NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

Blairite political philosophy and socialism are mutually exclusive terms.

blair isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. fuck knows why he ever joined labour.

I like the Scandinavian system, so I suppose I'm in favor of a welfare state.

welfare state FTW!

I'd say the ideal system lies somewhere in between. People should be able to stand on their own two feet and make it in life. But sometimes they need a little help getting there (or back there). I think the government has a compelling interest in helping those people do so, but not in just paying for people who could possibly do for themselves. In that vein, the system should focus on education, job training, job placement, etc. more than just food and shelter.

People should be able to stand on their own two feet and make it in life.

what about a farmer who can't make ends meet?

The government's obligation is to help all it's citizens because a legitimate would treat all its citizens fairly. Therefore since some people will always need to be helped the government has the obligation to help those people. This leads to the creation of a welfare state.

A state is ultimately there for the benefit of its citizens. I think you want a state that promotes the conditions for a high quality of life, and the Scandinavian model is an excellent example of this. The state doesn't have to be as social-heavy as the Scandinavian model, but the basic welfare of people should be met.

what about a farmer who can't make ends meet?

Stop being a farmer.

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

I'm a die-hard Libertarian. 'Nuff said...

...I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be the CCCP...
Fixed.

I'm a die-hard Libertarian. 'Nuff said...

That's like a watered-down Republican right?

Well I think with the Welfare State, especially in Scandinavia, that the high cost of sustaining is not felt so much by the people in monetary terms because of the amount of services which are free or subsidised to a great extent. Right-wing people seem to think tax is an inherently bad thing, when it fact it's revenue that builds nations, public infrastructure and the like. I mean, personally I wish my university (of which I am using the internet I am using now) was free, so when I have high income employment I don't have debt of thousands.

I like the Scandinavian system, so I suppose I'm in favor of a welfare state.

*high fives Ilie*

Parkus, it's USSR unless while you speak english. And while the Union had cradle to the grave support, it's important to remember that primarily the collapse of the Soviet Union was a political crisis, not an economic one. Democratic socialism, as practised around the world but particularly in Europe/Scandinavia has used to wealth of these countries to fund social costs to a great end.

Stop being a farmer.

what about the strategic value of having food produced in the nation, yes it is silly to give it massive support to a dead industry but a little help is needed considering its a food security thing

Fixed.

Sweden's not a welfare state now :confused:

I'm a die-hard Libertarian. 'Nuff said...

That's like a watered-down Republican right?

Not hardly, it's more like the other way around. Libertarianism is institutionalized selfishness. They hate to pay taxes because they don't want "people sponging off them", but they still expect to receive things like garbage pickup and use public roads, they just don't want to pay for it.

That's like a watered-down Republican right?

Acually it goes-back a long-time before Republicans. Thomas Jefferson I'd say is the model of a good Libertarian. Libertarians are 100% for personal freedom. As such they grant more then Republicans or Democrats. The reason they are against welfare is because is makes you dependent on the goverment, and therefore you have less freedom. Also it increases taxes, and since the goverment is the people, it makes the poeple have less freedom with their money because they have to pay for you.

That's like a watered-down Republican right?

No, it's more like a euphemism social conservatives use when they're ashamed of the conservatism and would instead like to dazzle you with their anarcho-capitalism, which isn't very anarcho since they always side with corporations.

Libertarians are 100% for personal freedom.

what do you tell anarchists?

Also it increases taxes

yeah thats exactly how the welfare state has turned out not at all like saving vast amounts of money that goes to tax cuts

Acually it goes-back a long-time before Republicans. Thomas Jefferson I'd say is the model of a good Libertarian. Libertarians are 100% for personal freedom. As such they grant more then Republicans or Democrats. The reason they are against welfare is because is makes you dependent on the goverment, and therefore you have less freedom. Also it increases taxes, and since the goverment is the people, it makes the poeple have less freedom with their money because they have to pay for you.

Ah I see. Also, wasn't there a libertarian supporting certain pharmacists decisions to refuse to hand over birth control medication to women on here a while before, Llewdor or something? What's your take on that? You can TG me if you don't feel like de-railing the thread.

Acually it goes-back a long-time before Republicans. Thomas Jefferson I'd say is the model of a good Libertarian. Libertarians are 100% for personal freedom. As such they grant more then Republicans or Democrats. The reason they are against welfare is because is makes you dependent on the goverment, and therefore you have less freedom. Also it increases taxes, and since the goverment is the people, it makes the poeple have less freedom with their money because they have to pay for you.

Yes but on that logic the State shouldn't exist at all, it should be just an anarchic society of self-rule. I think the logic of government economic interference is as follows, free markets are not free, they come with the price of sustaining their competitiveness by controlling monopolies and ensuring that corporatism doesn't crush all small business. A total free unregulated market is contradictive because without regulation it will never be free in the first place. Inevitably wealth and the means of production will become concentrated into the capitalist upper classes.

what do you tell anarchists?



yeah thats exactly how the welfare state has turned out not at all like saving vast amounts of money that goes to tax cuts

Sir I am honestly apollogizing in in the fact I cannot understand you. I truely do not mean to critisize, but please use more capitalization and punctuation, and then rephrase your questions. If you do so I shall most happily answer any queries you pose to me.

Ah I see. Also, wasn't there a libertarian supporting certain pharmacists decisions to refuse to hand over birth control medication to women on here a while before, Llewdor or something? What's your take on that? You can TG me if you don't feel like de-railing the thread.

Anyone can call themselves Libertarian. If a Democrat shoots his neighbor am I to assume it's a Democratic thing to do, and that Democrats support it?

In Europe the Republican party would be like three parties.

Anyone can call themselves Libertarian. If a Democrat shoots his neighbor am I to assume it's a Democratic thing to do, and that Democrats support it?

So you don't agree with that?

Yes but on that logic the State shouldn't exist at all, it should be just an anarchic society of self-rule. I think the logic of government economic interference is as follows, free markets are not free, they come with the price of sustaining their competitiveness by controlling monopolies and ensuring that corporatism doesn't crush all small business. A total free unregulated market is contradictive because without regulation it will never be free in the first place. Inevitably wealth and the means of production will become concentrated into the capitalist upper classes.

"The Goverment's best that governs Least", not "The Goverment's best that governs naught."

So you don't agree with that?

No, it completely contradicts the whole idea of Libertarianism. How could I say I supported more freedom if I agreed with it?

No, it's more like a euphemism social conservatives use when they're ashamed of the conservatism and would instead like to dazzle you with their anarcho-capitalism, which isn't very anarcho since they always side with corporations.
I think a better term for their beliefs would be archaic-capitalism not anarcho-capitalism, since everything they spout is old, tired and been thoroughly discredited for ages.

Parkus, it's USSR unless while you speak english. And while the Union had cradle to the grave support, it's important to remember that primarily the collapse of the Soviet Union was a political crisis, not an economic one. Democratic socialism, as practised around the world but particularly in Europe/Scandinavia has used to wealth of these countries to fund social costs to a great end.
Excuse me, where does The Parkus Empire mention the USSR? I used the Russian Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, or СССР for short because that is the proper name of that particular entity. I mentioned it because it was more than just a political collapse. Planned economies don't work because a signle entity cannot predict and control all of the factors in a large and diverse market. Now if you got rid of the whole market and made everyone totally dependant on the government then it could work but there would be no choice, no freedom. And that is bad. Very, very bad.

I envy the Swedes, I really do.

"The Goverment's best that governs Least", not "The Goverment's best that governs naught."

Nice how you didn't even respond to my comments. Even if a government governs least rather than not at all, it will mean to that extent wealth is concentrated.

And also, the Republican party is full of contradictions, on one hand they are libertarians for individual freedom, yet they allow evangelical extremists to dictate dogmatic restrictive policy, so they can allow people to hold semi-automatic weaponry but not for same-sex couples to have equal rights? They support 'small business' yet they subsidise massive corporatist entities which obliterate local markets.

People don't seem to understand how prone to inevitable collapse markets are, the more unregulated one becomes, the more trumultous, speculative and unstable they become.

Excuse me, where does The Parkus Empire mention the USSR? I used the Russian Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, or СССР for short because that is the proper name of that particular entity. I mentioned it because it was more than just a political collapse. Planned economies don't work because a signle entity cannot predict and control all of the factors in a large and diverse market. Now if you got rid of the whole market and made everyone totally dependant on the government then it could work but there would be no choice, no freedom. And that is bad. Very, very bad.

Sure their were economic problems, I am not denying that. But primarily the splitting of the Union was caused essentially because of totalitarianism that made the soviet republics loose their political independence to Moscow. The economic theory of the split up is ridiculous, mostly because Russia is doing worst economically now than even when Hitler was at the gates of Leningrad, Yeltsin caused more problems with capitalist policies than anything in the history of Russia. People don't realise the Soviet Union actually provided everything to it's citizens free of charge.

