 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
chegitz, Libertarians are not anarchists. Of course we believe in laws that regulate behavior. The behavior we wish to regulate, though, is simply behavior that results in harm to another. |
And if reasonable people disagree on what constitutes harm to another? Some would argue that porn is harmful to those who make it, even if they do so voluntarily. Other would argue that it causes secondary harm be creating an image of women that results in violence. You and I may think it BS, but reasonable people may disagree.
Reasonable people think that allowing children to go uneducated harms us all, and thus, just as we might be "coerced" into paying for a police force, we should be coerced into paying for schools.
This is why I think "soft" libertarianism is BS and moral cowardice. Because you don't follow through to the logical conclusion of your philosophy, which is a type of anarchism. The minute you open the door to government and the taxes necessary to pay it (and if there are no taxes there will be no police or prisons), you've lost.
Society has just as much right to place obligations on people or give them entitlements as it does to say they can or can't do something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
On The News Hour with Jim Lehrer today, they were discussing a new government program tracking air pollution and noting that it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in sick days and medical treatment. Who should pay for that, the polluters or you and me? I say the polluters should, and so does your philosophy. |
I certainly do agree that pollutors should be responsible for cleaning up the pollution they create, if that pollution is harming others and/or is on the property of another.
quote:
That's not at all true. They just want their sacrifice to be meaningful. There is a reason why the hottest car in the U.S. is the Prius, even though it costs $10K more than a comparable non-hybrid car in the same class. |
Or maybe it's that they want to have a choice in the sacrifice. Many people WILL make the economic sacrifice, if given the choice to do so. What people oppose - at least, my understanding - is regulations such as Kyoto that FORCE them to make sacrifices.
By the way, there is also the relevant point that the "hottest car" on the market today might simply be the hottest car because it's the newest car. Consumers are silly like that.
But this is all fairly irrelevant anyway. It stems from a discussion about what Congressmen/Senators should be doing. My point is that they should not necessarily do what the vocal minority, or even the majority, wants them to do. Remember, I'm no fan of democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
And if reasonable people disagree on what constitutes harm to another? |
Well, first define "reasonable" 
quote:
Some would argue that porn is harmful to those who make it, even if they do so voluntarily. Other would argue that it causes secondary harm be creating an image of women that results in violence. You and I may think it BS, but reasonable people may disagree. |
I don't agree that people who want to criminalize porn can be classified as "reasonable". There is no "reasonable" justification for the existence of any victimless crime (a point on which I think both of us agree, though I could be wrong), thus, people who support the criminalization of victimless acts are not reasonable.
quote:
Reasonable people think that allowing children to go uneducated harms us all, and thus, just as we might be "coerced" into paying for a police force, we should be coerced into paying for schools. |
But the point can easily be made that in the absence of having to pay for public education - that is, in the absence of a public education system - the costs of private education would fall drastically (the free market at work), and people would have all sorts of extra money available that was previously taxed to pay for public schools. Result? Most people would still be able to afford an education.
quote:
The minute you open the door to government and the taxes necessary to pay it (and if there are no taxes there will be no police or prisons), you've lost. |
There is a difference between taxes and user fees. Taxes are used to fund wealth transfer programs, while user fees force users to pay for what they use. Toll roads, for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Tingkai,
Actually, I went to private school most of my life, which I assure you, wasn't free. Given that, how is it fair to expect me to pay for an education twice?
|
How would it be fair for you to be a leech on society?
Your parent's paid for the school fees, not you so don't talk about paying twice. As for them, they had the money to pay those fees because they lived in an organised society, rather than one of chaos.
You receive benefits from living in a relatively highly educated society. Your teachers were likely educated in the public school system. If you own a business, you benefit from the free education provided to your workers. If your country did not have public education then it would not have a developed economy in which you can make lots of money.
You benefit from welfare, that ensures that people never reach a point where they must steal from the rich just to stay alive.
You can benefit from unemployment insurance that will protect you if you ever lose your job.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yet, the US is NOT overrun by the plague, and yet, our health care system is private - certainly private in comparison to European nations.
|
Life expectancy 2001
Hong Kong
(which has full public health coverage) 79.7
Canada 79.2
Australia 79
Germany 78
France 78.7
UK 77.9
US 76.9
See the trend. Almost all countries with extensive public health insurance have longer life expectancies than the US.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Which is a joke, because that won't exempt me from having to pay the same taxes - or greater ones - there.
|
But you're not complaining about taxes, you're complaining about spending on social services. You can easily move to countries where far less money is spent on social services, and as a result, tax rates are lower.
