or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 2

post #41 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Does it matter what I believe? Will that change your life one iota?

It does matter to me because your beliefs shape your worldview and how you interact with other people. And you do believe that I'm hellbound whether you want to say it in so many words or not.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #42 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

And we come back to the issue. Health care is too expensive. I don't know the answer, but i do know that an MRI should not cost what it does. A Tylenol in the hospital should not be what it costs. And more. For along time people could get health care for much less. Now, it is harder. I have recently traded computer support time for health care with a local doctor after reading of others doing it here on these forums. I don't need the free care, but my mother did. I bartered for it because I could not afford to pay for it for her and she needed the visit. Not everyone can do that, but I believe that there are doctors that are willing to work with people that need help. You have to ask though. I was sure the answer would be no. And it was not. It is a start.

How much would you have to barter for cancer treatments?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #43 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The government charges you quite a bit for the roads, and you have no choice but to pay.

Yep. And if they overcharge, we can elect new representatives in the government.

Tell me, when the road owner overcharges, what do we do? Buy a shotgun and shoot the road owner, I guess.
post #44 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Health care is too expensive. I don't know the answer, but i do know that an MRI should not cost what it does.

MRIs are available in every country in the world that has government funded or subsidized universal health care. And an MRI in every single one of those countries, at a private lab or hospital, with no subsidy from the government, does not cost anywhere near what it does in the US.

The problem in the US is the health care provider lobby. Full stop.
post #45 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How much would you have to barter for cancer treatments?

Depends on the kind of cancer. If it's lung cancer, you give them a lung. If it's pancreatic cancer, you give them your pancreas. If it's brain cancer, you give them your brain.

Posthumously, of course.
post #46 of 735
BR, when we're both dead, sitting up in heaven because we've done good for the benefit of others and not just ourselves all our lives, we'll sigh sadly over an ice cold beer at all the saps down in hell who didn't have the natural-born intelligence, conscience and morals to determine for themselves what's right and wrong without the aid of a book which they can have no idea whether it's been tampered with or not, whether their interpretation or that someone else has dictated to them is correct or not, or a religious leader that they just have to trust is telling them the truth.
post #47 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So who owns the river you dump your toxic effluent and sewage into without Government regulation?

No one. That's the point.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because governments won't charge people for crossing a street or for breathing air that just happens to belong to them. Remember the guy whose house burned down because the Fire Services Department didn't cover his area unless he paid an extra fee?

Imagine if every Fire Department were like that.

Imagine if every Police department were like that.

Imagine if every street in every town required payment to access.

Imagine if you had to pay to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house because somebody else owned it.

Now, we have water bills, electricity bills gas bills...

Oh, sorry, Frank, I can't go to your house. I didn't pay the road access fee in your part of town. Sorry, I can't go to the park because I don't have any spare change on me today. Sorry, I can't talk to you now. The Trump Industries Police Officers are here. The neighbors can smell the curry I'm cooking in the kitchen, and they called TIPO to complain against me for invading their airspace with the fragrance.

I own an airline, but I can't fly anywhere. Aircorp, the corporation who owns the airspace between Los Angeles and Las Vegas just doubled the fee, and only the mega-Airlines can afford to pay, because Aircorp gives them a discount.

You're talking in extremes, here.

You're assuming that if the government doesn't own something, then a single business or individual must own it.

Are you aware of how HOAs function? Could the idea of "common areas" not be applied to roads, airspace, and emergency services?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #49 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Taking advantage of stupid people and poor people with marketing is pretty much the same thing.

Advertising is the same as forcing someone at gunpoint to buy your product or service? Really?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #50 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

MRIs are available in every country in the world that has government funded or subsidized universal health care. And an MRI in every single one of those countries, at a private lab or hospital, with no subsidy from the government, does not cost anywhere near what it does in the US.

The problem in the US is the health care provider lobby. Full stop.

And who do they lobby exactly?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #51 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It does matter to me because your beliefs shape your worldview and how you interact with other people. And you do believe that I'm hellbound whether you want to say it in so many words or not.

Ok, and how have my interactions with you harmed you?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #52 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Isn't that what your god does?

Know This, That Every Soul is Free
(#240 in the LDS hymn book)

Know this, that evry soul is free
To choose his life and what hell be;
For this eternal truth is givn:
That God will force no man to heavn.

Hell call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.

Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals, and just as well
The beasts may think of heavn or hell.

May we no more our powrs abuse,
But ways of truth and goodness choose;
Our God is pleased when we improve
His grace and seek his perfect love.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #53 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It does matter to me because your beliefs shape your worldview and how you interact with other people. And you do believe that I'm hellbound whether you want to say it in so many words or not.