Nice how you didn't even respond to my comments. Even if a government governs least rather than not at all, it will mean to that extent wealth is concentrated.

I believe in "trust-busting" like Roosevelt did. Companies shouldn't have too-much power, but where would the Libertarians make that problem worse?

And also, the Republican party is full of contradictions, on one hand they are libertarians for individual freedom, yet they allow evangelical extremists to dictate dogmatic restrictive policy, so they can allow people to hold semi-automatic weaponry but not for same-sex couples to have equal rights? They support 'small business' yet they subsidise massive corporatist entities which obliterate local markets.

Republicans and Libertarians are not the same thing. I left the Republican party for these reasons. The Libertarian party are Libertarians.

People don't seem to understand how prone to inevitable collapse markets are, the more unregulated one becomes, the more trumultous, speculative and unstable they become.

What are you trying to say?

It depends on how it is used. In almost all cases I would be inclined to say that it is the number one way that population gets subverted to the corporatist state.

If it helps the systematically underpriveleged to escape their economic dependencies, then I don't really have a problem with it. But in that case it is certainly not an end.

What are you trying to say?
I think he's trying to say that if you give a mouse a cookie...then, uh, the terrorists win? No wait, wait, if you give someone an inch they might try to take a mile so you should never let people have personal wealth, uh, because they might try to invest it in some personal or small group venture and better themselves rather than society. Yeah, that's it, because nothing matters but the beneficent, altruistic, and all knowing government.

Lets all get together and spout mischaracterizations of libertarian political thought!

Lets all get together and spout mischaracterizations of libertarian political thought!
OKAY! They're all a bunch of paranoid gun nutz who eat babies and stomp on poor people for shits and giggles.

People keep saying that welfare is bad because it makes someone dependent on the government, like minimal welfare is a means to an ends. I would say that the welfare state is an ends in of itself, the idea of state dependency can allow the state to develop full employment and an efficient and well directed workforce.

The government's obligation is to help all it's citizens because a legitimate would treat all its citizens fairly. Therefore since some people will always need to be helped the government has the obligation to help those people. This leads to the creation of a welfare state.

In almost all cases I would be inclined to say that it is the number one way that population gets subverted to the corporatist state.

Within the limits of present power structures, both of these statements combined accurately describe my position on this subject.

I think he's trying to say that if you give a mouse a cookie...then, uh, the terrorists win? No wait, wait, if you give someone an inch they might try to take a mile so you should never let people have personal wealth, uh, because they might try to invest it in some personal or small group venture and better themselves rather than society. Yeah, that's it, because nothing matters but the beneficent, altruistic, and all knowing government.

No, actually what I was saying was that unregulated markets are prone to failure, we have yet to have a totally regulated market, but we have got close in some cases and seen the results. Menem etc

Even though I oppose individual dependency on an idealogical level,

Practically speaking, dependency on the state = dependency upon those who control the state.

We may have a well directed and efficient workforce, but who do you think they will work for?

A minor welfare state will obviously be neccesary to support those of society who are unable to work or are financially struggling. People do deserve a second chance.

It just needs to be kept in check.

Even though I oppose individual dependency on an idealogical level,

Practically speaking, dependency on the state = dependency upon those who control the state.

We may have a well directed and efficient workforce, but who do you think they will work for?

Well that's the catch, but in a democratic society this wouldn't be so much of a problem because those deciding the direction of the command economy would be those elected by those working in the command economy, they are given an election mandate yes but they will have to respond to the wishes of their constituents if they wish to be elected.

In this way Scandinavia (those countries) has to a lesser degree been able to remove welfare from politics, to raise it above ideology. I think this is neccessary to democratic socialism, because it ensures welfare of the people is looked after, while difference of opinion of the correct course of socialism is ensured also. While liberal democracies offer different ideas of a liberal society, so will socialist democracies.

In all practicality, I don't see how someone could simply reject all forms of the welfare state. Look at my economic compass... I consider myself a market liberal, free trade, et cetera- but to ignore the complications of an impoverished underclass, or to pretend that the underclass will somehow right themselves without external help is really just beyond me.

I think welfare ought to be readily available to those who need it, although I would prefer that transfer payments be replaced with social programs/job training/education.

People do deserve a second chance.
What makes you think that? Should an inferior species on the brink of extinction get a second chance just because it's unfairly getting squeezed out by more developed, more adapted species? Natural selection is the key to evolution, be it biological or socio-economic. We cannot advance as a species nor as a society without it.

I am a libertarian of the ridiculous extreme variety. I don't agree with a welfare state because it's too much.....state.

I do think that charity is good though, sometimes people need help......I just think the government sucks at helping.

What makes you think that? Should an inferior species on the brink of extinction get a second chance just because it's unfairly getting squeezed out by more developed, more adapted species? Natural selection is the key to evolution, be it biological or socio-economic. We cannot advance as a species nor as a society without it.

I sorta agree with that, but if humans completely believed it then there would be SO MANY extinct animals. Elephants: GONE, Whales: GONE, ect. Simply because we have the capibility to kill them, and they can't us, does that mean that "Nature" reasoned that we are superior, and therefore we should?

What makes you think that? Should an inferior species on the brink of extinction get a second chance just because it's unfairly getting squeezed out by more developed, more adapted species? Natural selection is the key to evolution, be it biological or socio-economic. We cannot advance as a species nor as a society without it.

Wow, social darwinism fll, I doubt you'd find even the most fervant rightist who would publically agree to that. You are ignoring the fact that within a class society birth matters more than merit, and there is little if any equality of opportunity for those born into lower class socio-economic brackets. This is not because they are less 'advanced', they have no choice about the class bracket they are born into, and must survive within, this is beyond the conscious control of any individual. Your analogy fails.

I am a libertarian of the ridiculous extreme variety. I don't agree with a welfare state because it's too much.....state.

I do think that charity is good though, sometimes people need help......I just think the government sucks at helping.

Yup. Exactly.

Well that's the catch, but in a democratic society this wouldn't be so much of a problem because those deciding the direction of the command economy would be those elected by those working in the command economy, they are given an election mandate yes but they will have to respond to the wishes of their constituents if they wish to be elected.

In this way Scandinavia (those countries) has to a lesser degree been able to remove welfare from politics, to raise it above ideology. I think this is neccessary to democratic socialism, because it ensures welfare of the people is looked after, while difference of opinion of the correct course of socialism is ensured also. While liberal democracies offer different ideas of a liberal society, so will socialist democracies.

I do not know anything of the Scandanavian systems, but the American system is appalling. For all of the concessions the government makes to the unpriveleged, it makes a greater one to the priveleged to get them to go along with it.

I don't really understand how a state function can be removed from politics, and I also do not really believe that welfare can function without being a great source of social control.

I'm a die-hard Libertarian. 'Nuff said...

I typically self-identify as a libertarian (emphasis on lower-case 'l'), but there is a point where "economic freedoms" begin to interfere with "personal freedoms," in which case personal freedom is priority.

For example, the typical (American) conservative opposes nationalized healthcare because they it curbs their economic freedom, while the less fortunate suffer from easily preventable illnesses... and it's pretty hard to be free when you're dead.

Economic freedom is a good thing, so long as it doesn't keep others from theirs.

What makes you think that? Should an inferior species on the brink of extinction get a second chance just because it's unfairly getting squeezed out by more developed, more adapted species?

People like you make me veer sharply in the authoritarian leftist direction.

Acually it goes-back a long-time before Republicans. Thomas Jefferson I'd say is the model of a good Libertarian. Libertarians are 100% for personal freedom. As such they grant more then Republicans or Democrats. The reason they are against welfare is because is makes you dependent on the goverment, and therefore you have less freedom. Also it increases taxes, and since the goverment is the people, it makes the poeple have less freedom with their money because they have to pay for you.

QFT! Parkus, I love you and want to have your children!

The saddest fact in all of this remains, the perception that welfare is somehow an uneccessary or unwanted drain on the economy, that it should be minimalized. People do not realise the amazing advantage of a welfare based social capital economy, in maximising the social/living conditions and wealth of the people equally, but in economic terms full employment and adequate direction of the economy, as decided by the elected representatives of the socialist state (as I talked about earlier), so it isn't about an external government deciding the direction of the command economy, it is the people themselves in a democracy.

I would also like to point out the inherent danger in democracy: the idea that it gives the state legitimacy. The true selling point of democracy is that it is the least powerful and least efficient state, and since we want a state that interferes as little as possible, it suits our preferences best.

