. The economy you advocate would have slave wages like these widespread.

Better still though: In Australia, at this very point in time, unions are about to end. John Howard is a very right-wing, almost but not quite libertarian politician. His personal vendettas with the unions go way back, and now he's been given almost dictatorial power in that he holds both houses of parliament.
He's now introducing a system of individual contracts, in which there no longer are collective bargaining agreements, and every employee has to fend for himself. I'll keep you updated as it progresses.
Which is unlibertarian as you are introducing artificial restrictions to the free market, in this case restricting the employees ability to band together with other employees in order to pool their bargaining power. Small unions are generally good things and work as advertised. The problem is that the larger a union gets the higher the probability that it will turn into an organization no longer interested in protecting the individual worker and instead interested in perpetuating itself. Case in point, at least in america, the NEA.

As I see it, honestly, there's no winning in a debate between capitalism vs. socialism. Ideologically, they're both sound when you take something else for granted. Both must intuit that mankind is naturally cooperative with as little interference as necessary. But we come from slightly different opinions concerning forcus-- on the individual or community-as-entity.

Both were tried last century. Neither were tried without "corruption" from the opposing political philosophy. Socialism poisons capitalism, and vice versa. It was capitalism within the USSR that led to the Nomenklatura's elite status.
It is now socialism that is threatening capitalism.

Soak it up, cuz you won't hear me say this often, but:

I think either system could work, if it were applied purely. Also, different cultures work more efficiently and effectively within the two poitical models.
Japan has had tremendous success working with capitalism. Albeit a very different kind of capitalism than America values.
Same goes for Sweden. Sweden operates very well under its own kind of socialism.It works for a population of hard working people who truly value and take pride in their success as a group.

I'm old enough and pragmatic enough to know that socialism of any flavor will never, ever work in the United States. Euros who've never visited America would probably never know this. Far too many of us would prefer to sit on our asses in front of the glass teat and get stoned while the government (working citizens) paid the rent and bills (and some groceries wouldn't hurt). We need a stick to poke and prod us out of bed in the morning, and send us off to work.
Unless Mommy and Daddy are providing the handouts, you will contribute something to society, or you will wind up in the cold on your ass.

Benevolent Euros, maybe a form of democratic socialism could work for you.

But understand that it doesn't have a chance of working here.

Woah guys slow down! I just got Prince of Persia 2 and I frequently need to deploy a spatula to peel me away from the screen, so I'm a little behind here. Swimmingpool, I will respond to your first two posts later tonight; the rest may have to wait until later.

How do you figure this? The Left is in favour of the workers controlling the means of production. The Right is in favour of one person controlling the means of production. And yet the Left is more tyrannical/authoritarian?
I would argue that a more capitalist economic model gives your average person a lot more freedom and economic power: when you think about it the only real way to allow 'the People' to control the means of productions is to let them build it, operate it, and own it like they do under capitalism. The State is not me, the State is not you, therefore them controlling the means of production indicates that I [or any other private citizen--your beloved people] cannot possibly cannot and will not. The Left doesn't want to put the means of production in the hands of the people, because that's where it is right now, at least in this country. The Left wants the means of production to be controlled by the State, which is a decidedly different entity than 'the People.'

And no, the Right does not favor 'one person' controlling the means of production, since that sort of implies that everyone right of center wants a dictatorship. Honestly, I expected better of you.

I don't care about the theory.
And if you don't care about the theory, I'm afraid I have slightly less respect for your opinions on the matter as a result.

You really don't appreciate the benefits to the society that you live in that are brought by universal education.
No, I don't. Being a 12-year veteran of the American Public Education system and a High School graduate I can safely say that no, I do not appreciate the benefits of this program--it's glorified babysitting is what it is.

Learning is a volitional process, just like any other means of cognition, it requires that effort be spent on the part of the student, not the Government or not his parents or not the teacher--the kid has to fucking do it. This means that a universal education system will only ever be as good as the people that attend it: many children are not interested in learning anything at all and a good number of them stay like this whether there are public schools or not. The 'benefits' of universal education will be made manifest once we figure out how to think for other people.

There's probably a marginal benefit to it in some cases, but once you get out into the real world all of a sudden you start to realize that all that shit they teach you in High School doesn't really mean much. The Public Education system in this country is only good for two things: keeping the kids busy while their parents are at work, and getting into college. Getting into college is something worth pursuing of course , but it's not for everyone.

Do you really believe that the government has absolutely no right to any of your money?
Yeah, pretty much. I'll pay for cops, I'll pay for the army, and stuff like courts and maybe the USPS when I use it. Or roads, since they're already there. But aside from that, yeah.

How do you expect the government to pay for even a limited sset of functions.
Not my problem. We're smart, we can figure something out. If I can earn my paycheck, the government can earn its paycheck too.

On a further level, I notice that almost all of your political arguments come down to "yarr, get yer hands off my paycheck". This is theoretical. Have you thought about what your society would be like without government funded roads, military, education and all those other things you object to?

Two things: One, my arguments boil down to that because property rights are the main defining line between Socialism and Libertarianism. If you're so bored of hearing about it, either relent or find something else to argue about.

Two, yes I have thought about this, and I don't appreciate the implication that I haven't. Every argument I make takes this into account.

Oh, and incidentally, I never came right out and opposed the military, or roads. Thanks for stuffing words in my mouth.