This is rather authoritarian in view.

Better hurry up and concede his point Jazz so you don't end up with a bullet in the brain to make sure your worldview properly shapes those around you in the approved manner.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

At 1.43 mins to 1.53 mins Joey Hill claims that the government regulations on pollution cause the pollution problems. It's hard not to confer from that that he thinks all the pollution would be prevented by property rights being enforced. Whether he's too idealistic or just too angry is hard to tell. Maybe a mixture of both?

Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #55 of 735
Thread Starter 
An interesting piece on immigration:

The Bipartisan Crackdown on Immigrants

Quote:
Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get welfare, but neither should anyone else. They shouldn’t have to pay taxes either (nor should anyone else). And perhaps they shouldn’t be granted citizenship, but in a free society, being a citizen shouldn’t matter much. If politicians want to keep them from voting, that is fine as far as it goes. But no actual rights should be deprived of someone due to their home address.

It's amazing, really, how my views have changed on several issues simply by divorcing myself from the contrived 2-party system and embracing libertarianism and the non-agression principle.

A year or two ago, I would have said "deport them all and put the military on the border".

Now, I'm really starting to reevaluate everything and I find myself agreeing more with the above linked article than disagreeing with it.

As Spock would say: fascinating.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

And who do they lobby exactly?

Greedy politicians whose interest it is to make money for themselves.
post #57 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are you aware of how HOAs function? Could the idea of "common areas" not be applied to roads, airspace, and emergency services?

My parents are being forced to move from the home that they own because their HOA fees have quadrupled in the last decade. I haven't seen taxes quadruple for anyone in the last decade.

And if you're saying the residents should own the common areas... the citizens should own the air and the land... the home-owning comrades should own the roads...

I really don't know what to say if that's what you're suggesting.
post #58 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You're talking in extremes, here.

MJ's every post is talking in extremes.
post #59 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No one. That's the point.

And who should own the river?
post #60 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And who should own the river?

I don't know. I didn't claim that resolving and delineating property rights is always easy or even practical. I was simply pointing out the root cause of the problem. When we understand the actual underlying causes it can help get us closer to a proper solution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Greedy politicians whose interest it is to make money for themselves.

And why are these politicians (as opposed to someone else) being lobbied?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My parents are being forced to move from the home that they own because their HOA fees have quadrupled in the last decade. I haven't seen taxes quadruple for anyone in the last decade.

And if you're saying the residents should own the common areas... the citizens should own the air and the land... the home-owning comrades should own the roads...

I really don't know what to say if that's what you're suggesting.

Is it such a radical concept? Really the only difference between our current system and the one I advocate is the absence of coercion or force.

You seem to think that without government intervention, prices would run rampant.

I like what Rothbard has to say about that:

Quote:
The favorite explanation of inflation is that greedy businessmen persist in putting up prices in order to increase their profits. But surely the quotient of business "greed" has not suddenly taken a great leap forward since World War II. Weren't businesses equally "greedy" in the nineteenth century and up to 1941? So why was there no inflation trend then? Moreover, if businessmen are so avaricious as to jack up prices 10% per year, why do they stop there? Why do they wait; why don't they raise prices by 50%, or double or triple them immediately? What holds them back?

A similar flaw rebuts another favorite explanation of inflation: that unions insist on higher wage rates, which in turn leads businessmen to raise prices. Apart from the fact that inflation appeared as long ago as ancient Rome and long before unions arrived on the scene, and apart from the lack of evidence that union wages go up faster than nonunion or that prices of unionized products rise faster than of nonunionized, a similar question arises: Why don't businesses raise their prices anyway? What is it that permits them to raise prices by a certain amount, but not by more? If unions are that powerful, and businesses that responsive, why don't wages and prices rise by 50%, or 100%, per year? What holds them back?

A government-inspired TV propaganda campaign a few years ago got a bit closer to the mark: consumers were blamed for inflation by being too "piggy," by eating and spending too much. We have here at least the beginning of an explanation of what holds businesses or unions back from demanding still higher prices: consumers won't pay them. Coffee prices zoomed upward a few years ago; a year or two later they fell sharply because of consumer resistance to some extent from a flashy consumer "boycott" but more importantly from a shift in consumer buying habits away from coffee and toward lower-priced substitutes. So a limit on consumer demand holds them back.

1907-1 oz of silver was $0.55 and purchased 9.2 gallons of gasoline
2011-1 oz silver was $37.00 and purchased 9.2 gallons of gasoline.

What causes inflation? The Federal Reserve.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #63 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Is it such a radical concept? Really the only difference between our current system and the one I advocate is the absence of coercion or force.