However, many will get this confused, and think that a democracy is a good form of the state, rather than the least bad form of the state. In this they can legitmize all sorts of social and economic controls, to the point they strip the individual of any sovereignty in the name of this ethically "good" state.

To the minority, democracy is little different from despotism. To the worker, the TVA is little different from Carnegie. The end should be self-rule.

Thomas Jefferson I'd say is the model of a good Libertarian.

"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." (my emphasis)

"[The] unequal division of property... occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe."

"But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." (my emphasis)

Indeed.

I don't really understand how a state function can be removed from politics, and I also do not really believe that welfare can function without being a great source of social control.

This is another big scare mongering idea put out by rightists, people don't seem to realise that the 'social control' in a democratic socialist state would be no more than those imposed by the frameworks and norms of a capitalist one.

what about a farmer who can't make ends meet?

What about him?

"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." (my emphasis)

"[The] unequal division of property... occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe."

"But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." (my emphasis)

Indeed.

And? What's wrong with what he said? He said land and jobs, he didn't say "those without jobs should be provided for by the public".

I would also like to point out the inherent danger in democracy: the idea that it gives the state legitimacy. The true selling point of democracy is that it is the least powerful and least efficient state, and since we want a state that interferes as little as possible, it suits our preferences best.

However, many will get this confused, and think that a democracy is a good form of the state, rather than the least bad form of the state. In this they can legitmize all sorts of social and economic controls, to the point they strip the individual of any sovereignty in the name of this ethically "good" state.

To the minority, democracy is little different from despotism. To the worker, the TVA is little different from Carnegie. The end should be self-rule.

No, the idea of democracy, as I have said, is not to deal with the State as an alien and removed part of society, it is instead to treat it for what it is - the people. The state is elected by, and represents the general welfare and aid of those people under the principle of solidarity, that's the idea.

he didn't say "those without jobs should be provided for by the public".

No, he goes a step further: those without jobs should be provided with the property (land) necessary to provide for themselves.

Of course, this is impossible in a modern capitalist economy, which has made impossible the sort of society of small landowners that Jefferson envisioned... which, indeed, explains why Jefferson and those who followed him were not exactly enthusiastic about its development.

A very different attitude from modern-day "libertarians", who are content with the vast majority of the population working for a small, privileged owner class.

This is another big scare mongering idea put out by rightists, people don't seem to realise that the 'social control' in a democratic socialist state would be no more than those imposed by the frameworks and norms of a capitalist one.

You can say this all day....

I would also like to point out the inherent danger in democracy: the idea that it gives the state legitimacy. The true selling point of democracy is that it is the least powerful and least efficient state, and since we want a state that interferes as little as possible, it suits our preferences best.

This is going to be a fun philosophical argument. Ready?

The people give the state legitimacy. A state is legitimate insofar as a people believe it to be good or in their best interests as soon as people decide that their state is bad then they rebel.


However, many will get this confused, and think that a democracy is a good form of the state, rather than the least bad form of the state. In this they can legitmize all sorts of social and economic controls, to the point they strip the individual of any sovereignty in the name of this ethically "good" state.

A democracy can't strip individuals of all autonomy or sovereignty or else it no longer becomes a democracy. A democracy always allows for one form of self control, namely the right to vote and with the right to vote whoever oppreses individuals will be gone or won't pass laws to limit freedom because the populous will rebel in the voting booth. Look at the Republicans and the 06 elections for proof of this. Therefore you're terminal impact is impossible as any severe attempt at either that is unwanted by the populous will be changed in the voting booth.


To the minority, democracy is little different from despotism. To the worker, the TVA is little different from Carnegie. The end should be self-rule.

I agree that the end should be self rule but it is impossible as with self rule lawlessness will ensue. The original reason for states and other constructs of human rule was to make sure that with the growing massive amounts of people they won't all kill, steal, or otherwise harm each other. So therefore some state will always be in place and it is our job to ensure that the state is as just as possible. Meaning we should have welfare to ensure the equality of all. Impacted back to the OP! Yes!

No, the idea of democracy, as I have said, is not to deal with the State as an alien and removed part of society, it is instead to treat it for what it is - the people. The state is elected by, and represents the general welfare and aid of those people under the principle of solidarity, that's the idea.

Can you show me the democracy whose representatives are not plucked from the priveleged?

No, he goes a step further: those without jobs should be provided with the property (land) necessary to provide for themselves.

Of course, this is impossible in a modern capitalist economy, which has made impossible the sort of society of small landowners that Jefferson envisioned... which, indeed, explains why Jefferson and those who followed him were not exactly enthusiastic about its development.

A very different attitude from modern-day "libertarians", who are content with the vast majority of the population working for a small, privileged owner class.

That would be one thing if the people REALLY worked the land (which I doubt most of them would these days), and even if they did I think they would have to make payments after finally making enough money to fend for themselves. It shouldn't be "serfdom", but still.
Where you get the idea of that Libertarians are cotent with business's running everything? I know if certain people ran the country, things could start to look like Jenninfer Goverment, but that's just a few extremists.

That would be one thing if the people REALLY worked the land (which I doubt most of them would these days), and even if they did I think they would have to make payments after finally making enough money to fend for themselves. It shouldn't be "serfdom", but still.
People still need somewhere to live to get a real job.

Where you get the idea of that Libertarians are cotent with business's running everything? I know if certain people ran the country, things could start to look like Jenninfer Goverment, but that's just a few extremists.
Probably all the libertarians who think business is kind enough to regulate itself and the government should stay out of it. I've never seen a libertarian advocate differently.

People still need somewhere to live to get a real job.


That's differnt. If people are acually working it's something else. I just hve something against repeated payments made to them by the people.

Probably all the libertarians who think business is kind enough to regulate itself and the government should stay out of it. I've never seen a libertarian advocate differently.

Well, you may not have "seen" me, but you can still read my opinions. If business were totally unregulated, there would still be child-labour.

The people give the state legitimacy. A state is legitimate insofar as a people believe it to be good or in their best interests as soon as people decide that their state is bad then they rebel.

Yes, and?

A democracy can't strip individuals of all autonomy or sovereignty or else it no longer becomes a democracy. A democracy always allows for one form of self control, namely the right to vote and with the right to vote whoever oppreses individuals will be gone or won't pass laws to limit freedom because the populous will rebel in the voting booth. Look at the Republicans and the 06 elections for proof of this. Therefore you're terminal impact is impossible as any severe attempt at either that is unwanted by the populous will be changed in the voting booth.

1/population's worth of control over yourself is hardly sovereignty, especially when we consider that people aren't conveniently divided up that way.

I agree that the end should be self rule but it is impossible as with self rule lawlessness will ensue.

By who's estimation?

The original reason for states and other constructs of human rule was to make sure that with the growing massive amounts of people they won't all kill, steal, or otherwise harm each other.

The original impetus for states were to protect a certain few from the maladies you listed, namely the certain few who most deserved those maladies to occur to them.

So therefore some state will always be in place and it is our job to ensure that the state is as just as possible. Meaning we should have welfare to ensure the equality of all. Impacted back to the OP! Yes!

Even if your premises were true, this is a non sequitor.

Before I start, I'd like to say that I am a staunch Classical Liberal. Which is not synonomous with Libertarianism, although the two philosophies are similar. A Libertarian is socially liberal and economically conservative, and believes that markets should completely rule economics. I, as a Classical Liberal, am also socially liberal and economically conservative, but I believe that the government has a number of extremely important functions to ensure the health of an economy.

I feel like a welfare state is inherently flawed, because it operates on the assumption that the government can figure out what you want better than you can. If the government would just not take out the tax that it does for in-kind transfers like food stamps and stuff, and would just let the people keep it, then they would logically buy whatever they want. The government cannot give them what they want because the government doesn't know what they want. The only way to ensure people are adequately getting what they want is to let them earn as much money as they care to, and then spend it as they like.

All economics is a balance between equity and efficiency. This model can be applied to almost any situation: The more evenly you divide the wealth of a nation, the less total wealth that nation will have. Therefore, I feel like government involvement should be minimal, and let the markets work things out for themselves. However, there are exceptions.

For example, talk about roads. It wouldn't be profitable for a company to build roads, because you couldn't realistically enforce charging people to use them. Thus, the government provides services to the people, and charges them for their use. Things like schools and public transportation fall under this description, although, in more densely populated areas, the idea of private competition for such services becomes palatable. Places that have a wide variety of schools to choose from, both public and private, tend to have the best schools. Obviously, large cities like New York and Chicago come to mind. This has been practiced almost universally in Europe; people are allowed to choose schools, so the schools have to compete. This makes them better. If people were forced to go to a public school, then there's no need for that public school to be any better than any other schools; the people will still come.