If you have thought about it, are the ends (good quality of life) not justified by the means (taxes)? Or do you take the view that the means (no taxes) justify the end (bad quality of life).
Ah, the old 'Ends Justify the Means' argument. If I were a member of the Left, I'd be really careful about using this argument since it's incredibly amiguous and it has been used to justify numerous policies, many of which happen to contradict each other. You can use this phrase to justify pretty much anything you want to justify, which is why people like me don't like it.

This statement holds no water as far as I'm concerned because there should be no dichotomy between ends and means: they should not be at war, two forces to constantly be balanced. To me, I see it as a mutation of the Morality-Practicality dichotomy, another favorite of the Left [though it's used by the Right too sometimes]. I don't like this dichotomy because it detaches morality from reality; it puts us in a position where we're forced to dream about what the world would be like if our morals were actually practical. Problem is if they're not, they should be.

Explain why selfishness is rational. Selfishness is suffering.
What are you, a Buddhist? If selfishness is suffering, then why do we have color TVs and cell phones and computers and food preservatives and cars and lamps and clothes and radios and guitars and electric razors and dishwashers and.... do you want me to go on?

The fact of the matter is that these inventions come about because the creator was motivated by a desire to make money for himself, i.e. to [i]improve the quality of his life and by extension, the lives of the people around him. When people act like this, act in their rational self interest, the benefits to society are inevitably a consequence of his actions.

You're probably under the impression that I'm talking about selfishness as it's traditionally viewed by the Left, as being some sort of perversion of self-esteem and unbridled hate for everyone else. You're preferring the Nietzschean model of the individual to Rand's. I don't like Nietzsche.

Anyway, in this particular context, selfishness is rational because it's impossible for society to work my shift any more than it is for them to chew my food or pass my gas or pay my taxes. Yes, I understand that the money came from them in the first place, but it was in exchange for the service I provide: they already spent it, so it's not theirs anymore. Why should I let them spend it again after I get it?

If people want to end hunger and pay for welfare, they should do it themselves instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.

I earn about as much as you do, and I am also one of the lowest paid in my workplace. Most of the working class are socialist because they vote for socialist parties, at least where I live. The libertarian/conservative parties are popular in the wealthy districts of the city where I live (Dublin, Ireland).
Okay, but the thing you have to realize here is that we're in two different countries. The makeup of your conservative sector does not necessarily always reflect equally on the makeup of ours. Different cultures have different values, so I'm not about to demand an Objectivist-type government in your country because I think it's the right thing for mine. Conversely, you should not use the [lack of] success of Socialism in your country as a lynchpin for urging it in my country. We can talk theory all you want, but once you start adding geography and culture to your examples, we realize we're looking at the issue through two completely different lenses. As such, it will be very difficult to make any real progress or reach an understanding.


They are all libertarians. Either libertarians or conservatives, both groups' economic agenda is both sufficiently pro-corporate for them to support.
Who are all libertarians? The ones in your country or the ones in mine? Do you mean lower-case 'libertarian' or party 'Libertarian?' If all of our wealthy plutocrats here in the States are libertarian, why don't we have a congressman? If corporations are so powerful and corrupt, why do we have corporate income taxes or corporate welfare? Why don't we even have a governor?

Also, conservatives and libertarians can't really be mentioned in the same breath anymore, since this country's conservatives have somehow managed to inch their heads farther up their asses then they already were. About 6 years ago, I would have thought that an impossibility.

Does it say that people enjoy punishment? Because if your ridiculous claims are to be believed, the rich are all socialists who love to be taxed to death, while the workers are all capitalists who love getting exploited.
Okay, now this just makes me angry. I did not say the rich are all socialists who enjoy being "taxed to death." Read that post again; I said that Leftist politics [in this country, I should have mentioned] are generally favored by middle class intellectuals.

Your second statement isn't much better than the first, and it misses the forest by a surprising margin. The implication [of my original statement] was that the working man as a general rule just wants more money. We're not restless because we can't get a free checkup once a year [which is what most of us would do with the hundreds of dollars spent individually on this tax per year], we're restless because we want some more goddamn money.

If you want to argue with me you need to start reading things correctly. I don't react very well when people misconstrue my statements or exaggerate them horribly. You'll see a little of this when I get around to responding to your 'hyperbole' allegation later on in the thread.

Which is unlibertarian as you are introducing artificial restrictions to the free market, in this case restricting the employees ability to band together with other employees in order to pool their bargaining power...
I'd have to look at the exact bits of the proposal, but as far as I know Unions are still allowed, but collective bargaining agreements are severely cut.
It comes down to every employee being on an individual contract that they have to negotiatie (read: accept) with their employer.
Apparently the Government workers are the first to feel it, and there have been leaks that many of them have lost all their benefits (ie health insurance etc).

Point is that when you have two parties negotiating, and both are acting out of rational self-interest, than at least from an Economic viewpoint they would only do what makes them better off.
All both parties have therefore is
a) the ability to make the other better off. That is near zero for an unskilled lineworker in a large production factory.
b) the ability to make the other worse off. That's the threat part. The employer can threaten to fire the employee. The employee can threaten to quit, but that doesn't worry the employer much, because it isn't a credible threat, as you pointed out.
Thus there is a power difference, that makes a proper working of the demand & supply exercise as required by Smith and Friedman impossible.
Um, I know there's a power difference. That sort of makes sense, because the company is owned by ze Boss. Of course there's a power difference. In fact, there's a "power difference" present in most things in life.