Of course, the problem for you is that every economically developed nation provides some form of social spending. Why? Because most people recognise that social spending is morally right and that they benefit from it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
che,
quote:
No, but many of us are, and we want to keep it. If you don't want to live in a democracy, don't force us to give up ours. Just go away. |
I'm not necessarily against living in a democracy, I'm against the majority using the power of majority rule to force the minority to, for example, give them money. You want to vote in a President? Fine, I don't care - like I've said many times, I'm not picky about how you select a government. I'm only picky about what powers that government has.
nye,
quote:
Not at all. Build your code of laws on those as two principles. They just won't be enough, and they won't be paramount in any state that would work, or group for that matter since sometime before the chimps came down from the trees. |
Again, why not? Because some people might end up starving? I concede that possibility, yet I don't concede that has any relevance.
BK,
quote:
Given your position in opposition to paying for social programs, which one of the 4 options would you pick? |
Well, if I felt abortion was murder, as you do, I could not in good conscience pay for it. I don't feel that way, so we're gonna have to find a different example. Let's take the one we're discussion - Social Security.
My choice is to continue to pay into the system, to avoid going to prison, with the caveat that if I make a decision with a gun pointed at me, it isn't really an un-coerced decisioin. My choice is also to work to change it, and that includes discussions such as these, with the reasonable expectation that those who support the system can come up with something better than "If you don't like it, leave".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And that's not different from what I said earlier. They built on the base of family, or filial responsibility to form a social contract. |
Social contract is an Englightenment term form ancient tradition. Throughout history people have recognised the benefits of "social programs". Long ago it might be a communal grain reserve. They would take care of a neighbour who had a stroke of bad luck, knowing that their neighbour would do the same for them. The community is the village
This local system broke down with the development of railroads and industrialisation. People moved to different places in search of work. Wealthy cities would be swamped by the unemployed and local social services couldn't handle the load. As a result, national programs developed. The community becomes the nation.
With the advent of cheap air travel, we see the need for international aid programs growing. If we don't help people in another country then we could easily be swamped with refugees. Mass media informs us of international disasters and we react by helping people in need. The community becomes the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
nye,
quote:
Who 'uses' the armed forces? |
Good point. That's why I oppose ALMOST every war ever fought by the US, and feel that our military spending is about 99% higher than it should be.
Tingkai,
quote:
Your parent's paid for the school fees, not you so don't talk about paying twice. As for them, they had the money to pay those fees because they lived in an organised society, rather than one of chaos.
What's your point? That doesn't make it fair for either them or me to pay twice for a service received once.
[quote]You receive benefits from living in a relatively highly educated society. Your teachers were likely educated in the public school system. If you own a business, you benefit from the free education provided to your workers. If your country did not have public education then it would not have a developed economy in which you can make lots of money. |
I disagree. The US was a relatively rich nation prior to public education, as was the United Kingdom. Has an educated public helped increase our economic prosperity? Undoubtedly. Yet look at public schools today - I'd hardly call what you receive there an education. And as I've pointed out, in the absence of a public school system, most people could still receive an education. They'd pay for it - which they do already, in the form of taxes - but they'd also have more choice.
quote:
You benefit from welfare, that ensures that people never reach a point where they must steal from the rich just to stay alive. |
That assumes that it is OK for people to steal in certain situations. I certainly don't grant that point.
quote:
You can benefit from unemployment insurance that will protect you if you ever lose your job. |
Well that depends on a number of other circumstances, but I can also protect myself from unemployment by a)making sure that I am invaluable to my employer, b)saving, c)making contacts and keeping my options open. If I lost my job today - as long as I wasn't fired for cause, which would make me ineligible for unemployment, anyway - I'd have a number of options.
quote:
See the trend. Almost all countries with extensive public health insurance have longer life expectancies than the US. |
Yet, the US has a longer life expectancy than many countries with full public health programs. The US doesn't have the world's highest life expectancy, but then again, that might also have something to do with the population and diversity of the US compared to that of Australia or Canada.
And again, for specialists, complicated procedures, etc., almost anyone who can afford it comes to the US. The US is known for having the best medical training, and the best medical universities. As far as I know, that's pretty much beyond question.
quote:
But you're not complaining about taxes, you're complaining about spending on social services. You can easily move to countries where far less money is spent on social services, and as a result, tax rates are lower. |
Actually, I am complaining about being forced to fund programs that I derive little or no benefit for, and programs that I don't support. I'm complaining about my money being taken against my will. Toll roads, for example, are not coercive because I only pay for what I use - someone who uses a toll road every day pays more than someone who uses it once a month.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blake
The thing is, all the old debts can be just written off anyway. Like say the global economy gets a bit poopy and then collapses. So a new money standard is created [probably backed to make people value it], all old money is worthless.