Another exception is when the market suffers a market failure, and cannot allocate resources efficiently. This takes place when something like an externality occurs, when a third party is positively or negatively affected by a transaction that takes place between two people. Let's say an entrepreneur buys a plot of land to build a factory. The two people involved in that transaction are the entrepreneur and the person who owned the land. As long as the transaction is beneficial to them, it will take place. However, some other guy likes to fish in a lake that will be polluted if that factory gets built there. This is a trivial example, but it illustrates how the market can fail to allocate resources effectively on a social level. This is where the regulatory aspect of the government comes into play, and the government should actively try to ensure maximum societal benefit.

As for taxes, obviously they're necessary, but we should make them less complicated. The progressive tax rate we have now, which benefits lower income-earners, really does discourage a lot of innovation. Consider the following if you believe welfare benefits should be increased: If welfare benefits increase, it will logically follow that being on welfare will be more attractive. Therefore, people will not work as hard. That is an obvious truth; the more attractive it is to work less hard, the less people will work. Thus you have the equity/efficiency trade-off. People will be disinclined to do things which are societally beneficial, like create new, desirable products, if they can't make as much money from them. Thus, the total amount of social wealth goes down, if you increase the degree to which that wealth is distributed evenly. There should be rewards for innovation and working hard.

Finally, consider an example: Hong Kong. Hong Kong has never known democracy, and they have one of the lowest tax rates in the world: A perfectly flat 15%. Poor people pay 15%, rich people pay 15%. And the government is the only one in the world that turns an annual surplus. Imagine that! A government that makes a profit. And what's more startling is that, if you visit Hong Kong (Or similar places, like Singapore), you will find that, for its utter lack of social security nets, there are no homeless people. There's no poverty in the streets, the way you see it in France and Germany and Spain, and in more grievous examples, Argentina and India. There's no 18% unemployment rate that you see in Western Europe. Now, to be honest, I do believe in social safety nets for people who run into unforeseen trouble, like becoming disabled, incurring unexpected health care costs, or something like that, and I think the infrastructure should exist to help people get back on their feet, like free, good education and public transportation. But people should be free to rise or fall on their own, and society really shouldn't exist to support those who simply refuse to support themselves.

And? What's wrong with what he said? He said land and jobs, he didn't say "those without jobs should be provided for by the public".

It's hard to put Jefferson in this or that camp because he just wasn't terribly consistent. He seems to agree with whatever book he happens to be reading at the time. Don't get me wrong, I like Jefferson, but everything I've read about and by him seems to suggests this.

Lets all get together and spout mischaracterizations of libertarian political thought!

Ok, how about this? The typical Libertarian is very protective of his rights... and doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rights, in fact rare is the Libertarian who truly believes (no matter what he may profess publicly) that anyone but himself even has rights. Oh, wait you wanted a mis-characterization. Sorry.

Ok, how about this? The typical Libertarian is very protective of his rights... and doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rights, in fact rare is the Libertarian who truly believes (no matter what he may profess publicly) that anyone but himself even has rights. Oh, wait you wanted a mis-characterization. Sorry.

You forgot to put "IC" above your thread. :rolleyes:

The state chiefly exists to lend force to the property claims of the privileged classes. If it's institutions can be manipulated to restore a small part of the birthright of the dispossessed, then it is better done than not. Ideally we should suffer neither the inhuman system of exploitation that is capitalism nor it's servant and protector the state to exist.

You forgot to put "IC" above your thread. :rolleyes:

So did you. I stand by what I wrote, and nothing I've ever seen you post would serve to change my mind.

So did you. I stand by what I wrote, and nothing I've ever seen you post would serve to change my mind.

Then you're biased against Libertarians, which is as bad as being Racist.

Then you're biased against Libertarians, which is as bad as being Racist.

That made me laugh.

Then you're biased against Libertarians, which is as bad as being Racist.

I think there is a considerable difference... you know, one is assigned and one is chosen.

You got to choose your race based on personal preference?

Then I hardly see how they are comparable.

What if my parents were Libertarians? Political view is often based on parenthood.
Anyway my *ahem* "political preference" is nothing to be ashamed-of, and I will not supress it for your absurd primitive beleifs and superstitions.

What if my parents were Libertarians? Political view is often based on parenthood.

Noted.

Not everyone will think for themselves, but even that is a choice in itself.

Anyway my *ahem* "political preference" is nothing to be ashamed-of, and I will not supress it for your absurd primitive beleifs and superstitions.

I didn't ask you to suppress anything, and I didn't say you ought be ashamed of it; I just reminded you that ethnicity is genetic and political persuasion is not.

Noted.

Not everyone will think for themselves, but even that is a choice in itself.



I didn't ask you to suppress anything, and I didn't say you ought be ashamed of it; I just reminded you that ethnicity is genetic and political persuasion is not.

Well then it's as bad as being biased agaisnt those who have different sexual-preferences then you do. And if I supposedly "don't think", it may not infact be a choice.

Then you're biased against Libertarians, which is as bad as being Racist.

OK, I finally stopped laughing long enough to respond. So, not liking those who espouse a philosophy I find abhorrent is as bad as being racist? I dislike those who choose to put themselves above their fellow man, and to contribute to the well-being of society. Or are you saying that one's politics is genetic? And it's not the same as being homophobic. Again, you chose to believe as you do. You, of course may believe whatever you wish whether I agree or not, but just as you have that right, so I have a right to disagree, and to believe what I wish. This was the point I was talking about: I have just as many rights as you do, and your rights end where mine begin. And are you not showing a bias against those with whom you disagree?

BTW: are you honestly suggesting you can't help being selfish?

OK, I finally stopped laughing long enough to respond. So, not liking those who espouse a philosophy I find abhorrent is as bad as being racist? I doslike those who choose to put themselves above their fellow man, and to contribute to the well-being of society. Or are you saying that one's politics is genetic?

It was partially a joke...

Or are you saying that one's politics is genetic?

Possibly...about as much as sexual preference.

I have just as many rights as you do, and your rights end where mine begin. And are you not showing a bias against those with whom you disagree?

BTW: are you honestly suggesting you can't help being selfish?

I do not have a bias againt those with whom I disagree anymore then I do against homosexuals because I prefer being straight. I also believe it is within your right to be ignorantly bias and suggest I'm sellfish simply because I'm a Libertarian.

And it's not the same as being homophobic. Again, you chose to believe as you do.


If I try to hold different political views, but I just can't seem to be able to, then it's not my choice. Just as a homosexual can say they're not gay, in acuallity they are

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

unless your mentally incompetent or disabled....get a job..i dont want to carry you..i carry kids on my own...so screw socialism,some lazy ass junky cant kick his habit so i have to pay more taxes is unfair to me and my children.
and factor in his offspring..the government is just an enabler to get votes..at least here in the states...sorry if that sounds cold,but i am a single parent of 2 kids,1 going to law school..i am so broke i cant pay attention..i am going to pay for some lazy shit so he can do methadone?

in a perfect world i will hold there hand....but this aint a perfect world,sorry for you misfortune.

my girlfriend is 17 hours away..she is also a single parent..she works and goes to school,she just got her associates friday..she lives check to check..is it fair to her that others suck at the gov tit that we..the workers pay for...i am not saying we dont need a safety net for the unfortunate..but i'll be damned if i pay for lazy junkies or career welfare moms

a jobs program would be more productive..i can give money for that..but handing out money to lazy people or even not lazy..but addicted people is just enabling...give them job training and if they fuck that up..your beat..i will help my neighor if they help themselves

Apparently the "libertarians" could use a ittle history of the term libertarian. Why? because I say libertarian socialism most libertarians in America say contradictory. however this is not the case (see european definition of libertarian)

Libertarianism was first used by french anarcho-communists in the 19th century, and was hijacked by breakaway right-wingers in America in the 20th century. Nowadays many americans think Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, because they believe that a free market is necessary for freedom, however why does this have to be the case? Historically speaking the freer the market the more impoverished the people (see industrial revolution, circa late 1800s, early 1900s, andthe great depression), and, communism and socialism haven't really been tried under proper circumstances.

Remember taxes are not necessarily bad, in fact without taxes how do you expect to repel foreign invaders? And the greater the income equality the freer the people.

And for further research read Wikipedia's page on libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

remember, all ideologies contradict to some extent, however, "libertarianism" aka libertarian-capitalism has no measures to prevent trusts and monopolies in its pure form.