What if I added: "Because it makes you better off, too."
And you said: "My money makes me better off!"
And I answer: "So I'll only take so much to make you indifferent between the amount of money you lost and the amount of utility/happiness you gained."
After evaluating the services paid for via these tax dollars, and the results of them, I think I can safely say that they "amount of utility/happiness" I've gained is depressingly insufficient for the money I've spent. Also, using the word 'utility' doesn't go very far with me; as far as I'm concerned Utilitarianism is just as invalid as a philosophy as any form of Marxism.

Modern Utilitarianism describes pain and pleasure as the universe's only two absolutes: it holds that happiness is the measure of virtue , rather than the [i]purpose of virtue, which is the Objectivist viewpoint. You want "happiness/utility?" Don't breach my property rights. I don't care what can be done with that money; these problems you're so concerned about are not mine to deal with or lose sleep over: I did not vote for the job-killing minimum wage proposals that put all the diseased bums on the street in the first place: taking my money to corrext other peoples' mistakes is hardly justified.

And yes, I am prepared to argue that the end does not justify the means until I'm blue in the face. Ends and means should be in harmony with each other; they should not be viewed as opposing forces to be jockeyed about.

Such as?
Um... the Government?

We've pointed out that there is no perfect information, and in a libertarian system there would be even less control over a firm like Enron than there is now. Who is going to judge them if the firm goes broke because it took a stupid risk? How is it my fault, for what would I be punished?
Two things: One, I don't beleive this 'perfect information' concept has made it into the context of our discussion yet, therefore chances are I haven't read it [I think you were talking to someone else]. Generally I only read peoples' responses to me.

Second: I have no idea wht in the Hell you're talking about here.

So far there has been no Government (other than failed states) that actually did not pay out its "Government Insurance" money. Social Security still works, although it may run at a deficit, the same goes for a system of unemployment benefits. Governments have a greater ability to get money from somewhere (and I don't mean printing it) than businesses do.
Ummmmm... if it runs at a deficit that means it's not working. The whole idea of running a program--any program: I don't care if its a bake sale or a defense contract--is to have the assets to be traded on hand What happens when you run things at a deficit is the gap grows ceaselessly, since our politicians see no need to eliminate the deficit. After all, the program is "working," as you reason.

And yes, Governments are very very good at bringing money in: you'd figure with a skill like this they could do something to actually earn their money. You know, like we do.

What about a more tangible example then. In Chile (which was a dictatorship, granted), a country effectively run by Chicago-school Economists as far as the Economy was concerned, Unemployment skyrocketed, and the Rich-Poor Gap grew to gigantous proportions.
O...kay...? What's this all about? Where did Chile come from? Am I a Pinochet supporter all of a sudden? Help me here, I think I'm missing something.

So maybe the tax cuts should have been more focussed on people like you, rather than on people that have long finished their Uni and are multi-millionaires. Because say what you will, they were the ones targeted because they were the ones who were thought to spend more money.
Don't patronize me. Of course taxes should be lower for me [preferably nonexistent, rather], but that doesn't mean that they should be higher for someone else just because he happens to be more successful. Property is still property, regardless of how much you have.

In that case we do have a different definition. In Economics, a rational decision is one that optimises ie you try to get to a point where you maximise utility. People often don't do that and can't get to that point, which is why I said that people are not necessarily rational.
You're using the wrong turn of phrase here. Instead of saying "People aren't rational" [which is a broad generalization that I can tell you right now is utterly indefensible] you should be looking for something more along the lines of "Many people don't make rational decisions." Viewed in the proper context , you will begin to realize that man [i]is rational by nature. Like I said earlier, even the dumbest of us has a human brain. At least I hope.

Turns out I am rather more selfish than that. I don't think society as a whole is always right either.
Market Failures do exist, and they need to be addressed by the only thing capable of doing so: Government Institutions.
Even if that were the case, it still doesn't make any sense to have the Government Finger in the Corporate Pie all the time. By this rationale, Governments need only intervene in times of economic crisis. Why, then, would you advocate that they ceaselessly regulate business all the time?

People usually make good decisions.
Wait, people "usually make good decisions" but they're "not necessarily rational?" Which one is it, Leo? You can't have it both ways.

They don't always make good decisions though, whether it is because they can't or they just don't seem to want to.
Precisely! Now, what can you tell me about their decisions, hm? I'll cheat and give you the answer: I. Didn't. Make. His. Decision. It follows logically then that I should not be punished for its effects. See my example above about the poor man who blew his savings on bald wigs. Apparently, Swimmingpool thinks it's a hyperbole, which is interesting because it happens every day.

My Social Democracy comes to a large part from the need to stop others from hurting me with their "stupid" decisions.
This makes no sense to me. Since I see Social Democracy as being one gigantic "stupid decision" I fail to see how that does anything to rectify the problem. If anything, you're significantly less responsible for other people's "stupid decisions" under Libertarianism. Under a Social Democracy, you have to pay for every stupid investment decision, every stupid workplace blunder, and so on and so forth. Socialism maximizes the punishment to you for other peoples' choices.

In most social issues (if not all of them) I'm actually fairly libertarians, because as I said, people often do the right thing. If someone wants to shoot me, then there's laws against that too afterall.
And so am I. I can't help but wonder just why so many Socialists accept that we be able to do what we want with our own bodies, but demand a say in what happens to the product of that body. If I have the right to be sovereign over my physical self, then I also have the right to work towards my values and keep the product of my labor. Anything else is a hopeless double standard.