All the accumulated "wealth" is still around, the fences, factories, skyscrapers dont disappear because all savings, debts and investments have been written off. It's just a matter of reallocating resources to people under the new system. How that works really depends who has power after the revolution.
For example lets say the Goverments retain power somehow and sieze all assets, issuing new currency, running a social credit style economy. Just like that, all the national debts are gone. Theres no debt for the children to pay, and they get to enjoy all the infrastructure.
The thing is, those who currentely have the money, that is the tiny %age of the population who control a large %age of the wealth, are going to fiercely resist a "wipe the slate clean scenario", so the only way it can happen is everyone loses faith in the old money, thus stripping the very wealthy of their power. (but theres really nothing stopping them from re-accumulating power under the new system) |
So we could keep up our payments to old retired people by destroying the economy (notice I didn't say capital) and in the end taking the devalued capital mostly from... old people! After all they are by far the most afflluent segment of the population (in the U.S. at least). Good idea, and the only cost is the complete paralysis of the economy as it is destroyed, reallocated and then builds itself up from scratch. It should be as good as new within a generation, maybe sooner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:24
|
|
David: You're part of a society and you gain benefits from being in that society so you have a moral responsibility to contribute to the welfare of that society. To do otherwise is to be a thief.
If you don't like it, your only choice is to live somewhere in complete isolation. Otherwise, you either accept your social responsibility or be proud of being a leech.
About public education, relative to today, the US was a poor country and so was the UK, Canada, etc. They were dirt poor compared to what we have now.
But anyways, you agree that public education played an important role in economic development. That means your financial success today is partially a result of social services. So why should you get a free ride?
Of course, American schools are going down the drain.
That's because people like you lobby governments to cut taxes and spending resulting in fewer resources for the school system. There massive cutbacks in US funding for books, physical structures, etc.
If public schools are eliminated, people will become less education. The poor would not be able to pay for a child's education. That would condemn the child to the poverty trap.
The middle class will have fewer choices, higher school fees, poor schooling for their kids.
In Hong Kong, parents can "choose" which school their child attends, but the good high schools either only except children with high entrance exam marks or charge lots of money.
Elementary schools do the same, so do kindergartens and pre-school.
The end result is an education based on passing entrance exams, starting when a kid is two years old!
Choice is illusionary.
You also assume that you can always take care of yourself without anyone's help. You've obviously never gone through a major economic depression.
Your value to an employer is meaningless if hundreds of businesses are closing.
Your savings can disappear if the stock market crashes or your bank closes.
No matter what, it takes time to find a new job. In your dream world where there are no social services, your savings could quickly dry up if you have to pay school fees, unexpected medical bills (you're unemployed so you won't have medical insurance). Maybe you're 50 and no one wants to hire someone that old.
You would quickly find yourself in the poorhouse and your tune would quickly change.
On healthcare, if an economically developed country has full public health then odds are that people there will have a longer life expectancy than the US.
Population diversity in the US and Canada are similar so that's not a reason.
The simple fact is that if you don't have access to medical care than you are more likely to die young.
And the US is not the be all and the end all of health care.
There's a thriving medical tourism trade in Asia. People from around the world, including the US, travel here to get special operations, particularly to Thailand.
It's a weird form of tourism, but it exists. Why? because it's cheap and excellent quality in places like Thailand.
As for medical training, the quality of training in many countries is on par with the US. That's beyond question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
chegitz - quote:
Despite conservative predictions, SS will neither go under nor be abolished. No politician will ever let their constituants' grandparents be kicked out onto the streets. |
Is that where they lived before Social Security?
quote:
While serfs had god-awful lives, even yoeman peasants didn't have lives we'd consider enjoyable. ****, just look at the plaines settler stories to see what a hell being a free land farmer was in the 19th Century. |
That wasn't an answer. Were the peasants living under feudalism free to keep the fruits of their labor or not?
quote:
That's like saying frogs discredit fish. One has nothing to do with the other. |
Bingo! But you used feudalism to dis-credit a ~modern nation without a welfare state.
quote:
That's captalism for you. The only difference is that today you have a choice of masters and the master/salve relationship is masked with a money payment. You still don't own the fruits of your labor. |
Not as long as y'all are taxing us to pay for your welfare state. But this "choice" is rather important - it's the difference between slavery and freedom. This master is called nature, my need for resources is not my employer's fault...
quote:
Which is why most people think your morals are ****ed. Morality was the basis of the creation of the welfare state. |
Might make right ("democracy") is not the basis of morality and I'm shocked to see you endorse legalised theft and act like your opponents are akin to feudal lords who stole "legally" too... Just shocked!
quote:
That was someone else, though I agree. If you don't wish to live by the rules of the group, you are free to leave the group (or try and change the rules). |
Since y'all assume the moral authority to steal "legally" from others, why would you stop at some border?
quote:
It's not just silly, it's impossible. Human beings can only exist because of the obligations we have to one another. |
But you're making up these "obligations" to satisfy your needs - that is not a contract, it's authoritarian.
quote:
In the case of liberarian arguments, however, I think it is a fair retort. They deny that society has any right whatsoever to regulate behavior that doesn't result in the harm of another. Membership in society, however, is voluntary, and if you don't like the fact that a society has the right to govern you, you are free to seperate from it. There is the little problem of all territory in the world being divided up by the various social groups, but you could live on the high seas. There's no government or taxation there. We'll even throw in free weather reports. |
I'll remember that suggestion the next time you complain about Bush, maybe early in November?
quote:
Every group of humans that has ever existed has regulated the behavior of its members. That is how humans live and exist. Behavior that enhances the survival of the group is legalized. Behavior that hurts the group is outlawed. Libertarians would seek to do away with a fundimental aspect of our existence. We may as well try to outlaw sex or eating as trying to outlaw law itself. |
Aren't you usually decrying how people have lived and using it as an excuse to "regulate" other people's lives?
Now past regulation justifies today's? Hey, people have always practiced slavery...
quote:
It isn't merely that they seek to end the social groups right to regulate their own behavior, they seek to end social groups right to regulate any behavior whatsoever. They seek the most fundimental transformation of humanity ever, the complete seperation of people from each other into atomized indivuals, completely devoid off any responsibility for one another, a situation that has existed nowhere at anytime except in the most disrupted of societies, and in such "societies," not even the rule of "an ye harm none" was obeyed. |
Can we speak for ourselves? I just had a flashback to the GOP convention and Bush et al telling us what Kerry thinks... Now, define "social group". A "social group" to me has a right to regulate my behavior even if I'm not in the group - they can ban me from murdering them and do so morally. What they cannot do morally is steal my property and call it "legal" or a "social contract".
NYE - quote:
That's why it is a social contract, not a family contract. |
The phrase I hear most often when this social contract stuff comes up is, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain and Abel were actual brothers, not neighbors.
quote:
That's a good rule, but it's pretty silly to try to build a modern society on just that. |
Not as immoral as building a society on the corpse of said rule.
AS - quote:
are you and dave stupid? where are you pulling this stuff from? where did i say the welfare state enhances morality. i was just saying the existance of a welfare state is irrelevent to morality... it's comparing apples and oranges. welfare can, however, help some of the effects of moral decay (such as poverty) but thats about it. theyre two different things. |
I'll quote you:
quote:
we had moral decay in the 20's before the welfare state and we had great moral strength in the 50's with the welfare state... |
If you weren't making a point, was that a pointless claim? And if you say there is no link, why add that caveat about the welfare state helping a little? We should be more moral than the people of the 50s and according to you we are less. Explain why increasing the welfare state hasn't produced an even more moral society.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
berzerker:
quote:
If you weren't making a point, was that a pointless claim? And if you say there is no link, why add that caveat about the welfare state helping a little? We should be more moral than the people of the 50s and according to you we are less. Explain why increasing the welfare state hasn't produced an even more moral society. |
blah? i'm not understanding where you getting this stuff from...
first of all, YOU were the one that claimed that our moral decay was a result of the welfare system, claiming that the welfare state broke up the traditional family, etc. (which, as Imran pointed out, was already broken what with the industrial revolution and the end of family farming and what not).
To respond to YOUR claim that the welfare state causes moral decay, i pointed out that prior to the welfare state there was moral decay, meaning immorality occured when there was no welfare state... I proved the welfare state is not the main cause of immorality.
Then i noted that the 1950's saw great moral decency as well as the welfare state... unlike as you claimed, the introduction of a welfare state didn't cause moral breakdown. therefore, a welfare state does not cause immorality, at least not in the first two decades.
therefore, your claim that the welfare state is the cause of present immoralities is not true when considering pre-welfare and post-welfare (the first 20-30 years) america.
i did note though that welfare, while not aiding morality, can improve some of the effects of a breakdown of morality such as neglected children, abandoned grandparents, single motherdom, etc. Welfare is a system by which those people can be helped but anything that helps alleviate the negative effects of moral decay is not equivalent to curing moral decay.
as for what causes moral decay, my finger is pointed to what happened in the 1960's with the feminists, new ageists, hippies, druggies, etc. they ****ed it all up...
damn... i thought i had made my point clearly before with no room for interpretation yet both you and dave came up with crazy mess. i dont know what's going on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 10:59
|