Wow, social darwinism fll, I doubt you'd find even the most fervant rightist who would publically agree to that. You are ignoring the fact that within a class society birth matters more than merit, and there is little if any equality of opportunity for those born into lower class socio-economic brackets. This is not because they are less 'advanced', they have no choice about the class bracket they are born into, and must survive within, this is beyond the conscious control of any individual. Your analogy fails.
Actually that's evolution. Advances and advantages being passed from generation to generation, hopefully having more added with each step. If you think that individuals need to be equalized then you hate evolution and want to hold us back, to stop humanity from advancing. So I'm actually a winner. Hahaha.

Also, someone brought up killing whales and the like. We're not in much competition with whale and the like. Yet. And they serve little purpose anymore because there are usually cheaper alternative prodcuts. I have no doubt that they'd get slaughtered from existance if people started building underwater cities or something.

Ok, how about this? The typical Libertarian is very protective of his rights... and doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rights, in fact rare is the Libertarian who truly believes (no matter what he may profess publicly) that anyone but himself even has rights. Oh, wait you wanted a mis-characterization. Sorry.

And it is very rare for you to find a leftist as anything but an elitists pity on the worker, because they rarely find time in their pampered childhoods, expensive educations, and corporate and/or legal careers to actually try and figure out what it is like to be one.

The typical Libertarian is very protective of his rights... and doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rights

Bullshit.

rare is the Libertarian who truly believes (no matter what he may profess publicly) that anyone but himself even has rights.

Bullshit.

If you think your post warrants more of a response, it doesn't.

Another exception is when the market suffers a market failure, and cannot allocate resources efficiently. This takes place when something like an externality occurs, when a third party is positively or negatively affected by a transaction that takes place between two people. Let's say an entrepreneur buys a plot of land to build a factory. The two people involved in that transaction are the entrepreneur and the person who owned the land. As long as the transaction is beneficial to them, it will take place. However, some other guy likes to fish in a lake that will be polluted if that factory gets built there. This is a trivial example, but it illustrates how the market can fail to allocate resources effectively on a social level. This is where the regulatory aspect of the government comes into play, and the government should actively try to ensure maximum societal benefit.

This isn't a market failure.

You see, all questions of "externalities" are in fact questions of property rights.

You failed to ask the key question, who owns the lake? If it is the fisherman, then there isn't a "market failure" or an "externality", there has been a violation of his property rights, and that is criminal, and in a libertarian society, would be dealt with as such.

If someone else owns the lake (and is keeping it for the benefit of fisherman), then the same applies. If it is the factory, then the fisherman is a trespasser.

If no one owned it before, then I would say the fisherman has homesteaded the lake by fishing from it.

If he does not wish to have any claim to that lake, then there is not by right a problem.

If (as in most countries) the lake is government property, then we can legitimately talk about the government regulating it, but in that situation, you have to understand that the basis for the regulation of the lake (one way or the other) is, and always will be politics. If the factory gives more political benefit to the government, then the factory will be allowed to pollute. If stopping the pollution is of more benefit to the government, the pollution will be stopped.

It wouldn't be profitable for a company to build roads, because you couldn't realistically enforce charging people to use them.

You have never heard of a "Toll road"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_road

Moreover, you are actually falling into a trap that scuppers a lot of libertarians, trying to predict exactly how a market will work. It simply doesn't work that way.

If you want me to show you how it could possibly work, then toll roads for thoroughfares seem like the way to go. As for local access roads, I can see a tie to homeownership (in buying a home, you also buy access to the local access roads from a main road).

Roadside advertising would also provide a source of revenue.

Thus, the government provides services to the people, and charges them for their use.

I thought you said it couldn't be realistically enforced. The government seems to be managing.

Hong Kong has never known democracy

True, it has known liberty (moreso than most, at least before the Commies took it back)

And the government is the only one in the world that turns an annual surplus.

Australia turns a surplus too.

Practically speaking, dependency on the state = dependency upon those who control the state.

Hence the reason I support a socialist state in federal form.

We may have a well directed and efficient workforce, but who do you think they will work for?

Society?

I am a libertarian of the ridiculous extreme variety. I don't agree with a welfare state because it's too much.....state.

I do think that charity is good though, sometimes people need help......I just think the government sucks at helping.

Anarchist wannabe!

Come join the dark (this is more than likely your opinion of it) side: Become a statist!

Mwuahahaha!

What about him?

He quite clearly cannot attatch wire points together.

Actually that's evolution. Advances and advantages being passed from generation to generation, hopefully having more added with each step. If you think that individuals need to be equalized then you hate evolution and want to hold us back, to stop humanity from advancing. So I'm actually a winner. Hahaha.

Yet one of the biggests strengths of humanity was our society. It allowed us to pool our resources together to overcome obstacles that easily destroy a single member. It was our desire to work together that allowed us to push forth with our technology (which has become our own niche now) and increase the areas we live in.

How exactly would you be the winner?

Also, someone brought up killing whales and the like. We're not in much competition with whale and the like. Yet. And they serve little purpose anymore because there are usually cheaper alternative prodcuts. I have no doubt that they'd get slaughtered from existance if people started building underwater cities or something.

Not unless we desire massive amounts of krill.

Libertarian? What the hell, so I know I'm getting on a bit and all that, and I realsie that language is an ever evolving thing, but why do we no longer just use the word Liberal?

He's a liberal.
He's a libertarian.

Well one has less letters!

I suppose if we must have states, and much have rich-poor divides, then the welfare state is fine, but I oppose both states and rich-poor divides.

Libertarian? What the hell, so I know I'm getting on a bit and all that, and I realsie that language is an ever evolving thing, but why do we no longer just use the word Liberal?

Because liberal is something vastly different than libertarian. A liberal would largely be for government welfare. A libertarian would be very much against that.

Define welfare state.

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?
Please, don't put Blair and socialist in the same sentence.

I'm mixed on the issue. For example, I fully believe that the government has a duty and responsibility to provide for the ability for every child to receive an education, and to minimize harmful influences that could negatively impact that education (guaranteeing safe schools and providing school lunches for the needy). But I'm opposed to a comprehensive welfare network that could theoretically carry an individual from the cradle to the grave.

Philosophically I'm opposed to national health care, but sometimes I wonder about it, and the efficacy of the market in delivering health care.


So, I'm mixed

I'm mixed on the issue. For example, I fully believe that the government has a duty and responsibility to provide for the ability for every child to receive an education, and to minimize harmful influences that could negatively impact that education (guaranteeing safe schools and providing school lunches for the needy).

I am curious about why you believe that......can you explain it to me?

I am curious about why you believe that......can you explain it to me?

It's extremely beneficial to the market to guarantee as many high-skill educated workers as possible. It also makes it easier for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum to work their way up, rather than merely festering at the bottom and demanding hand outs from those of us who have experienced success.

i'm a believer in positive rights via the social contract. as such i'm a believer in the socialised welfare state. the government should secure a reliable source of food and/or ensure the state is self-reliant (this doesn't necessarily mean state production), should provide healthcare, water and gas/fuel free (at the point of consumption) to its citizens, and welfare for those unable to support themselves, even if only temporarily.

It's extremely beneficial to the market to guarantee as many high-skill educated workers as possible. It also makes it easier for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum to work their way up, rather than merely festering at the bottom and demanding hand outs from those of us who have experienced success.

but why is it the government's job?

but why is it the government's job?

because it is the function of the government to provide for the best enviornment for the most amount of people. This is why we give up personal freedom in order to create the government.

I think welfare should be banned.

because it is the function of the government to provide for the best enviornment for the most amount of people. This is why we give up personal freedom in order to create the government.

who said that is the function or purpose of government?

who said that is the function or purpose of government?
If it was democratically elected, the people.

but why is it the government's job?

Because the harm that can be done to society by not providing for education are too high and the benefits are too great to not.

No. No welfare state of any kind. All it is is another mode by which political class parasites (bureaucrats, politicians, politically connected mercantilists like farmers) can continue to gorge themselves off of taxes. It is the role of private subsidiary institutions such as families, churches, and communities to provide such services. Even if the state were to step in to "help" these institutions, such as faith-based initiatives, I would oppose it, because it would tie these institutions even closer to the state and its medley of parasites.

Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance?
Yes. The welfare state makes society vastly less efficient.

And it is very rare for you to find a leftist as anything but an elitists pity on the worker, because they rarely find time in their pampered childhoods, expensive educations, and corporate and/or legal careers to actually try and figure out what it is like to be one.

I assure you, my childhood was anything but pampered. First, I do not come from money, second I was not spoiled and showered with gifts, I was showered with kicks and punches, but that is neither here nor there. Expensive education? You bet! Going to a state university as I am is going to cost me a fortune when time comes to pay back my student loans. My parents are paying for none of this, nor would I take anything from them if my life dependedon it. And I intend to neither go into business nor law. Would you like to try another predictable retort?

I think welfare should be banned.

Care to elaborate, or did you think the sheer brilliance of that statement would be enough?:rolleyes:

No. No welfare state of any kind. All it is is another mode by which political class parasites (bureaucrats, politicians, politically connected mercantilists like farmers) can continue to gorge themselves off of taxes. It is the role of private subsidiary institutions such as families, churches, and communities to provide such services. Even if the state were to step in to "help" these institutions, such as faith-based initiatives, I would oppose it, because it would tie these institutions even closer to the state and its medley of parasites.

Very few people would give to charity, and you know it.

Very few people would give to charity, and you know it.

You didn't even read what I wrote. Families were formed to work as a social safety net, among other things, and churches served more as as communities for mutual aid instead of the commercial, concert-esque, feel-good monstrosities that they are today. Organizations such as knightly orders and masonic lodges provided things such as charity hospitals and discount health-insurance- hardly as much today, what with the mercantilist hand-out system of medicine we have today. Social welfare should go back into the hands of the private community instead of the government, like it should be and had been.

Social welfare should go back into the hands of the private community instead of the government, like it should be and had been.Why? So it could be insufficient?

Why? So it could be insufficient?

No. So that people can find themselves through Maslowe's self-actualization while helping others and strengthening the bond of human relationships, instead of having social welfare be a game of vote-whoring for egotistical politicians.

Edit: Aren't you an anarchist?

This isn't a market failure.

You see, all questions of "externalities" are in fact questions of property rights.

You failed to ask the key question, who owns the lake? If it is the fisherman, then there isn't a "market failure" or an "externality", there has been a violation of his property rights, and that is criminal, and in a libertarian society, would be dealt with as such.

If someone else owns the lake (and is keeping it for the benefit of fisherman), then the same applies. If it is the factory, then the fisherman is a trespasser.

If no one owned it before, then I would say the fisherman has homesteaded the lake by fishing from it.

If he does not wish to have any claim to that lake, then there is not by right a problem.

If (as in most countries) the lake is government property, then we can legitimately talk about the government regulating it, but in that situation, you have to understand that the basis for the regulation of the lake (one way or the other) is, and always will be politics. If the factory gives more political benefit to the government, then the factory will be allowed to pollute. If stopping the pollution is of more benefit to the government, the pollution will be stopped.


I admit, my example was an oversimplification, but it does present an externality. The landowner got the money he wanted, the entrepreneur got the land he wanted, and neither of them paid more than they were willing to pay. However, a third party was hurt by it, so the amount the entrepreneur paid for his land necessarily fails to take into account the burden on society of his purchase. It's not a question of benefitting the government, as the government operates at the pleasure of the public.


You have never heard of a "Toll road"?

Moreover, you are actually falling into a trap that scuppers a lot of libertarians, trying to predict exactly how a market will work. It simply doesn't work that way.

If you want me to show you how it could possibly work, then toll roads for thoroughfares seem like the way to go. As for local access roads, I can see a tie to homeownership (in buying a home, you also buy access to the local access roads from a main road).

Roadside advertising would also provide a source of revenue.

I thought you said it couldn't be realistically enforced. The government seems to be managing.


I had a feeling that my failure to adequately explain what I meant here would garner a response. First, toll roads are not practical for all roads. Would you put a toll booth at every intersection? What if I was just driving down the road for some milk? Wouldn't I be using the road for free, unless my route happened to pass by a toll booth?

Now, you can make special considerations for other roads, but the fact remains that, if a company were to do that, it would be prohibitively expensive for motorists, and it would be inherently inefficient. The government can charge us for use of the roads by taxing us; this is an inescapable payment for the use of government services. This is one special case of economy in which government control is more efficient: They can build and maintain roads without spending unnecessary costs on the requisite infrastructure, which would be extensive, to individually charge citizens as they use the road. The same natural monopoly goes for education, military, and a number of other industries.


Australia turns a surplus too.

I'm sure it does...Some years. The United States did as well during the 1990's. We're still not turning a profit. Now, I won't get all Chicken Little about the national debt; the national debt isn't really anything to worry about. But governments can be efficiently run and still create high levels of aggregate demand through keeping taxes low.

I'm a Swede and very fond of our welfarestate. Although I think the government should stop hooging certain businessareas.

Care to elaborate, or did you think the sheer brilliance of that statement would be enough?:rolleyes:

Nope, it was enough.

I'm an elitist asshole that grew up with money. I don't care much for giving poor people money.

No. So that people can find themselves through Maslowe's self-actualization while helping others and strengthening the bond of human relationships, instead of having social welfare be a game of vote-whoring for egotistical politicians.How would they do this if they've starved to death in the meantime?

Edit: Aren't you an anarchist?Yes, but as I said earlier in the thread, I oppose the rich-poor divide.

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

As an anarchist, I have mixed feelings about the "welfare state". While I do not like the reactionary nature of the State control of welfare systems, I believe they are a necessity for humanistic reasons. Corporatist or laissez-faire economic systems minimize human welfare on pain of competitive failure. So, in the interim, I believe that the "welfare state" is a necessity.

You didn't even read what I wrote. Families were formed to work as a social safety net, among other things, and churches served more as as communities for mutual aid instead of the commercial, concert-esque, feel-good monstrosities that they are today. Organizations such as knightly orders and masonic lodges provided things such as charity hospitals and discount health-insurance- hardly as much today, what with the mercantilist hand-out system of medicine we have today. Social welfare should go back into the hands of the private community instead of the government, like it should be and had been.
Did we not have poverty before the welfare state existed?

Apparently the "libertarians" could use a ittle history of the term libertarian. Why? because I say libertarian socialism most libertarians in America say contradictory. however this is not the case (see european definition of libertarian)

Libertarianism was first used by french anarcho-communists in the 19th century, and was hijacked by breakaway right-wingers in America in the 20th century. Nowadays many americans think Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, because they believe that a free market is necessary for freedom, however why does this have to be the case? Historically speaking the freer the market the more impoverished the people (see industrial revolution, circa late 1800s, early 1900s, andthe great depression), and, communism and socialism haven't really been tried under proper circumstances.

Remember taxes are not necessarily bad, in fact without taxes how do you expect to repel foreign invaders? And the greater the income equality the freer the people.

And for further research read Wikipedia's page on libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

remember, all ideologies contradict to some extent, however, "libertarianism" aka libertarian-capitalism has no measures to prevent trusts and monopolies in its pure form.

To answer your question, you are correct, Libertarians today are basically the same thing, albiet toned-down quite a bit.

Libertarian? What the hell, so I know I'm getting on a bit and all that, and I realsie that language is an ever evolving thing, but why do we no longer just use the word Liberal?

He's a liberal.
He's a libertarian.

Well one has less letters!

Well there is more then FEWER letters to differ them. A Libertarian is a "classical Liberal"; for instance an EXTREME Liberal might want to outlaw tobacco. That right there contradicts Libertarianism.

Then you're biased against Libertarians, which is as bad as being Racist.

Oh goodness.

I think welfare should be banned.

Um, don't you recieve welfare Ruffy?

Thoughts, opinions?
In the face of technological development, free food, education, health, accommodation, transport, energy and security provision by a centrally organised but representative body of law is a near certainty at some point.

Um, don't you recieve welfare Ruffy?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

No.

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

I think that those who have the power to keep people from dying of poverty have a responsibility to do so. Whether that's in the context of a state is irrelevant.

I suppose if we must have states, and much have rich-poor divides, then the welfare state is fine, but I oppose both states and rich-poor divides.

It appears that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Hence the reason I support a socialist state in federal form.

Fantastic.

Society?

Which portion?

I assure you, my childhood was anything but pampered. First, I do not come from money, second I was not spoiled and showered with gifts, I was showered with kicks and punches, but that is neither here nor there. Expensive education? You bet! Going to a state university as I am is going to cost me a fortune when time comes to pay back my student loans. My parents are paying for none of this, nor would I take anything from them if my life dependedon it. And I intend to neither go into business nor law. Would you like to try another predictable retort?

You were "showered with kicks and punches"?

Did your parents have a college education?

Was college ever really in question?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

No.

Eh, well anyway you were obviously joking. What do YOU think the goverment could possbly better spend it's money on?

Corporatist or laissez-faire economic systems minimize human welfare on pain of competitive failure. So, in the interim, I believe that the "welfare state" is a necessity.

Yes, because all investments are dichotomous, ultimate success vs. ultimate failure. Never has an investment been made in moderation.

Eh, well anyway you were obviously joking. What do YOU think the goverment could possbly better spend it's money on?

No, I'm serious.

I believe a person shouldn't live off the government.