And another part is one that you reject: That people who are left by the wayside are a wasted resource, and that helping them along helps everyone, including me.
Somehow I fail to see how giving a bum Welfare money helps me along. The vast majority of them never do anything productive with it; same thing with the crazy folks they give SSI to [I lived with one for a time]. What social welfare programs do is they make poverty a career choice.

I'm not advocating taking it too far though. Incentives are important, and in Germany (which is the system I know best) they have taken it too far, and a part of their current problem stems from that.
If you don't want to 'take it too far' you'd do well to re-evaluate the premises upon which these policies are devised, since Social Welfare programs are almost invariably a slippery slope of epic proportions.

Well, to believe this I would have to ignore the past 120 years of European history. Socialism certainly isn't out of touch with this working man.
It's entirely possible that in your country or in your region, it's not. But in America, it is horribly out of touch with the working class, and completely incompatible with its goals as a demographic. That's part of the reason why the liberals in my country are in so much trouble.

Why conservatives and libertarians always attack the welfare aspect of socialism? It gets boring, and it's not even the most important part.
Because to us it is the policy that most closely embodies the core concepts of socialism, i.e. relative income equality, redistribution of wealth, etc etc. Besides, I think you already asked a question like this earlier and I already answered it.

When I say "reduce the wealth gap" why do people assume that I'm talking about handing money to poor people for nothing? I'm more likely talking about hiring the poor as workers on public works and infrastructure projects. Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?
Ah, Keynes, the Liberal Messiah. I'm thinking about reprinting some Blbles and replacing "the Lord" with "Society" and "Jesus" with "John Maynard Keynes" and selling them to Socialists. That's my get rich quick scheme.

At any rate, I'm not an economist so I'm not really prepared [or interested in] debating the nuances of such policies: suffice to say I don't have a problem hiring these folks if they're the right person for the job, but it would be idiocy to overlook every other applicant on account.

That's because the normal state of things has at least partially been created by government health assistance.
Bullshit. Doctors beat polio, not the Government.

Health services should be nationalised because healthcare is a right, not just a privelege. People shouldn't be denied access to health care just because they can't afford it.
But nationalized healthcare creates the opposite problem. Grab an average guy off the street in New York City and I can almost guarantee you that he's not going to be some toothless poor man up to his eyeballs in medical debt: these problems are manifest in only a very small proportion of our population, which is why I consistently refer to Marxist theories as Rule by Minority.

Now let's say you're a 25 year old lineworker somewhere in a country with "free" healthcare. You pay hundreds--perhaps thousands of dollars towards this tax for years , but you [i]don't get sick and you don't have crippling diseases that you can't afford to treat. You end up paying, say $800 [and that's a conservative estimate] per year for a physical and maybe a couple of visits to the dentist.

You asked me earlier why I thought Socialism amounted to a rule by minority by favor of the majority, and this is a perfect example. The vast majority of us do not have health problems that are financially impossible for us to solve: in fact thanks to the Capitalist system in which we live, most day-to-day medical expenses can be paid for out of pocket. We can also generally afford things like insurance because the tax rate here doesn't happen to be astronomical. I'd assume your answer to this would be something along the lines of "But it would help other people who do have problems like that." If that's the case, though, we need to start dropping the pretense that a nationalized healthcare program would exist for my benefit. I'm 20, and I don't get sick: barring a workplace injury or a one-in-a-million illness, I won't be making constant use of our medical facilities any time soon.

People do not have a right to man made goods and services. If they want them, they have to make them or trade for them like everyone else.

The corporatism, workers' suffering under terrible conditions, high mortality rates (particularly infant mortality), bad public health and high crime rates of the free-market era also speak for themselves.
Cry me a river. This is almost identical to Leonstein's response: read my answer to him, I don't particularly care to repeat myself.

You have to use such hyperbole to justify what [epistemologically] constitutes the crux of your philosophy? (which is what you accused Leonstein of doing.)


hyperbole

n : extravagant exaggeration [syn: exaggeration]

Two things:
--This is not a hyperbole. It happens every day in every state in every city on the planbet. It is not an exaggeration because it happens all the time, and when it does, you liberals come to me asking precisely the same question.

--This is not the epistemic crux of my philosophy. Nowhere close.

Thanks to the socialist laws that you criticise. The economy you advocate would have slave wages like these widespread.
Again, this has already been answered. I sort of stole your thunder re: the "socialist laws you criticize" some time earlier in the thread. I'm really getting the impression here that you're either only reading bits and pieces of my arguments, or that you're ignoring everything you don't have a response to and harping the traditional Socialist party lines on me without considering the validity of either side. I can tell you're only responding to the arguments you've seen before.

After evaluating the services paid for via these tax dollars, and the results of them, I think I can safely say that they "amount of utility/happiness" I've gained is depressingly insufficient for the money I've spent. Also, using the word 'utility' doesn't go very far with me; as far as I'm concerned Utilitarianism is just as invalid as a philosophy as any form of Marxism.
When I say Utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility), I don't refer to utiltiarianism, but just to what I learn at Uni. I don't know heaps about Utilitarianism either, but generally it fits what I've learned about consumer and producer surpluses, market failures and so on. That's why I'm more partial towards it.

Um... the Government?
What kind of Government control would you advocate then?

Second: I have no idea wht in the Hell you're talking about here.
Perfect Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information) is a prerequisite for a really fully libertarian system to work.
So far you haven't really said much about what kind of state you would prefer, so that might be irrelevant. Depends on how much Government intervention you would support.