You seem to think that without government intervention, prices would run rampant.

I like what Rothbard has to say about that:



1907-1 oz of silver was $0.55 and purchased 9.2 gallons of gasoline
2011-1 oz silver was $37.00 and purchased 9.2 gallons of gasoline.

What causes inflation? The Federal Reserve.

Wait a second.

Are you implying that the value of the dollar has decreased more than 95% since the creation of the Fed?

Are you saying that an entity that has a government-protected monopoly on the monetary system and has used its capability to increase the money supply might result in a reduction of value in the monetary unit?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #64 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And why are these politicians (as opposed to someone else) being lobbied?

Because they help make the decisions about where money goes.

So, let me ask you a question now.

If private entities were in charge of where medical dollars go, would the lobbyists just "disappear"? Or would they have an even easier time of it, since there would no longer be any voters for those in charge of the money to answer to?
post #65 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

An interesting piece on immigration:

The Bipartisan Crackdown on Immigrants

It's amazing, really, how my views have changed on several issues simply by divorcing myself from the contrived 2-party system and embracing libertarianism and the non-agression principle.

A year or two ago, I would have said "deport them all and put the military on the border".

Now, I'm really starting to reevaluate everything and I find myself agreeing more with the above linked article than disagreeing with it.

As Spock would say: fascinating.

There are certainly libertarian Republicans and those who espouse the fact that you don't need to worry about who's a citizen so much when the state isn't giving away so many goodies. As you note, it becomes a pretty clean solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My parents are being forced to move from the home that they own because their HOA fees have quadrupled in the last decade. I haven't seen taxes quadruple for anyone in the last decade.

The taxes haven't quadrupled due to Prop. 13 which was the last time California had a serious tax revolt. If not for that very conservative revolt, your parents would absolutely have been tossed out of their home due to taxes. California would be no different than New York or New Jersey.

Quote:
And if you're saying the residents should own the common areas... the citizens should own the air and the land... the home-owning comrades should own the roads...

This is more common than you imagine, private ownership of faciliites maintained for an entire private group. Many housing developments around golf courses, etc are run this way.

Quote:
I really don't know what to say if that's what you're suggesting.

He's saying that you don't need government to be the sole source of common facilities or infrastructure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And who should own the river?

Water rights are something that absolutely can be bought, sold or assigned. There are all sorts of rights, easements, etc. Even when you own your land privately and it isn't next to a river, the water rights have often been stripped away and assigned to a common, often municiple group. My father's land still has it's water rights and because of that has no water line from the city. Instead he has a well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because they help make the decisions about where money goes.

Exactly. And why are they helping to make the decision about where the money goes (among other things)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If private entities were in charge of where medical dollars go, would the lobbyists just "disappear"? Or would they have an even easier time of it, since there would no longer be any voters for those in charge of the money to answer to?

I disagree with the premise of your question. In a situation where there is no coercion, it would be consumers who make a choice where the money goes. Consumers direct the economy. They spend the money. Producers respond to this. So in the medical example, consumers would be making decisions about drugs, doctors, tests, hospitals, etc.

There is an incorrect underlying assumption among the left that companies control everything in a free-market. Wrong. It is in this so-called "middle way" mixed economy in which companies use the government to control things. The medical field is a great example. The whole healthcare market is used as an example of free-market failure when it is one of the furthest from being a free-market. There is a persistent blindness about this that baffles me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #67 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I disagree with the premise of your question. In a situation where there is no coercion, it would be consumers who make a choice where the money goes. Consumers direct the economy. They spend the money. Producers respond to this. So in the medical example, consumers would be making decisions about drugs, doctors, tests, hospitals, etc.

There is an incorrect underlying assumption among the left that companies control everything in a free-market. Wrong. It is in this so-called "middle way" mixed economy in which companies use the government to control things. The medical field is a great example. The whole healthcare market is used as an example of free-market failure when it is one of the furthest from being a free-market. There is a persistent blindness about this that baffles me.

Careful study of the HMO Act of 1973 and its consequences will show that this act of government has contributed in large part to the healthcare troubles we are experiencing today.

The government gave grants and loans (tax dollars) to the very organizations it is now claiming it wants to protect us from.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #68 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Careful study of the HMO Act of 1973 and its consequences will show that this act of government has contributed in large part to the healthcare troubles we are experiencing today.