No, I'm serious.

I believe a person shouldn't live off the government.

Well, I never would have thought that of you. In that case we actually agree on something Ruffy! :D

No, I'm serious.

I believe a person shouldn't live off the government.

Even if the alternative is not living at all?

what about a farmer who can't make ends meet?

Then he shouldn't be farming.

Then he shouldn't be farming.
Thats right. He chose a vocation and he failed at it. That's a lesson to others to succeed.

I think a better term for their beliefs would be archaic-capitalism not anarcho-capitalism, since everything they spout is old, tired and been thoroughly discredited for ages.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

No, it's more like a euphemism social conservatives use when they're ashamed of the conservatism and would instead like to dazzle you with their anarcho-capitalism, which isn't very anarcho since they always side with corporations.
You're equating libertarians and social conservatives?

Come on, Fass, you know better than that.

I do not agree with welfare states. People should succeed or fail on their own, only recieving help from friends, family, and private charity if needed, not the government!

It appears that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.Yes. I support the welfare state, but neither the state nor welfare. Odd, eh? :)

Yes. I support the welfare state, but neither the state nor welfare. Odd, eh? :)

Unless you buy into the market (ideologically, not financially) you are stuck with a situation where the elimination of rich-poor divides can only be handled by the state. And a big one at that.

Unless you buy into the market (ideologically, not financially) you are stuck with a situation where the elimination of rich-poor divides can only be handled by the state. And a big one at that.Well, the lack of a state would mean the lack of state-sanctioned ownership rights. I think people would come together and form a social contract, and I see the lack of ownership rights coupled with equality of resources to be the cornerstone of a good social contract.

Well, the lack of a state would mean the lack of state-sanctioned ownership rights. I think people would come together and form a social contract, and I see the lack of ownership rights coupled with equality of resources to be the cornerstone of a good social contract.

The social contract isn't met at a giant negotiators table for all participants, it is met in the agora, one interaction at a time.

The social contract isn't met at a giant negotiators table for all participants, Why not? Especially since other social decisions would be made in a similar manner.

Why not? Especially since other social decisions would be made in a similar manner.

Because it presupposes the state, it is the democratic codification of law.

Because it presupposes the state, it is the democratic codification of law.I would say that a state is an entity that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. What I am talking about would not have such a monopoly, though it theoretically could. I wouldn't say that simply a decision making body is a state.

I think the state has a limited obligation as far as welfare is concerned. They should offer job training and help in finding jobs as well as support for the duration of the training and for a limited time after the training is complete. People who refuse the training should not be eligible for support. People who refuse to look for work should not be eligible for support. People who are incapable of working (Severely physically handicapped, severely retarded or severely mentally ill) should get subsistence.

I suppose if we must have states, and much have rich-poor divides, then the welfare state is fine, but I oppose both states and rich-poor divides.


i almost agree with your sentiments,actually i do agree with you..go figure

it is the democratic codification of law.

Whose law?

Not all "law" is statist.

You were "showered with kicks and punches"?

yes.

Did your parents have a college education?

My father has a BS, my mother never finished.

Was college ever really in question?

For me, you mean? Well, my parents, even when I was still their dependant, did not have the money to send me or my brother. I have to rely on financial aid. Have I ever lived in abject poverty? No, but I've never been anthing close to affluent. I do have some familiarity with financial hardship, even if not to an extreme state.

I would say that a state is an entity that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. What I am talking about would not have such a monopoly, though it theoretically could. I wouldn't say that simply a decision making body is a state.

Then you are either assuming that all will agree with the contract that is determined or you have no plans on enforcing the contract. Otherwise, enterprising individuals will work for themselves.

Whose law?

Not all "law" is statist.

The majority's.

I suppose.

Then you are either assuming that all will agree with the contract that is determined or you have no plans on enforcing the contract. Otherwise, enterprising individuals will work for themselves.All would agree to abide by the contract, yes. If someone breaks the contract, they could be outside of the social contract, and, at best, not be able to benefit from social decisions.

Yes, because all investments are dichotomous, ultimate success vs. ultimate failure. Never has an investment been made in moderation.

Caring for human welfare costs money, and rarely does it lead to a return on investment. Naturally, competitive markets or corporatist combines minimize such things as "inefficient." Whether right-libertarians realize it or not, this is not the same thing as saying "business men are greedy," etc.

I oppose market socialism for the same reason. In Yugoslavia before the the foreign intervention induced collapse, the economy functioned on a socialist market system, with workplaces being managed by democratic worker councils. Human welfare received very similar short changing in the Yugoslavian worker councils. Workplaces that attempted to balance human needs with production costs ended up being less competitive then the less scrupulous workplaces, and often ended up folding.

All would agree to abide by the contract, yes.

I think we can go ahead and presume that not all will be perfectly satisfied with the prevailing social norms, so....

If someone breaks the contract, they could be outside of the social contract, and, at best, not be able to benefit from social decisions.

What is there to exclude them?

Caring for human welfare costs money, and rarely does it lead to a return on investment. Naturally, competitive markets or corporatist combines minimize such things as "inefficient." Whether right-libertarians realize it or not, this is not the same thing as saying "business men are greedy," etc.

I oppose market socialism for the same reason. In Yugoslavia before the the foreign intervention induced collapse, the economy functioned on a socialist market system, with workplaces being managed by democratic worker councils. Human welfare received very similar short changing in the Yugoslavian worker councils. Workplaces that attempted to balance human needs with production costs ended up being less competitive then the less scrupulous workplaces, and often ended up folding.

Depends on the area, the obvious one is health, where it's not in businesses interests to prevent or cure illnesses when they can make more money from long-running treatment. Meaning state-run healthcare tends to be more efficient.

Woo, 1,000 posts, and it was a serious one.

Caring for human welfare costs money, and rarely does it lead to a return on investment. Naturally, competitive markets or corporatist combines minimize such things as "inefficient." Whether right-libertarians realize it or not, this is not the same thing as saying "business men are greedy," etc.

I misunderstood what you were saying earlier.

I will just leave it at this: I think that the market can minimize the need for the insurance of welfare. Combine that with the profit incentive to appear to be a socially responsible company or citizen, and I think that private charity will cover that cost.

Depends on the area, the obvious one is health, where it's not in businesses interests to prevent or cure illnesses when they can make more money from long-running treatment. Meaning state-run healthcare tends to be more efficient.

Of course, another company can exert a competitive advantage by offering shorter-term treatment or cure.

Of course, another company can exert a competitive advantage by offering shorter-term treatment or cure.

But they don't, at least not on preventative care, (see healthcare thread). And people are also less willing to incur costs by getting minor complaints checked out, leading to larger problems.

State healthcare is better and less costly.

But they don't, at least not on preventative care, (see healthcare thread).

By who's measure?

You could at least provide a counterargument rather than gainsaying.

And people are also less willing to incur costs by getting minor complaints checked out, leading to larger problems.

And the state solves that?

By who's measure?

You could at least provide a counterargument rather than gainsaying.

The sources I can find point lack of preventative within the non-insured, so I'll withhold the point for now.


And the state solves that?
If it's free at point of usage because you've pre-paid and the amount you pay is not affected by the amount you use it there is no (or at least less) incentive not to go for more minor complaints that might develop.

I think we can go ahead and presume that not all will be perfectly satisfied with the prevailing social norms, so....They don't need to be satisfied with the prevailing social norms so long as those norms aren't within the social contract.

What is there to exclude them?Well, if they don't benefit from the society, then the society won't be feeding them or clothing them or sheltering them or providing them with luxuries or socialization. Ideally the society would provide plots of land to farm and shacks to live in for these people, but such things aren't necessary for the concept itself to apply.

If it's free at point of usage because you've pre-paid and the amount you pay is not affected by the amount you use it there is no (or at least less) incentive not to go for more minor complaints that might develop.

Well, I don't think that cost of healthcare is the most prohibitive factor in people not having minor complaints looked at, rather it is the time and effort involved. My co-pay, for example, is roughly what I make in a couple hours at work, but I am still not willing to spend half to a whole day getting a "minor complaint" looked at. I have a feeling that is the norm.

Nevertheless, healthcare compensation is an important part of allowing the systematically disadvantaged to dig out of their situation.

When we consider "minor complaints" we have to consider those that truly are minor, and would represent a frivolous waste of money. This brings up the very touchy subject of determining what healthcare services would actually be provided when healthcare is made public.

Well, if they don't benefit from the society, then the society won't be feeding them or clothing them or sheltering them or providing them with luxuries or socialization.

Who is there to assure that society does not interact with them, or that they don't interact with society?