Ummmmm... if it runs at a deficit that means it's not working. The whole idea of running a program--any program: I don't care if its a bake sale or a defense contract--is to have the assets to be traded on hand What happens when you run things at a deficit is the gap grows ceaselessly, since our politicians see no need to eliminate the deficit. After all, the program is "working," as you reason.
Whether or not the program runs a deficite is irrelevant to granny with her social security though, or the entrepreneur who has his wig store hit by a comet.
A Government is guaranteed to pay out, moreso than a private enterprise IMHO.
But Efficiency should be maintained as much as possible.

And yes, Governments are very very good at bringing money in: you'd figure with a skill like this they could do something to actually earn their money. You know, like we do.
But they're busy doing the huge job that is governing a society. Even if they only did the absolute minimum, they'd still work a lot.
And besides, if Government makes money in the business world, then that has a lot of potential for conflicts of interest (even moreso than there is already in the states).

O...kay...? What's this all about? Where did Chile come from? Am I a Pinochet supporter all of a sudden? Help me here, I think I'm missing something.
I wouldn't think a libertarian could support Pinochet's dictatorship, but many do support his economic policies.
Basically involved cutting down government, lowering taxes, privatising stuff (including social security), deregulation etc etc

Don't patronize me. Of course taxes should be lower for me [preferably nonexistent, rather], but that doesn't mean that they should be higher for someone else just because he happens to be more successful. Property is still property, regardless of how much you have.
Sorry, I didn't mean to.
But just hypothetically, assume a government does nothing but what Adam Smith wanted it to (External and Internal Defence, Public Goods) and would have to earn $10 billion to do that. They could either charge every one of the 10 million inhabitants $1000 dollars (even those that only earn say $1010), or they could charge richer people more and poor people less, such that our $1010 person is only charged $200 and a multi-millionaire gives up $5000. Wouldn't that be a better solution, given we couldn't change anything but the tax rate?

You're using the wrong turn of phrase here. Instead of saying "People aren't rational" [which is a broad generalization that I can tell you right now is utterly indefensible] you should be looking for something more along the lines of "Many people don't make rational decisions." Viewed in the proper context , you will begin to realize that man [i]is rational by nature. Like I said earlier, even the dumbest of us has a human brain. At least I hope.
Agreed. According to your definition of rationality, humans are all rational.
But also, according to my definition, they don't always make rational decisions.

Even if that were the case, it still doesn't make any sense to have the Government Finger in the Corporate Pie all the time. By this rationale, Governments need only intervene in times of economic crisis. Why, then, would you advocate that they ceaselessly regulate business all the time?
Because market failures occur at all times, regardless of the macroeconomic conditions.

Wait, people "usually make good decisions" but they're "not necessarily rational?" Which one is it, Leo? You can't have it both ways.
See above.

Precisely! Now, what can you tell me about their decisions, hm? I'll cheat and give you the answer: I. Didn't. Make. His. Decision. It follows logically then that I should not be punished for its effects. See my example above about the poor man who blew his savings on bald wigs. Apparently, Swimmingpool thinks it's a hyperbole, which is interesting because it happens every day.
What if it wasn't a bad decision, but for example just a freak accident that killed off his wig business? Or other business failures that aren't actually due to a stupid decision on the part of the entrepreneur.
Should there be an insurance for failed entrepreneurship? Could that work?

This makes no sense to me. Since I see Social Democracy as being one gigantic "stupid decision" I fail to see how that does anything to rectify the problem. If anything, you're significantly less responsible for other people's "stupid decisions" under Libertarianism. Under a Social Democracy, you have to pay for every stupid investment decision, every stupid workplace blunder, and so on and so forth. Socialism maximizes the punishment to you for other peoples' choices.
You are assuming that other people's problems don't affect you. I think they do, regardless of the economic system.
While in libertarianism you would have to bear it if someone else makes a mistake, in a more socialist system you would also, but potentially to a lesser extent, because the punishment is shared by everyone.

And so am I. I can't help but wonder just why so many Socialists accept that we be able to do what we want with our own bodies, but demand a say in what happens to the product of that body. If I have the right to be sovereign over my physical self, then I also have the right to work towards my values and keep the product of my labor. Anything else is a hopeless double standard.
I'm not after taking your stuff, I'm just after making sure that you having stuff doesn't hurt me.

Somehow I fail to see how giving a bum Welfare money helps me along. The vast majority of them never do anything productive with it; same thing with the crazy folks they give SSI to [I lived with one for a time]. What social welfare programs do is they make poverty a career choice.
Not a very good career though.
Anyways, you can't say that that bum isn't a wig entrepreneur who might have the idea to make intelligent wigs that make all terrorists happy and nice people.
But as we said before, that bum is more concerned with getting something to eat, so he can't think about his wigs, and we all collectively miss out.

If you don't want to 'take it too far' you'd do well to re-evaluate the premises upon which these policies are devised, since Social Welfare programs are almost invariably a slippery slope of epic proportions.
I don't think they have to be. Occasionally, if the system is trying to grow too large you just have to cut it back to size, like a plant. One oughta be vigilant, but I think it is possible.
The Scandinavian countries were quick to see that their social welfare programs were too big and not competitive, so they cut them years ago. Now they enjoy great success again, and social welfare is still there - in its ideal state, that is when the least people use it.

And Melkor, what do you think about Milton Friedman and his mates from Chicago?

When I say Utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility), I don't refer to utiltiarianism, but just to what I learn at Uni. I don't know heaps about Utilitarianism either, but generally it fits what I've learned about consumer and producer surpluses, market failures and so on. That's why I'm more partial towards it.
That's the same Utility; it's the same core concept in both Utilitarianism or economics. My comments still stand; especially the part about happiness being the measure of virtue.


What kind of Government control would you advocate then?
Government interference should be limited to responding to entities initating force against a person or a group of people. In economics, this is generally limited to things like wage collusion or physical threats. I don't have a problem with employers firing people, generally. Hell, it's happening to me right now. I asked for a raise, they're letting me go. Does that mean I should go to the State and ask to pass legislation banning employers for firing people for asking for raises? No. If anything, it lets me know that I shouldn't be working for dickless cretins like these.


Perfect Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information) is a prerequisite for a really fully libertarian system to work.
So far you haven't really said much about what kind of state you would prefer, so that might be irrelevant. Depends on how much Government intervention you would support.
Very little. Also, where do you get this assumption that Perfect Information is a necessity to a libertarian state?


Whether or not the program runs a deficite is irrelevant to granny with her social security though, or the entrepreneur who has his wig store hit by a comet.
Go ask a senior sometime if he counted solely on Social Security to fund his retirement. If he answers "yes," then congratulations: you've met one of the world's many dumbasses.

Go ask a businessman if he was completely assured of his success when he started out. If he answers "yes," guess what?

A Government is guaranteed to pay out, moreso than a private enterprise IMHO.
But Efficiency should be maintained as much as possible.
Well, about the only advantage a Government has over a Private investment firm [or whatever its contextual equivalent would be] is that generally, Governments last longer. A Private institution, however, is likely to deliver a much better return on the same amount of money. I still think its something of a stretch to say that they're "guaranteed" to pay out: I'm an advocate of private industry and even I don't make that claim, for example. There are no guarantees except for death and stupidity.

But they're busy doing the huge job that is governing a society. Even if they only did the absolute minimum, they'd still work a lot.
I'm sorry, but the words "Too Busy" should not fucking be in the government's vocabulary. If they're too busy running the State, why do they have the free time to do things like wage war on unsuspecting countries? How about its own citizens?

And besides, if Government makes money in the business world, then that has a lot of potential for conflicts of interest (even moreso than there is already in the states).
I'll grant you that, but from what I can see it seems to be doing a good job running alongside the private sector with programs like the USPS and the police force [vs. private security firms]. As with any other program, it would have to be run rationally which is generally something of a challenge for these people.

That said, I don't care how the Government earns its money, so long as it's earned and not stolen. They can hold a national bake sale for all I care: their source of revenue is their business just as my source of revenue is my business. Men are Men: I hold them to identical standards whether you're in a judge's robe or dirty coveralls.

I wouldn't think a libertarian could support Pinochet's dictatorship, but many do support his economic policies.
Basically involved cutting down government, lowering taxes, privatising stuff (including social security), deregulation etc etc
Well, Pinochet never really limited his power, which is something a more libertarian politican almost certainly would have done in his position [unless he had become corrupt, which happens]. He may have done a few things right, but obviously things got fucked up somewhere. My guess would have to be rampant corruption.

Sorry, I didn't mean to.
But just hypothetically, assume a government does nothing but what Adam Smith wanted it to (External and Internal Defence, Public Goods) and would have to earn $10 billion to do that. They could either charge every one of the 10 million inhabitants $1000 dollars (even those that only earn say $1010), or they could charge richer people more and poor people less, such that our $1010 person is only charged $200 and a multi-millionaire gives up $5000. Wouldn't that be a better solution, given we couldn't change anything but the tax rate?
I think you're missing my point here: taxes are theft, and theft is never justified. Like I said earlier, I hold people to the same standard when I can help it [assuming they're mentally and physically competent], so that means if I'm going to be arrested for stealing your wallet to pave a road, the Government shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. It's sort of hard to represent the people when you don't even approach the same standard of morality.

Agreed. According to your definition of rationality, humans are all rational.
But also, according to my definition, they don't always make rational decisions.
Both are true. If people only made rational decisions the world would be a much different place. I doubt we'd even be having this debate.

Because market failures occur at all times, regardless of the macroeconomic conditions.
Ridiculous. This country hasn't seen a significant market failure in 76 years, and I'll be God damned if its because of your precious business restrictions.

What if it wasn't a bad decision, but for example just a freak accident that killed off his wig business? Or other business failures that aren't actually due to a stupid decision on the part of the entrepreneur.
Should there be an insurance for failed entrepreneurship? Could that work?
Ah, but that's a completely different game, now isn't it? Basically what we're talking about here is disaster aid, which is justified in extreme emergencies but in my opinion isn't generally worth the trouble of breaking into every time something bad affects a few folks. It's one thing to pay disaster insurance to farmers when we have giant dust storms rolling across the midwest that no one can control, and paying out disaster aid because one guy lost his business in a sinkhole or something.


You are assuming that other people's problems don't affect you. I think they do, regardless of the economic system.
I'd like to see a rational explanation as to how I end up suffering because the bum on 15th Avenue didn't get a free bowl of soup today. Please, I'd love to hear this.

While in libertarianism you would have to bear it if someone else makes a mistake, in a more socialist system you would also, but potentially to a lesser extent, because the punishment is shared by everyone.
Wait, to a lesser extent? What the hell?! This has got to be the most backward-ass logic I've ever heard. How is paying through my nose in taxes towards helping these people any less of an imposition on my property than not having to pay for them?