And I'm sure that Medicare/Medicaid have contributed also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 735
Would you L's be willing to do this deal if offered today-


Pay less tax so that the share you would have paid to social services like healthcare, libraries, schools etc was deducted from your taxes but you and your children could not access those things under any circumstances whatsoever for the rest of your lives and your childrens lives?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #70 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Would you L's be willing to do this deal if offered today-


Pay less tax so that the share you would have paid to social services like healthcare, libraries, schools etc was deducted from your taxes but you and your children could not access those things under any circumstances whatsoever for the rest of your lives and your childrens lives?

You mean if given the ability to "opt-out" of certain government programs would we take it?

Speaking for myself, yes I absolutely would.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #71 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You mean if given the ability to "opt-out" of certain government programs would we take it?

Speaking for myself, yes I absolutely would.

And for the rest of your children's lives too?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #72 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

And for the rest of your children's lives too?

I think it would be fair at least until they come of legal working age. Then they should be allowed to choose for themselves.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #73 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I think it would be fair at least until they come of legal working age. Then they should be allowed to choose for themselves.

Wow, I hadn't expected that answer. So how do you justify taking those same programs away for children before they become adults and can choose if L's had the votes to do so?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #74 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Wow, I hadn't expected that answer. So how do you justify taking those same programs away for children if L's had the votes to do so?

Huh?

I think the principle is fairly clear and reasonable...once you become a legal, mentally-competent adult you make the choice for yourself. Until that time your parents have responsibility for you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #75 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Huh?

I think the principle is fairly clear and reasonable...once you become a legal, mentally-competent adult you make the choice for yourself.

Christ! You argue all the time it's forced robbery etc to be made to pay for these programs so you get rid of them and now you're arguing people should be able to choose. That's quite the turnaround.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #76 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Christ! You argue all the time it's forced robbery etc to be made to pay for these programs so you get rid of them and now you're arguing people should be able to choose. That's quite the turnaround.

You've lost me here. I don't see how what you've laid out is a turnaround, but maybe I'm missing something.

Oh wait...I think I see it now. Would we make the choice for ourselves and our descendants to permanently be outside of the government on these things? I would, and I would teach my kids why: because stealing from others is wrong. The issue here is that there's really nothing I can do to legally bind my kids, once they become adults, to any particular course of action (despite what all present government borrowing plans seem to think). They would be free to engage themselves in government programs of their own accord if they chose to and that's an option available to them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #77 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You've lost me here. I don't see how what you've laid out is a turnaround, but maybe I'm missing something.

You argue all the time that we shouldn't have government run, healthcare, schools, libraries etc. As far as I've ever been able to tell you would happily have the government not take that money in the form of taxes and thereby end those programs. Now you're saying people should be able to choose to pay for medicare, medicaid, gov schools etc.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #78 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You argue all the time that we shouldn't have government run, healthcare, schools, libraries etc. As far as I've ever been able to tell you would happily have the government not take that money in the form of taxes and thereby end those programs. Now you're saying people should be able to choose to pay for medicare, medicaid, gov schools etc.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. These services can and should all be provided in private, voluntary markets. All revenue can and should be garnered by voluntary exchange for services voluntarily offered.

Does that clarify things?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You've lost me here. I don't see how what you've laid out is a turnaround, but maybe I'm missing something.

Oh wait...I think I see it now. Would we make the choice for ourselves and our descendants to permanently be outside of the government on these things? I would, and I would teach my kids why: because stealing from others is wrong. The issue here is that there's really nothing I can do to legally bind my kids, once they become adults, to any particular course of action (despite what all present government borrowing plans seem to think). They would be free to engage themselves in government programs of their own accord if they chose to and that's an option available to them.

OK good, that's what I would expect you to choose. So how do you explain jazzguru's response? I ask because I wonder if his position is common amongst L's. It is also telling that he values the potential need or want of his children for these programs that he's willing to help extend there life, (though admittedly it would be purely voluntary) at least in comparison to you.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #80 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Wow, I hadn't expected that answer. So how do you justify taking those same programs away for children before they become adults and can choose if L's had the votes to do so?

Votes? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Are we allowed to opt out of government programs or are we eliminating them altogether? I would prefer to eliminate them altogether and let free market solutions take their place.

If I am allowed to choose to opt out of government programs and not have those taxes deducted from my paycheck, why shouldn't my children be allowed to make that choice for themselves once they start earning paychecks of their own?

Now if this is a one time deal that would affect my posterity forever, I would still opt out. I would teach my children that getting a group of people to rob my neighbor on my behalf is just as wrong as robbing him myself.

I want basically the same things you want, Hands. I want a good life for my children, affordable healthcare, safe streets, peaceful relations with other nations, a clean environment, renewable sustainable energy, a decent retirement, etc.

But I don't want to steal from you or anyone else to make that happen for me. And I don't want you to steal from me to make that happen for you.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism