Blind groper wrote:The French had a more balanced view.
Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
(Freedom, equality, and brotherhood)
They made freedom important, but not the only thing that was important. Equality and brotherhood (My apologies to the women here. Will you accept that I include you in the sexist term 'brotherhood'?) means caring about others. Freedom does not mean selfishness. Individual freedom does not remove the duty to help others. The French have their version of socialism, so that others are helped.
I agree with that, a decent society needs all of those. It doesn't mean France or anywhere else always lives up to it but its what we should all aim for
How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?
Blind groper wrote:The French had a more balanced view.
Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
(Freedom, equality, and brotherhood)
I disagree that preventing people from excelling and enforcing social conformity is a "more balanced view".
They made freedom important, but not the only thing that was important. Equality and brotherhood (My apologies to the women here. Will you accept that I include you in the sexist term 'brotherhood'?) means caring about others. Freedom does not mean selfishness. Individual freedom does not remove the duty to help others. The French have their version of socialism, so that others are helped.
Socialists don't help through their own efforts. They just redistribute, hurting as many as they help.
In a libertarian "state", you'd see a lot more people actually helping others out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily.
Warren Dew wrote:
Socialists don't help through their own efforts. They just redistribute, hurting as many as they help.
Fiscal policy is an exercise in wealth redistribution. As the the article states, Libertarian fiscal policy, or the lack of, concentrates wealth at the top, and millennia of human history have shown us that the wealthy must be coerced to part with their table scraps. The question becomes what is the fairest way to distribute wealth so that we reward those who produce while protecting the most vulnerable in society.
Why rebut an obvious strawman? It wasn't much better than the "so move to Somalia" argument. Of course laws are necessary, of course taxes are necessary, of course water and mineral rights are necessary. The argument is at what point does public policy impinge unnecessarily on individual rights? I believe we've moved too far towards the public side of the equation at the expense of individual rights. This does not mean I advocate dismantling the military or police forces, abolishing all social programs and returning to some Doomsday Prepper's idea of heavily armed Randism. Yes, there are lunatics on the fringes of Libertarian thought, just as there are lunatics on the fringes of Socialist thought. I fail to see how a rational approach to national finances and the primacy of individual social rights is lunacy.
laklak wrote:Why rebut an obvious strawman? It wasn't much better than the "so move to Somalia" argument. Of course laws are necessary, of course taxes are necessary, of course water and mineral rights are necessary. The argument is at what point does public policy impinge unnecessarily on individual rights? I believe we've moved too far towards the public side of the equation at the expense of individual rights. This does not mean I advocate dismantling the military or police forces, abolishing all social programs and returning to some Doomsday Prepper's idea of heavily armed Randism. Yes, there are lunatics on the fringes of Libertarian thought, just as there are lunatics on the fringes of Socialist thought. I fail to see how a rational approach to national finances and the primacy of individual social rights is lunacy.
I don't you are the libertarian most of us are thinking of here, but there is a general lack of condemantion from 'liberal' libertarians about the more nuttier ones.
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
I agree there are nutty libertarians and nutty socialists. We need, as I will always repeat, a balance between the two views. Both have good features. Both have something to contribute. But not either extreme.
Warren Dew wrote:
Socialists don't help through their own efforts. They just redistribute, hurting as many as they help.
Fiscal policy is an exercise in wealth redistribution. As the the article states, Libertarian fiscal policy, or the lack of, concentrates wealth at the top, and millennia of human history have shown us that the wealthy must be coerced to part with their table scraps. The question becomes what is the fairest way to distribute wealth so that we reward those who produce while protecting the most vulnerable in society.
Well said.
In most societies, the "sweet spot" to achieve this in terms of the policies of an elected government will shift one way and another over time. If a government that leans too far to the left starts making decisions which patently go too far in one direction, they will be removed from office at the next election, and the pendulum will move a little the other way.
The absurdities come from those who want to swing the pendulum so far to either the left or the right that it's virtually horizontal!
Warren Dew wrote:
In a libertarian "state", you'd see a lot more people actually helping others out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily.
There would also be those that abuse their position of power gained by economic dominance.
How do you propose to limit that?
Read my answer to Pappa on the last page; it's dealt with there.
subversive science wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Socialists don't help through their own efforts. They just redistribute, hurting as many as they help.
Fiscal policy is an exercise in wealth redistribution. As the the article states, Libertarian fiscal policy, or the lack of, concentrates wealth at the top, and millennia of human history have shown us that the wealthy must be coerced to part with their table scraps. The question becomes what is the fairest way to distribute wealth so that we reward those who produce while protecting the most vulnerable in society.
To the contrary, as my answer to Pappa addressed, no redistribution is needed if the government maintains a free market.
Pappa wrote:I'd be interested to hear the Libertarian rebuttal, if it's forthcoming.
Here's the short rebuttal to the article: The author is a jackass who doesn't have the first clue about Libertarianism and spends his time constructing red herrings and strawmen based on his abysmal understanding of Libertarian philosophy. Then again that's where pretty much anyone and everyone I've ever debated Libertarianism with is stuck, so he's in good company.
I'll try to get to some of the other posts later.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
In a libertarian state the user pays for goods and services rendered. What could be fairer than that?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
The owners of coal mines in Victorian times in Britain had all the benefits of libertarianism for the wealthy. Their workers paid the price with 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, lung disease, lousy pay, no hospitals, no schools, early death, and nothing for their widows and children. End result, poverty. But the mine owners were rolling in money, and lived lives of extreme luxury.
It was not till union action overcame that libertarian mentality that the miners began to achieve a life that was worth living.
MrJonno wrote:As far as I'm aware no one else here apart from Seth claims to be a libertarian, there is almost certainly no either here who doesnt think freedom isn't a good thing (I don't like the use of the word 'liberty' its just too associated with wankers)
Libertarianism does put personal freedom first and that is quite bluntly evil
Evil?
Don't we all put personal liberty first quite a lot of the time? I'm sure even you would be a little bothered if you were incarcerated for some obscure reason by the government.
I put ensuring myself and everyone else has housing,food,water and medical care comes first and as long as personal freedoms don't get in the way of that then I have no problem with them. In other words the so called 'right' to property and not pay taxes is always inferior to ensuring your neighbour isnt starving.
If you choose to live an a society (and it is a choice) you can do anything you want as long as the society you live in is not damaged by your actions . You don't get to decide if society is damaged or not.
Libertarianism is evil because it thinks the individual is more important than the millions of others that you are linked to for survival.
I consider libertarianism to be worse than both fascism and communism as at least the last two at least pretend to want what's best for most people while libertarianism doesn't give a shit
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
"Private police force" is a strawman caricature of Libertarianism just like "no private property" is a strawman caricature of socialism. If anyone wants to realistically discuss rational, possible libertarian policies I'll happily oblige, but trotting out Victorian robber barons and citizens living in a post-apocalyptic hell because they can't afford private police protection is utter nonsense. Unless we want to write a dystopian novel, of course.
That said, I'm sitting in my father-in-laws house in Johannesburg right now, and guess who protects his property (with quite deadly force, BTW)? Black Mamba Security, a private police force. Johannesburg is trying to implement an electronic toll system on all expressways that automatically charge highway users, so those that don't use them don't pay. While there are government hospitals, you can get world class medical care at a literally 1/10 the cost of the U.S. if you use cash or have private insurance. I just got a psoriasis prescription filled here for $90 that costs me $335 in the U.S. Medical aid premiums are less than 1/4 of what I pay now (never mind Obamacare).