I'm not after taking your stuff, I'm just after making sure that you having stuff doesn't hurt me.
And it doesn't, unless I stole it from you. Still, I'm a little disappointed in this answer, since it doesn't really carry any significant philosophical connotations or justifications as to my original premise.


Not a very good career though.
Didn't say it was. Fast food isn't a very good career either, but thousands and thousands of us choose it every year.

Anyways, you can't say that that bum isn't a wig entrepreneur who might have the idea to make intelligent wigs that make all terrorists happy and nice people.
What?

But as we said before, that bum is more concerned with getting something to eat, so he can't think about his wigs, and we all collectively miss out.
Oh, I see now. Tell me, how much experience do you have with bums? If this is any indicator, I'd venture to say very little. Generally, they do not have a problem finding food since there's actually an over-abundance of it in this country. As a point of fact, over eating is a bigger problem for the lower class in this country than starvation. I'm sorry, but this holds absolutely no water at all. Bums are not concerned about finding food; when you see them jingle their little plastic cups on the sidewalk they're usually collecting money to buy a 40 of Miller High Life. Next time you see a bum on the street go buy him a danish and examine the look on his face; I'd almost be willing to wager that he'll be either confused, angry, or disappointed.

But then again, that's something of a generalization. I'm sure there are a few out there that really are hungry. But those people [at least in the US] are a minority within a minority. So basically what you're talking about when you advocate things like Social Welfare for the folks who really need it is passing legislation to benefit a minority within a minority. That's fine sometimes, but I really hate it when leftists deploy the pretense that the majority of us are starving lunatics in desperate need of a handout.

Going back to utility for a moment, since I'm on the subject again, it would be worthwhile to note that the middle class in the US is in fact a lot larger than the poor population: it would actually stand to reason that an overall increase of utility in this country would be to appease the middle class. Preferably by giving them the money back that you ripped from their paychecks.

I don't think they have to be. Occasionally, if the system is trying to grow too large you just have to cut it back to size, like a plant. One oughta be vigilant, but I think it is possible.
The Scandinavian countries were quick to see that their social welfare programs were too big and not competitive, so they cut them years ago. Now they enjoy great success again, and social welfare is still there - in its ideal state, that is when the least people use it.
Scandinavia is a wierd place. It's one of the reasons why I don't use the principles of what I think is right for my country to justify what should be right for other countries [for all their hostility towards American Imperialism--and rightly so--Europeans in particular love to do this, if this site is any accurate barometer]. I like to think that right and wrong know no borders, but different areas of the world are at different places culturally, so it wouldn't be very prudent to force fast changes on many of them. Socialism might work in Sweden, but it goddamn well won't work in the US; not in this lifetime.

And Melkor, what do you think about Milton Friedman and his mates from Chicago?
I don't know that much about him, really. I don't see anything particularly offensive yet [in my limited research] but I'm sure I could find a few things if I were to dig deep enough.

That's the same Utility; it's the same core concept in both Utilitarianism or economics. My comments still stand; especially the part about happiness being the measure of virtue.
But how else can you measure the incentive to do something, other than in happiness?

I asked for a raise, they're letting me go.
Sorry to hear it. But maybe it is a good example of how business owners can sometimes be "unfair" towards their workers.
What consequences you get from that is a matter of opinion.

Very little. Also, where do you get this assumption that Perfect Information is a necessity to a libertarian state?
Well, for a libertarian state to work there needs to be an efficient market, right? At least that's what I heard from most libertarians I've spoken to here.
And for an efficient market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition) to exist, there needs to be perfect information among other things.

Go ask a senior sometime if he counted solely on Social Security to fund his retirement. If he answers "yes," then congratulations: you've met one of the world's many dumbasses.
Some people are just less risk averse than others. It's a character thing. Maybe I'll do a poll on that.

Well, about the only advantage a Government has over a Private investment firm [or whatever its contextual equivalent would be] is that generally, Governments last longer. A Private institution, however, is likely to deliver a much better return on the same amount of money. I still think its something of a stretch to say that they're "guaranteed" to pay out: I'm an advocate of private industry and even I don't make that claim, for example. There are no guarantees except for death and stupidity.
But the probability is higher, so the expected payout may be better.
If Government "Insurance" would pay out $1000 dollars with 95% probability, then the expected payout would be 1000*0.95, ie $950.
If Private Insurance would pay out $2000 with a 40% probability, then the expected payout would be $800. It depends on what the exact numbers are, and then it still depends on how much of a risk-taker an individual is.

I'm sorry, but the words "Too Busy" should not fucking be in the government's vocabulary. If they're too busy running the State, why do they have the free time to do things like wage war on unsuspecting countries? How about its own citizens?
Politicians would probably argue that going to war is part of governing...

I'll grant you that, but from what I can see it seems to be doing a good job running alongside the private sector with programs like the USPS and the police force [vs. private security firms]. As with any other program, it would have to be run rationally which is generally something of a challenge for these people.
Don't you think Politicians can be just as intelligent as Business Leaders?

I think you're missing my point here: taxes are theft, and theft is never justified. Like I said earlier, I hold people to the same standard when I can help it [assuming they're mentally and physically competent], so that means if I'm going to be arrested for stealing your wallet to pave a road, the Government shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. It's sort of hard to represent the people when you don't even approach the same standard of morality.
Well, that's been talked about before. Suffice to say that I think you do benefit from living in a society with institutions that are paid for with tax money. As long as you want to benefit from that, you pay tax.
If you don't, you could leave society, either by going somewhere else, or by becoming a hermit.

