NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like your input. Preferably your sympathy.



The Issue
A coalition of expectant mothers (Mothers 4 Justice) has banded together to demand legislation allowing for six months of fully paid maternity leave.

The Debate
1. "Six months?! Six WHOLE months?!" blusters @@RANDOMNAME@@, a payroll manager. "Six whole months of being fully paid by our company for doing nothing but looking after a baby?! This will sink the small businesses and lose us an obscene amount of revenue! We cannot allow this to pass!"

2. "I believe that passing this law will be a step in the right direction," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the nation's most outspoken feminist advocate. "These kids need their mothers' love and attention during an important part of their growth development! I don't see why mums should be forced to juggle with the stress of bringing up children and having a job! It's simply too much! Six months maternity leave with full pay is what this country needs - even if it is at the expense of a few avaricious fat cats."

3. "Look, I've got an idea," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, an obsessive centrist. "Perhaps we can allow for six months of paid maternity leave, but have the government pay the companies for lost revenue? That way the mothers can bring up their children without financial worries, companies won't lose investors, and everyone will be happy. Apart from the taxpayers, of course, but you can't please everyone."


I voted #1. Today my nation-state profile says that I banned maternity leave. This aggravates me. I realize the game enjoys screwing you over with unintended consequences because, well, it's fun, but banning maternity leave because I said the government has no right to interfere in the economy isn't an unintended consequence. It's just ridiculous. The legislation before me was, "Should the government force businesses to pay for sixth-month maternity leave?" (Option #1 indicates this.) Voting 'no' shouldn't mean that I support banning the practice mentioned in the bill. Also, banning private businesses from voluntarily implementing maternity leave is just as much an interference in the economy as forcing businesses to implement maternity leave.

There are never any classically liberal or libertarian nuances. The issues often ask me to decide between two sides, like corporations and consumers, when I really don't care about either one. I'm much more interested in the limitation and scope of the government. I don't think the government has any right to interfere in the economy, so NS issues would peg me as a defender of the 'big corporations,' but I don't think corporations should receive corporate welfare because I'm against--get this--government interference in the economy. I just can't win. My philosophy doesn't revolve around identity politics and which group or side I happen to agree with today. I can support the right of private businesses to refuse to hire African Americans without being a racist or indifferent to civil liberties because of my belief about non-interference in the economy. I think NS issues just operate under the assumption that if you don't like something that's going on in society (racism, poverty, sexism, whatever), you'll invoke the full force of the government to do whatever it takes--even if there's no ethical right or constitutional provision--to stop that evil. The issues never present the side of the argument that says, "Yeah, I agree that racism's a problem in hiring, but the government doesn't have an ethical right to force private businesses to do anything about that."

Sorry for the long rant, but I'm so desperate to see the libertarian perspective in some of the issues.

Take it as proof that Libertarian theory would fail to solve problems like racism or sexism that are ground into the prevailing culture. Or accept that all governments are evil and become an Anarchist.

Take it as proof that Libertarian theory would fail to solve problems like racism or sexism that are ground into the prevailing culture. Or accept that all governments are evil and become an Anarchist.

1. The federal government can pass laws. The federal government can fine or throw people in jail who do not comply with those laws. The federal government cannot eliminate racism or sexism, only some of the obvious effects of sexism and racism, unless you propose mass education camps, which still wouldn't guarantee a turn around of hearts and minds. If your political theory can't find a way to address the problem I've just pointed out, then you've theoretically failed to solve racism and sexism.

2. Libertarian theory wouldn't fail to solve problems like racism or sexism. I don't think a lot of people even understand libertarian theory. Libertarians don't object to the ends you support, ends like stopping poverty, racism, and sexism. In fact, I'd say libertarians uphold the idea of natural rights, the scantity of human life, and the intrinsic value of the individual moreso than any other philosophy. So, since the issue isn't the 'ends,' it must be the 'means.' A lot of people, left- and right-wingers, identify a problem in society like, for example, poverty and then justify virtually any action the government could or would take to stop poverty. Your end (poverty) has become the justification for your means (government action) or hell - you don't think the means even need to be justified at all. Libertarians would look at the same situation and think that poverty's a problem, but that it can only be fixed through ethical means. If solving poverty means theft through taxation, libertarians would immediately rule out that solution. If solving poverty means killing all the poor people, libertarians would reject that, too. If solving poverty meant installing a computer chip into every citizen's body to ensure that nobody starves or eats an unbalanced diet, libertarians would most definitely object. In other words, libertarian theory wouldn't 'fail' to stop racism and sexism because libertarian theory wouldn't even try to stop racism and sexism if that meant infringing upon anybody's liberty through thought or speech codes, taxation or other coercive means. Unlike my philosophy, your philosophy sets out to engineer society through the initiation of force to fit some pre-assigned mold. Since your goal is to artificially manufacture the actions and will of individuals, you've instantly failed in your goal because of the reasons I pointed out in number one. My philosophy doesn't intend to reshape the actions of individuals and wouldn't even try to because it's unethical. Libertarians only seek to protect liberty and allow individuals to find their own good.

3. I don't think a government has to be inherently evil, which is why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist. A government is artificial. It was created by individuals and it's run by individuals, so it doesn't have any more rights than an individual does and it's not automatically evil because individuals aren't. If I can't steal from you, ethically speaking, and you can't steal from me, then the government--which is just a collection of individuals--can't steal from me either. The government, like you or Joe or Bob or Susan, has to ask my consent before taking anything from me that I own.

Anyway, does anybody actually have some constructive criticism?

It was a joke. I do understand some of Libertarian theory. I was a rudimentary libertarian for a while before I decided that Socialism (not the Soviet gulag thing) offered better solutions. BTW, Jennifer government was made to criticize Libertarian theory.

I also fail to see why a government couldn't bring an end to racism and sexism. I know you'll hate this reference and I do too but: Singapore. The nanny state has enforced racial harmony and has brought peace and vibrance to the city. I fail to see how libertarian theory could solve any problems. Yet another thing, wasn't your government bowing down to business a bad thing? The more influence companies have within a government the more they will push said government to their advantage.

I also hate PC terms. Racial jokes if understood to be simply that: jokes, are not at all bad and help to release any stress built up at individuals. That is simply enforcing new obscenities and racial slurs.

This is a comedic game. Expect your answers to be exaggerated. This is your what, second complaint?

with questions like that i dismiss them because there wasn't an answer i liked and i am trying to help my economy out of the gutters and lower the tax percent (around 50%)