Who is there to assure that society does not interact with them, or that they don't interact with society?Society itself. I realize that this leaves society the chore of only making contracts where they would actually be willing to cut off contractbreakers (in whole or in part), but at least it decreases the likelihood of frivolous contracts being made.

Society itself. I realize that this leaves society the chore of only making contracts where they would actually be willing to cut off contractbreakers (in whole or in part), but at least it decreases the likelihood of frivolous contracts being made.

I also think that it is a little silly to think that these altruistic people who are intent on egalitarianism, would just cut off someone who disagreed with the governing rules of society, but nevertheless, what happens when this individual starts claiming resources and creating property, especially property tagged as collective?

All one needs is a gun and a mind to create property, quite literally property is composed of a will and a way.

Do you believe it is a good idea, is the function of the State to the welfare of it's people, through subsidies and other measures? Or do you think people need to find their own way in the world without government assistance? I suppose the example of state welfare systems would be Scandinavia (especially Sweden), or even maybe Blair's 'pay-as-you-go socialism'.

Thoughts, opinions?

Negative. I'm for a free-market/laissez-faire society where all welfare is privately administered.

I also think that it is a little silly to think that these altruistic people who are intent on egalitarianism, would just cut off someone who disagreed with the governing rules of society, Perhaps the society wouldn't, it depends on the will of the people. Perhaps they'd just say that they didn't like what the person was doing. Nonetheless, this wouldn't require a state.

but nevertheless, what happens when this individual starts claiming resources and creating property, especially property tagged as collective?

All one needs is a gun and a mind to create property, quite literally property is composed of a will and a way.Well, most likely a militia would form and fight back.

Perhaps the society wouldn't, it depends on the will of the people. Perhaps they'd just say that they didn't like what the person was doing. Nonetheless, this wouldn't require a state.

Well, most likely a militia would form and fight back.

Would the militia be accountable to the "social contract"? Would it be representative of the collective, or would it be vigilante?

Would the militia be accountable to the "social contract"? Yes, but the social contract might not deal with anything regarding people outside of the contract.

Would it be representative of the collective, or would it be vigilante?Probably vigilante, though ideally they would seek the collective's approval first, even if seeking the collective's approval isn't in the social contract.

Yes, but the social contract might not deal with anything regarding people outside of the contract.

Probably vigilante, though ideally they would seek the collective's approval first, even if seeking the collective's approval isn't in the social contract.

Obviously my question is, would the social contract prohibit violence that does not exist to maintain the social contract?

Obviously my question is, would the social contract prohibit violence that does not exist to maintain the social contract?A good social contract would prohibit violence for this reason, yes. Not all social contracts would be good, though.

A good social contract would prohibit violence for this reason, yes. Not all social contracts would be good, though.

Then all "good" social contracts prescribe a state, at least by the prevailing definition of "state".

Then all "good" social contracts prescribe a state, at least by the prevailing definition of "state".The contract stating that individuals will refrain from violence only to defend the contract isn't the same thing as forcing individuals to refrain from violence except to defend the contract.

The contract stating that individuals will refrain from violence only to defend the contract isn't the same thing as forcing individuals to refrain from violence except to defend the contract.

How so?

How so?When a person commits violence that isn't sanctioned by a state, the state punishes said person by committing some form of violence against them (typically by forcibly kidnapping them and putting them in prison).
When a person commits violence that isn't sanctioned in a stateless society, the society says that the person will not be protected from any violence that might occur against the person.

(The above is an extreme example. It could be that the act of violence is so mild that it just means that the person who commits it doesn't get dessert one week.)

When a person commits violence that isn't sanctioned in a stateless society, the society says that the person will not be protected from any violence that might occur against the person.

How does the society protect those upholding their edicts? I assume it isn't self-defense.

the person will not be protected from any violence that might occur against the person.

Including forcible kidnapping and imprisonment?

How does the society protect those upholding their edicts? I assume it isn't self-defense.By training people how to defend themselves and to defend others. I would consider the standing militia to simply be an extension of the individual's ability to defend themselves, so if someone needed it, they could ask for help from others. (Nearly everyone is part of the standing militia.)

Including forcible kidnapping and imprisonment?Well, if said person really is outside of the social contract, then yes, they wouldn't have the right to protection from forcible kidnapping and imprisonment. I would think a good social contract would protect people outside of the social contract, though.

By training people how to defend themselves and to defend others. I would consider the standing militia to simply be an extension of the individual's ability to defend themselves, so if someone needed it, they could ask for help from others. (Nearly everyone is part of the standing militia.)

If people could act of their own will and only be subject to the loss of the services spelled out by the social contract, then I would admit that to be anarchy.

If they act out of their own will and are subject to violent subjugation of their will, then I will not admit it to be anarchy.

I do not think your forecast is correct if you are actually referring to the former.

Let me ask you this, what is the method for the formation of this "social contract"?

If people could act of their own will and only be subject to the loss of the services spelled out by the social contract, then I would admit that to be anarchy.

I murder a bunch of people and enslave a number of others with brute force.

The community decides to no longer protect me.

Is that a valid description of "anarchy"?

Anarchy is useless if the community does not organize itself to protect against those who would destroy it.

I fail to see the difference between vigilante groups and community-sanctioned ones, as far as whether or not anarchy is in existence; they are both cases of people choosing to use violence against others for their own purposes.

I murder a bunch of people and enslave a number of others with brute force.

The community decides to no longer protect me.

Is that a valid description of "anarchy"?

I am wanting to say that it misses the point, but for now I will just say yes.

Why do you ask?

Why do you ask?

Because it seems to me like I just established a small-scale despotism.

Anarchy is useless if the community does not organize itself to protect against those who would destroy it.

I fail to see the difference between vigilante groups and community-sanctioned ones, as far as whether or not anarchy is in existence; they are both cases of people choosing to use violence against others for their own purposes.

I never said that some institution could not protect its members, that would be the core benefit of the institution. But what it could not do is project itself upon those who do not wish to abide by its rules.

I never said that some institution could not protect its members, that would be the core benefit of the institution. But what it could not do is project itself upon those who do not wish to abide by its rules.

These two are inseparable.

How could it possibly protect its members without projecting itself unto those who do not wish to abide by its rules?

These two are inseparable.

How could it possibly protect its members without projecting itself unto those who do not wish to abide by its rules?

The institution will only be protecting its members when an outsider interacts with its members in violation of the standards of protection the institution provides. If it initiates the interaction, then it is projecting.

If people could act of their own will and only be subject to the loss of the services spelled out by the social contract, then I would admit that to be anarchy.

If they act out of their own will and are subject to violent subjugation of their will, then I will not admit it to be anarchy.

I do not think your forecast is correct if you are actually referring to the former.

Let me ask you this, what is the method for the formation of this "social contract"?Well, the former would be the specific penalties that someone would face for breaking the social contract, yes.
In the latter case, while I wouldn't really support such a thing, said person would be outside of the social contract. Why would someone who isn't in the contract expect to benefit from it?

The social contract would be formed much like, say, the Constitutution was written. A convention was held where people adhered to abide by the rules of the Constitution.
I foresee lots of these conventions.

The institution will only be protecting its members when an outsider interacts with its members in violation of the standards of protection the institution provides. If it initiates the interaction, then it is projecting.

Then as long as the democratic communes and syndicates are based upon free association, what exactly is your problem?

The social contract would be formed much like, say, the Constitutution was written. A convention was held where people adhered to abide by the rules of the Constitution.
I foresee lots of these conventions.

Would these laws apply to only those who attended the conventions?

blair isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. fuck knows why he ever joined labour.

Because the Conservatives had better taste than that in the 1980's. :D

Returning to the topic; the welfare state should support only those unable to support themselves due to extenuating circumstances. Anything one has control over, in which I include pregnancy, should be no grounds for benefits, given that one is able to avoid the necessity for said benefits.

Then as long as the democratic communes and syndicates are based upon free association, what exactly is your problem?

Nothing. As I said, I simply disagree with his forecasting.

Would these laws apply to only those who attended the conventions?Possibly. I would say that it is a good idea to at least have a few of those laws apply to other people. At the very least outsiders might want to join the community and it would be a bad idea to commit violence against them before they have the chance to do so.

Returning to the topic; the welfare state should support only those unable to support themselves due to extenuating circumstances. Anything one has control over, in which I include pregnancy, should be no grounds for benefits, given that one is able to avoid the necessity for said benefits.

Why? If you can apply small scale support for everyone who is not in a dire situation (such as free/cheap schooling, free/cheap pregnancy counselling, etc) then you not only increase the efficiency of the populace but you also make them feel more comfertable with the welfare state and would be more likely to support its continued existence.

It is by dealing with the large and small issues that you can bond the populace together and work towards a common goal.