Ridiculous. This country hasn't seen a significant market failure in 76 years, and I'll be God damned if its because of your precious business restrictions.
I think it probably is.
Sometimes markets don't work like they are supposed to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure). That doesn't mean they are useless, but it means that you sometimes have to "help them along".

Ah, but that's a completely different game, now isn't it? Basically what we're talking about here is disaster aid, which is justified in extreme emergencies but in my opinion isn't generally worth the trouble of breaking into every time something bad affects a few folks. It's one thing to pay disaster insurance to farmers when we have giant dust storms rolling across the midwest that no one can control, and paying out disaster aid because one guy lost his business in a sinkhole or something.
But if that sinkhole (for example) just appeared under his warehouse (it would have to be rather large...) and he goes bancrupt although he didn't do anything wrong, then who covers that?
What about you who might have been a customer of that business and is negatively affected.

I'd like to see a rational explanation as to how I end up suffering because the bum on 15th Avenue didn't get a free bowl of soup today. Please, I'd love to hear this.
It's all a matter of probabilities. There is a possibility that that bum could have helped you somehow. Instead he was hungry and looking to get a soup from somewhere.

Wait, to a lesser extent? What the hell?! This has got to be the most backward-ass logic I've ever heard. How is paying through my nose in taxes towards helping these people any less of an imposition on my property than not having to pay for them?
I'll make up an example.
Suppose your neighbour is a farmer, and he's got a lot of horses. Now something goes wrong for him and because no one can help him with money, all the horses die. But those horses all died close to the creek that goes through your property, and the water goes bad. That costs you something.
If the Government had helped the farmer to keep his horses alive (with your money, and everybody elses), you wouldn't have had that cost.
Of course you are also paying for all other farmers with dead horses, but there is a possibility that you still pay less than if you'd had to clean the water by yourself.
One would need empirical data to see what would be worse for you.

And it doesn't, unless I stole it from you. Still, I'm a little disappointed in this answer, since it doesn't really carry any significant philosophical connotations or justifications as to my original premise.
What if you'd be making your money being the only food shop around? You would charge high prices, and I'm worse off than I could have been.
Or if you made your money with a Power Plant and I'd have to breathe in all your dust?

Oh, I see now. Tell me, how much experience do you have with bums? If this is any indicator, I'd venture to say very little.
Correct. The only bum I know is the "Toowong Bagman", who lives in a mountain of plastic bags and cleans the streets at night. We say "hi" when I walk past him. He doesn't drink (I think), and seems to be a perfectly nice and healthy guy. I think it is perfectly possible that he could be a great member of society that could do me some good.

Generally, they do not have a problem finding food since there's actually an over-abundance of it in this country.
You could replace "food" with "shelter". Or "Alcohol" for that matter. If he's spending his time doing pointless things because we make him (by neglect), then there is a high opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) involved.

Going back to utility for a moment, since I'm on the subject again, it would be worthwhile to note that the middle class in the US is in fact a lot larger than the poor population: it would actually stand to reason that an overall increase of utility in this country would be to appease the middle class. Preferably by giving them the money back that you ripped from their paychecks.
That's possible. You'd need some figures for that.

I don't know that much about him, really. I don't see anything particularly offensive yet [in my limited research] but I'm sure I could find a few things if I were to dig deep enough.
I think you'd like each other. He's a really nice guy apparently - when a little girl wrote a letter to him asking why Barbies where so expensive, he replied himself with a letter.
The guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) is a Noble Price Winner and probably most influential economist of the 20th century.

I think this argument is reaching its close, as your posts seem to consist largely of very specific queries and mine are nothing but ceaseless answers to them. I can answer again in similar style if you'd rather, but I'd prefer just to make some closing arguments.

In an attempt to answer them all with one fell swoop [a clumsy maneuver, I know], I would be remiss in not pointing out that all of these situations that you must stipulate in order to justify your policies are gross minorities and relative rarities in our society. We've generated enough wealth in this nation [for whatever reasons, your or mine] that the average citizen is not bending over backwards to pay for his insulin and braces for his pile of kids. As a general rule, most people in this country are not desperately in need of my assistance; if that's not the case in your country, perhaps a different prescription for action is in order.

But I don't think that dropping liberal business restrictions at this point will revert instantly to Industrial Revolution type 'abuse' [although frankly I am forced to admit that I think the gains of this time period significantly outweigh the losses], since our culture has changed just about at pace with our economic policies. No way in hell I'm taking a $2.10 an hour job, minimum wage be damned. If all the jobs in my area are priced like this and the government hasn't done anything about it, it's my obligation as a human being to do something about it [assuming, of course, that $2.10 gets me as far then as it does now]. This may mean taking to the streets: I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.

Even though I can never reconcile my basic philosophy with yours, I vastly appreciate what you're trying to do: we all want to make the world a better place. We just have different roadmaps.

-snip-
Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree.
Thanks for making me think.

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree.
Thanks for making me think.
That's my thing, it's what I do. I'm generally pretty aware that I'm not going to change anyone's mind on an internet forum: none of us really know each other so it's more or less impossible to back down. I just hope that some of the things I say will seep into some corner of your mind at various points in the day. I guess I like to fuck with people like that.